Hardball's Matthews has accepted hefty speaking fees from conservatives

[kpete]

Report posits that Hardball's Matthews has accepted hefty speaking fees from conservative groups
RAW STORY
Published: March 9, 2006



A new report advanced to RAW STORY Thursday suggests that Chris Matthews, the star of the Sunday talk show circuit's Hardball, has accepted hefty speaking fees from an array of conservative trade associations.

Matthews has given speeches to ten major conservative trade associations since 2001. The report's author, Dave Johnson, who blogs at Seeing The Forest and is a fellow at the progressive Commonweal Institute, could find no records indicating that Matthews has spoken before any Democratic-leaning organizations.

"Why is Matthews speaking at so many events with Republican-associated trade organizations?" Johnson asks. "What is NBC policy on speaking engagements and why does NBC keep it hidden? Are these trade associations paying Matthews to purchase influence?"

...............

Matthews is listed at a speaking bureau known to command hefty fees. While it can't be proven whether Matthews has taken money from the groups, speaking fees are a regular practice for large trade organizations who invite big-name media stars to speak to their memberships. Such fees typically run in the five-figure range, and occasionally exceed $50,000 a pop.

Among the groups include: the International Franchise Association; the National Association of Chain Drug Stories; the National Association of Convenience Stores; the American Hospital Association; the Consumer Healthcare Products Association; the National Venture Capitalists Association; the Mortgage Bankers Association; the Credit Union National Association; the American Society of Association Executives; and the International Health and Racquet & Sportsclub Association.

The report, available here, notes that these associations have given heavily to conservative candidates for public office.

http://rawprint.com/pdfs/rawstorymatthews.pdf
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Report_posits_that_Chris_Matthews_star_0309.html

[NYCGirl]

1. That's it? NT

[bryant69]

2. Yeah that's pretty much my response to

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

3. My reaction too...

...Take a look at the resumes of guys like JC Watts (now a hired shill at CNN)...this is a non-story...I can already hear Tweety responding with "SFW?"

[stepnw1f]

10. wah...?

Exposing propaganda and who pays for it is by no means "no big deal". Interesting...

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

19. Agreed, but that's not what I see happening here.

Matthews gave these speeches and was compensated for them. Conflict of interest? Probably, if he has any interest in being a "fair and balanced" journalist (obviously he does not).

The connection that's being drawn here is too broad, too vague. We're left with the assumption that these conservative groups paid him for speeches, and in order to keep the paychecks coming Matthews played nice...but in terms of "investigative journalism," this is weak. The dots have not been connected. Connect them and YES...THEN it's a "big deal."

:patriot:

[stop the bleeding]

4. your kidding?!?!?! right??? read this part of the article

Howard Kurtz reported in 2002 that NBC had banned the practice of journalists accepting speaking fees but the report's author suggests otherwise.

A call placed to Matthew's publicist was not immediately returned. An NBC spokesperson could not confirm to RAW STORY whether the network had banned the acceptance of speaking fees. It seems unlikely that Matthews would have spoken to so many groups pro bono.



If this is against NBC policy then Tweety is toast - we need to find out if NBC has this policy anywhere on the internets.

[rodeodance]

17. "Matthew's publicist"---jounnalists are now "Personalities"--nothing else.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. LOL!

GTMA...I'm just more wordy! :)

[Critters2]

34. I thought that too

Since when do journalists have publicists? He's not a journalist, he's a TV star. And a jerk.

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. MSNBC probably doesn't categorize Matthews as "journalist"

I can see it now.

A spokesperson for the network responded they do not make public the terms of employment. The spokesperson did clarify Matthews status, however. "Chris Matthews is the host of two shows. One on MSNBC and a second on NBC. His pay grade is 'host', not 'journalist'."

[Mabus]

6. It is what we expected but...

there are still a lot of people out there - who do not frequent DU - for whom this will be new. It is a detailed report - names, dates, places, what the various groups are advocating, etc. - that will help convince some of the people I know to think again about Matthews.

Now, if we could only get other reports on some of these so-called journalists.

[EVDebs]

37. Matthew's brother Jim is R's running mate w/ Lynn Swann adds to it

""Tweety’s younger brother Jim is the Republican running mate of Lynn Swann, the PA GOP’s candidate for governor. In another case of “Do as we say, not as we do” smoking is allowed in congress and Boehner is a chain smoker.""

http://www.swannforgovernor.com/About/about2.aspx

[KoKo]

5. Well.....it used to be called "Payola" and caused scandals...way back

when people had "outrage" and a sense of morality over issues like supposed newscasters and disk jockey's taking money from one group to push an agenda over another. I guess folks morality these days only extends to fetuses,missing blond women, and disappearences on cruise ships..

sheesh...

[Mabus]

8. Bingo!

Do you think they'd invite Matthews to speak if they thought he'd trash them later on his show. Hell no. Matthews, and this report is just the beginning, is no better than Armstrong Williams (who took payments from the government) or Rush Limbaugh (constant purveyor of bad information). He gets these gigs because these industries need media buddies to protect them from bad press.

[H2O Man]

7. I believe that this non-issue

is being promoted by those who are unhappy with Matthews' reporting on the Plame issue. He has provided the best information on VP Cheney's role on any of the network or cable news programs. These speaker's fees are hardly large in comparison to what most people, democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, get. Those who peddle this type of thing may have an agenda. I would expect it out of Rove or the neocons.

[stop the bleeding]

12. maybe not from our standpoint, but from a work standpoint this could

spell trouble IF this practice is against NBC policy. - and I stress if.

[H2O Man]

20. "If" might have been

more important than promoting a sensational story .... "unless" the desired effect was to make a baseless, emotional appeal that could not be made "if" someone checked first.

[stop the bleeding]

25. yeah it would be nice to see what NBC's policy is on this

I wonder if people will be able to find out?

[kpete]

29. You and H20Man are just the people

[H2O Man]

33. I'd think this ranks

as about as silly as Michelle Malkin popping up a couple nights ago to demand that DUers question Cindy Sheehan's finances.

[KoKo]

40. Here's some info on Networks policy from an article by Ken Auletta...

http://www.kenauletta.com/feespeech.html
(This article is not dated but seems to be maybe 10 years old)


FEE SPEECH

Who, besides members of Congress, accepts money from special interests? Often, the journalists most eager to sneer at politicians for it.

by ken auletta

Christopher Matthews, a nationally syndicated columnist and Washington bureau chief of the San Francisco Examiner, who is a political commentator for "Good Morning America" and co-host of a nightly program on America's Talking, a new, NBC-owned cable network, told me last June that he gave between forty and fifty speeches a year. He netted between five and six thousand dollars a speech, he said, or between two and three hundred thousand dollars a year. Like many others, he is represented by the Washington Speakers Bureau, and he said that he placed no limitations on corporate or other groups he would appear before. "To be honest, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it," he said. "I give the same speech."

-snip-


A few journalistic institutions, recently shamed, have been taking a second look at their policies. In mid-June, ABC News issued new rules, which specifically prohibit paid speeches to trade associations or to any "for-profit business." ABC's ban--the same one that is in place at the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post--prompted Roberts, Donaldson, Brinkley, Wallace, and several other ABC correspondents to protest, and they met in early August with senior news executives. They sought a lifting of the ban, which would allow them to get permission on a case-by-case basis. But a ranking ABC official says, "We can agree to discuss exceptions, but not give any. Their basic argument is greed, for Christ's sake!" Andrew Lack, the president of NBC News, said that he plans to convene a meeting of his executives to shape an entirely new speaking policy. "My position is that the more we can discourage our people from speaking for a fee, the better," he said. And CBS News now stipulates that all speakingrequests must be cleared with the president or the vice-president of news. Al Vecchione, the president of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, admitted in June to having been embarrassed by the American Journalism Review piece. "We had a loose policy," he said. "I just fin-ished rewriting our company policy." Henceforth, those associated with the program will no longer accept fees to speak to corporate groups or trade associations that directly lobby the government. The New Yorker, according to its executive editor, Hendrik Hertzberg, is in the process of reviewing its policies.

Those who frequently lecture make a solid point when they say that lecture fees don't buy favorable coverage. But corruption can take subtler forms than the quid pro quo, and the fact that journalists see themselves as selling entertainment rather than influence does not wipe the moral slate clean. The real corruption of "fee speech," perhaps, is not that journalists will do favors for theassociations and businesses that pay them speaking fees but that the nexus of television and speaking fees creates what Representative Obey called "an incentive to be even more flamboyant" on TV--and, to a lesser extent, on the printed page. The television talk shows value vividness, pithiness, and predictability. They prefer their panelists reliably pro or con, "liberal" or "conservative." Too much quirkiness can make a show unbalanced; too much complexity can make it dull. Time's Margaret Carlson told me, not entirely in jest, "I was a much more thoughtful person before I went on TV. But I was offered speeches only after I went on TV." Her Time colleague the columnist Hugh Sidey said that when he stopped appearing regularly on television his lecture income shrivelled. Obey wishes that it would shrivel for the rest of the pundit class as well. An attitude of scorn often substitutes for hard work or hard thought, and it's difficult to deny that the over-all result of this dynamic is a coarsening of political discourse.

Celebrity journalism and the appearance of conflicts unavoidably erode journalism's claim to public trust. "My view is that you're going to start having character stories about journalists," Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University and the director of the Project on Public Life and the Press, told me recently. "It's inevitable. If I were a big-name Washington journalist, I'd start getting my accounts together. I don't think journalists are private citizens."

http://www.kenauletta.com/feespeech.html
© 1996-2002, Ken Auletta

[KoKo]

27. But there is another connection.. He was suppossed to MC for Abramoff

fundraiser...it was a costumed ball but was cancelled because we Invaded Iraq that day. I posted the article and link here on DU about it...but who knows where it is in DU Archives.

That had to be a connection that would cause some scrutiny. I also think the only reason Matthews went after Cheney and appeared to do some good reporting on PlameGate was because at the time he thought he might be under investigation by Fitzgerald. If you remember many of us posted that Matthews turned on a dime right after Libby was indicted and seemed to not have a care in the world how biased he was towards Repugs.

Maybe when Cheney flaired up he thought he could dig in a few daggers in him because the heat would be on Cheney for Plame eventually and he and his buddy Russert would be off the hook.

I don't see this as Rove... Not when Matthews does this himself. And, if you notice he's gone easy on the Abramaoff and DeLay scandals focusing more an more on "Election 08," where he constantly hypes the controversy over Hillary.

And, "Media Matters" yesterday had an article about how many more conservatives appear on Matthews since January 06. February's conservative numbers were even worse than January which were bad enough.

I always enjoy your posts and insight....but my gut tells me Matthews is so manipulated that we couldn't do worse than him. MSNBC has really taken a bigger dive downwards to the darkside recently.

[H2O Man]

30. Matthews has been

nailing the administration on the Plame scandal, and used the shooting incident to expose the VP's being more powerful than he is supposed to be. The neocons are going to be retaliating.

The things about him covering elections and similar things is about as "to be expected" from the corporate media as McDonald's selling burgers.

I can say without any chance of being wrong that the speakers' fees mentioned here are less than either Dick Gregory or Jesse Jackson got 25 years ago. I'm sure that there are forces in the country today who would love to have people on the left babbling about that being evidence that Dick and Jesse are part of the grand conspiracy, too. It's not. It's part of what those folks do for money.

[stop the bleeding]

35. H2O I know what you are saying about how he keeps certain embarrassing

stories in the spotlight.

I don't want you to think that I was going off in the above posts, and I know what you are saying
1.) this is weak compared to what we have witnessed since 2001
2.) there could have been better verification of possible connected dots in the story.

I hope you know that I was only interest in the policy part, but after reading your posts I realize this is a "red herring" of sorts and that we need to keep our eyes on the prize.

Peace!

[H2O Man]

36. Keep in mind

that Michelle Malkin wants DUers to insist upon Cindy Sheehan accounting for every penny the left has donated to her. It's funny so long as people recognize that Michelle is Chicken Little in human form.

[stop the bleeding]

38. does she post here on DU?

if yes and you have an idea about here posting name pm me


Her and Darth Cheney could compete against each other for best/worst snarls

[Catherine Vincent]

39. So do you think Rove is behind this?

[H2O Man]

41. I think it

is part of the war on dissent.

The other night, there was a fellow on C-Span, promoting a book he wrote. He was a conservative who was attacking former heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali. He felt Ali has not only taken all the great things America gave him for granted, but also did terrible harm to race relations and to patriotisam, when he became a Muslim and refused to fight in Vietnam. Now, of course, when an "expert" is trying to sell their book/product by attacking another person, it can be fun to watch their tactics.

This fellow even told his audience that proof of Ali's low character was that he betrayed Malcolm X. Well, conservative republicans who want to say the Ali didn't experience racism in America in the 1950s and '60s, and that Ali was a racist for refusing to fight in Vietnam, is irrational. It is irrational for him to think that Malcolm X's life in any way endorses his point of view .... unless we see that the fellow is a liar and prostitute.

Now let's go a step farther. Let's look at Malcolm. On February 18, 1965, Malcolm debated Gordon Hall, an "expert," on radio station WINS. Hall said Malcolm had been "breaking bread" with communists. Malcolm: "You are absolutely out of your mind, I have never broken bread with --"

Hall: "You have given several speeches which they have reprinted --"

Malcolm: "Well, that's not breaking bread. I speak anywhere. I spoke in London, England, and I spoke in a church. I spoke in a church in Rochester a couples nights ago. Does that make me a Methodists?"

Hall: "We're not talking about churches, we're talking about the Socialists Workers Party --"

Malcolm: "Just because you speak somewhere doesn't makke you that. You speak to the public and you speak on any platform. And I speak to the public, and I speak on any platform. If speaking on a socialist platform makes me a socialist, (when) I was in Selma, Alabama, last week, speaking in Martin Luther King's church, does that make me a follower of Martin Luther King? No, your line of reasoning, sir, doesn't fit me."

Now, neither the fellow who is attacking Ali, or Mr. Hall 40 years ago, were working for Rove. But their tactics are in the same spirit.

[Catherine Vincent]

52. Thanks for that very informative post, H2O Man!

That's why I will most times never trust republicans. :hi:

[Sapere aude]

9. What is it that makes these "conservative" trade organizations ?

The Credit Union National Association is a conservative trade group? I like credit unions. They are non profit. They lend to people that Banks and others won't lend to unless they pay huge interest charges. They pay interest on your deposits not charge you for having an account. They keep your money in your neighborhood. They are not liked by banks. Conservative?

[Fridays Child]

13. Evidently, the issue is that the group contributes to conservative...

...causes and/or candidates.

[seemslikeadream]

11. I am socked I tell you socked!!

[Fridays Child]

18. I guess I have to take socks off of your birthday gift list, now.

Damn. :P

[kentuck]

14. He should have certain responsibilities if he calls himself a journalist.

Yes, this is a big deal. We have a right to know who is paying for the information we receive.

[peacetalksforall]

15. Whether or not $ are involved - this is ammunition.

Whenever Tweaty tries to tell you that he worked for Moynihan and was in the Peace Corps or whenever conservatives try to say he is/was a Dem or whenever he tries to pass himself off as a Dem or neutral (which he used to do all the time) = we can use this story. Unless we find out he has also spoken to liberal groups.

[peacetalksforall]

21. What would really be a good story is to find out that their employees

don't get the money, but NBC/GE takes then money and, better yet, that it is used to promote right wing agendas.

Then, the topper would be if they let their employees speak to liberal organizations, took money, and used it for right wing agendas. (Just giving it to themselves would be the same as giving it to a right wing agenda.)

[peacetalksforall]

24. He's come a long way since the Peace Corps - to a little brat who

twists and turns the truth and talks over and down to human beings and owns two houses.

[Skidmore]

16. If his brother is running for lt. governor in Pennsylvania as a

Republican, is he perhaps selling himself to insure that his brother can get dollars and support from the RNC? He might be campaigning. Just a thought.

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16101897&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6

Matthews to be endorsed by state GOP
Margaret Gibbons, Special to The Mercury02/10/2006
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
NORRISTOWN -- The suspense is over.


Montgomery County Commissioner James R. Matthews will be the endorsed Republican candidate for lieutenant governor even though the official endorsement vote by state GOP committee members will not come until Saturday at their meeting in Harrisburg....

"I come from a large Irish family with roots in Philadelphia and first cousins in each of the surrounding counties," said Matthews, whose younger brother is Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s "Hardball."

[blm]

43. Good thinking - Compare the contributions list for starters.

/

[KoKo]

46. He needs to "recuse himself" from MSNBC. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

22. It does explain how rightwing he is in his reporting

He might being paid by these groups. Any way to find that out? :shrug:

[shance]

28. We all know Matthews is an Republican operative. Russert too.

Perhaps they watered this story down a bit, who knows?

However the fact this practice was banned in 2002 and is still SOP for people like Matthews and certainly Russert and Mitchell are beneficiaries as well shows how corrupt and dishonest the Corportatized/elite media machine has become.

[Lerkfish]

that's it? it all depends on NBC internal policy for pundits.

and whether this breaches that.
Anyone can hire anyone at all to come speak to them.
Matthews can't demand an equal number of democratic orgs hire him, that's absurd.
the real issue is whether its:
1. against NBC policy (which I doubt since its been going on for a while and he would have had to clear the decks for the time off)
and
2. if there is any proof there was influence peddling on his show.

I don't see this going anywhere.

[ClayZ]

31. GO Pe-on tweety!

[KharmaTrain]

32. There Needs To Be More Meat On These Bones

Are there emails, advertising information, promotional materials these groups used that featured Tweety? Or some kind of picture of Tweety at a function...or a transcript of what he said to these groups? There's just too much grey area here that could be different than what it appears.

Virtually every talking head inside the beltway belongs to a speakers bureau and earn side money doing talks and other appearances. The fact that Tweety is listed with this company doesn't mean he's being "influenced" any more than if it were an EJ Dionne or even an Al Franken (both who are also listed with similar agencies and also speak to trade unions). Yes, on the surface it appears fishy, but this is inside beltway stuff that falls into that "everyone does it" catagory.

I was hoping we'd see a story that connected Tweety to Abramoff and his "charities". Tweety was listed as a "host" for one such function and it hasn't been explained if he was just paid, similar to other engagements, to speak or if he was actively involved with this "charity". Maybe Vanity Fair is working on this angle.

Cheers...

[Buck Rabbit]

42. Rumor, speculation, and innuendo doesn't

seem like enough to condemn a TV personality. On the other hand it is enough to blow the shit out of another country.

[Zinfandel]

44. Rove # 1 tactic: Keep the media talking heads well paid and they'll say

and do anything you tell them to say...The MSM talking heads do not want to lose that privileged lifestyle...just keep the money flowing and they'll sell their own soul, while convincing themselves they really believe it...How else could they sleep at night? They know they aren't talented enough to ever make those kinds of bucks elsewhere...

Rove and the republicans know very well to pay them well and they'll accept any White House spin no questions asked!!!

[onenote]

45. give me a break - what a non-story

The International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub Assn is a "Republican" group? Its a freakin' trade association of health clubs. Who, by the way, just announced that Bill Clinton will be the keynote speaker at their annual meeting in May. Bet Bill get paid way more than Matthews was.

Or consider the Credit Union National Association -- their president, Dan Mica, is a former Democratic Congressman from Florida (not the most progressive congressman, but a Democrat nonetheless).

I suspect all of these trade associations have both Republican and Democratic connections. Trade groups -- groups that represented trades or businesses -- have political agendas. The Repubs control both houses of Congress and the WH. Of course their going to be "Republican associated".

Now, maybe there is a story if Matthews is violating some policy for accepting paid speaking gigs. But its not a story because of the political "affiliation" of these groups.

onenote

[BadGimp]

47. That explains why he has swung so hard right recently

The biug $$$ on the right has corrupted the press. We're screwed.

[SuperWonk]

48. Not surprised,

But who really watches this guy anyway??

[SoCalDem]

49. Yawn... He never claimed to be anything but a "guy with a tv show:"

He's not an elected official..he's just a tv-show host whose show was in the dumper before 9-11, and probably would have been cancelled had it not happened.

He's a hack..that's all he's ever been.

[medeak]

50. defended Raw Story

but what a non story after such a tease. blech.

[blue cat]

51. I tuned into MSNBC a little early, and

accidently caught CM. An incredible feeling of anger came over me. I am more angry at him for turning to the dark side then other media on the dark side. He was in the peace corp (I think) and worked for Jimmy Carter. He turned evil. The other whores were born evil.

[windy252]

53. I'm shocked. Shocked.

Next you'll tell me there's gambling in Las Vegas. :sarcasm: