Is it just me or is Hardball with Chris Matthews the best show on cable news? (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Coleman]

I started watching this show during the election debacle and haven't been able to quit since. This guy seems to me to be pretty damn smart. If you like the show you should read his weekly columns also linked here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/IN167643.DTL
While I enjoy Bill O'Reilly (spelling) every once in a great while I never miss Hardball.
BTW please keep any political rhetoric out of this.
Kevin C.

 

[Doug R]

Does "election debacle" count as political rhetoric?

 

[Steve Clark]

It is probably just you. The ratings for this show are not great. His style is interesting at first, but grows old fast and makes Bill O'Reilly seem loosey goosey, laid back and humorous. Not to mention that his bias should land him a gig on CNN someday.

 

[Kevin Coleman]

The ratings for this show are not great.

Thats fine with me I am always glad to know I have exclusive tastes. Besides it is not in prime time anyway. I definitely don't think Chris is bias either he was all over Bill and Hillary for their obnxious behavior.
Kevin C.

 

[Michael*K]

I don't watch Hardball that often, but I'll take Chris Matthews any day over that grandstanding clown Bill O'Reilly.

 

[MickeS]

I love this show, because he asks the right questions. He yells too much though!
He is a little biased though, but not too bad.

 

[Jack Briggs]

You're right about the yelling. Which means that, as an interviewer, he is immature: unless you're a colleague of his (Howard Fineman, for example) he will cut you off no matter what you're saying. I wish he would let his guests complete their answers. (After all, an esteemed colleague of his at MSNBC--Brian Williams--lets his guests discourse in a civil, non-combative manner, with no interruptions.)

Yet, for all that, Matthews is strangely likable. But Tim Russert is a better interviewer.

 

[Jon_W]

I got watching Hardball for a while but not so much any more. I am really starting to get sick of the cable news stations lately. They all seem to be going the way of the radio stations . The personalities of the hosts are essentially taking over the fair and impartial telling of the news. I find the worst for this is Dan Abrams. MSNBC makes the show out to be a news show when in reality it is just a personal mouth piece for the guy. I think MSNBC, Fox, and CNN are all guilty of this to some extent. All three stations are really making themselves out to fools. IMHO

 

[Jason Boucher]

If you watch Matthews regularly and understand what makes him tick, you understand why he cuts off guests. He doesn't tolerate spin. He has a great sense of knowing when the guest is not answering straight, but is giving a political answer. He doesn't allow his show to be used to advance an agenda. He also does not permit guests to state unsubtantiated rumors or speculation as fact. He will call on a guest on the source. If it is hearsay, he doesn't want any part of it. He was at his greatest when interviewing Dick Morris a couple of years ago during the Clinton Administration. He cut Morris off, went to commerical, and when he returned Morris was off the air, never to be heard from again on Hardball. He also has a great blue collar code of ethics. His disdain for the privileged equals his disdain for the welfare class. He is the Bruce Springstein of cable TV. Philadelphia all the way. I love him, but knowing him so well, I find him very predictable and have grown somewhat bored with the show. However, I'd take him in a NY minute over O'Reilly.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Interesting perspective, Jason. I'll watch him more closely--once I get DBS!

 

[MickeS]

I agree with jason. Matthews cuts the guests off when they are just promoting their oen agenda without adding anything to the topic at hand, but he always lets them finish when they have something interesting or important to say. He also isn't afraid to question what they are saying, and calling them on inconsistencies.

I like the guy, but Like I said above, I hope he tones down the yelling a bit...

/mike

 

[Dave Miller]

Has anybody seen SNL's Darrell Hammond imitate Chris Matthews Hardball? Priceless stuff!

Peace,

DM

 

[Jodee]

Has anybody seen SNL's Darrell Hammond imitate Chris Matthews Hardball? Priceless stuff!

Yeah, especially with Chris Kattan as Paul Begala.

"Chris, I am NOT a ten year old girl!"

 

[Jon_W]

I agree with Jason to a point about Matthews cutting people off when they are just talking bullshit or spinning a story, however, I have also seen him cut someone off just because he did not agree with that person. When you cut thhrough Matthews rough exterior and in your face style he simple doesn't like it when somone does not agree with him. I guess it is his show but it kind of stinks hypocrisy. I do love it when he gets set strait by someone and has nothing to say in return, not that it happens all that often.

 

[Owen S]

I would say Hardball is better than most, but Matthews has an agenda (similar to my own for that matter). I like America Now with Larry Kudlow & James Kramer. Kramer, particularly, calls a spade a spade and his candid remarks are a breath of fresh air.The ultimate questioner though is John C. Dvorak from Silicon Spin. The show's name is ironic because this guy puts up with zero spin. ALL BS is exposed with disdain, it's great.What gets me about most of these interview type shows is their shallowness. The interviewer asks a question, the guest gives him everything but an answer and the interviewer smiles and moves on to the next question on his list.The interviewers almost never pin anybody down.The reasons for this are varied. Often I believe neither the questioner nor respondant has enough insight on the subject to get to the bottom of it, or anything else for that matter. Another reason is that the interviewers love themselves and the sounds of their own voices and opinions. They could give a rat's ass about the guest's knowledge or opinion. The quality and candor of the guests are gist for another thread. Later Owen

 

[Joseph S]

John C. Dvorak from Silicon Spin. The show's name is ironic because this guy puts up with zero spin. ALL BS is exposed with disdain

Yeah, because he's the only one putting out spin while expressing total BS with disdain.
I think this guy and his co-worker David Coursey of ZDNet/CNet write the most shallow misinformed tech columns in the business. When I had digital cable I flipped by it a few times and found his show to be much of the same. He puts out misinformation and refuses to let the guests tell him why he's dead wrong.

 

[Owen S]

Joseph S there is only one way I can reconcile your post and mine.We live in parallel universes. Owen

 

[Patrick Cate]

Not to get off-topic, but I have to agree with Joseph about John C. Dvorak and Silicon Spin. As much as I love TechTV (I watch various programs on the channel everyday), John C. Dvorak does seem pretty clueless about many of the topics up for discussion on Silicon Spin. To his credit he does seem to be knowledgeable about the business side of the tech industry. When it comes to discussing tech products, standards, formats, architectures, etc. however, he seems clueless. I mean this is a guy who wrote a column bashing the Tivo as a terrible product, and has had at least 2 shows on Silicon Spin bashing HDTV even though he has admitted he never actually has seen HDTV. Oh, and I also like Chris Matthew's Hardball.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

over that grandstanding clown Bill O'Reilly.

God, people really hate him, don't they? Personally, in a liberal media world, I find a right-winger oddly refreshing. O'Reilly is interesting, regardless of what you think of him or his show. Stirring up the waters can't be a bad thing.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

he always lets them finish when they have something interesting or important to say.

Interesting comment, since this would be an entire judgement call- and seemingly at odds with the whole point of inviting guests on to express viewpoints. I'm not sure I care to have Chris deciding what is "interesting" or "important".

I think the idea of "spin free" is rhetorical bull suited best for the MSNBC promotional commercials. People regurgitate that nonsense from the promos to me all the time- it's flat out false. Chris cuts off people if they don't give "fill in the blanks" answers, and lead the topic in the direction he's looking to lead it in...

A good interviewer can allow a guest to guide the conversation, while having the ability to think of their feet and keep the conversation interesting and shape questions which keep the topic on track. The very best interviewers are the ones who allow the guest total control and yet can still use their own words to trump them when necessary. Chris just has a formula setup and can't deal if someone were to deviate, so he bullies them into his framework.

The TV game is going the route of the radio game- interviewers who's personalities dominate the show are getting attention- and people who actually are good journalists and know how to conduct an inteview attract far less attention directly to themselves. As a result, just like the elementary school playground- the ones with the loudest and most shocking mouths get the attention- while those who might actually have something to contribute are ignored.

I'm always suprised at what appeals to the masses, and it reminds of how far outside I really am sometimes.

-Vince