Video: Chris Matthews sexually harasses reporter

In this clip, Hardball host Chris Matthews sexually harasses a female colleague on the air. Note the undercurrent of nastiness. Matthews seems to be getting a kick out of humiliating her in front of millions of viewers.

Comments

[Peter VE]

White lightnin' being made legal? That'll take all the fun (as well as the lead) out of it.

[Count Zero]

Why didn't he just ask her out if he was that interested? It's obvoius that Chris Matthews has little self control like some other well known personalties.

[Cell]

Years ago I emailed Matthews and he replied. This was when MWO was all over his hind end. I told him how I thought Tip O'Neil would be rolling over in his grave like Tarzan hanging onto a croc if he saw him now. Matthews was short and said I didn't know anything about their relationship and that he didn't feel the need to "trumpet" O'Neil's politics just his "values."

I don't think this video reflects Tip's values.

Scoobie took a look at Matthews here.

[ChrisR]

What does MWO stand for?

[Eric Jaffa]

Chris Matthews voted for George W. Bush in 2000.

He announced having voted that way during a conversation with Frank Luntz on "Hardball."

In 1999, Matthews criticized Al Gore for wearing suit jackets with three buttons (I own a suit jacket with three buttons myself.)

---------------------------------------------------
From http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081402.shtml

HERE’S WHAT HE REALLY THINKS ABOUT: By the fall of 1999, how common were men’s three-button suits? So common that conservative clothier Brooks Brothers was running display ads for such suits—in the Wall Street Journal! But when Gore began to wear three-button suits, your scripted pundits began pretending that this was the latest weird thing. Always prepared to improve a daft tale, some pundits even said that Gore was wearing four-button suits. (Arianna, we know what you did that autumn!) In one of the truly inane moments of the campaign, the Washington Post’s overwrought Marc Fisher said that Gore had been wearing “a brown suit of a sort that is alien to virtually every American.” Strangely, Gore got fifty million votes from those same Americans, alien buttons and all.

But no one pushed those three buttons like Matthews. Here he was on the November 12 Hardball, with consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius:

MATTHEWS: You know, there’s been a lot of talk about the new costuming of Al Gore. You know, he used to wear blue suits like I do, or gray suits. Now he’s wearing these new olive suits. He’s taking up something rather unconventional, the three-button male suit jacket. I always—my joke is, “I’m Albert, I’ll—I’ll be your waiter tonight.” I mean, I don’t know anybody who buttons all three buttons, even if they have them. What could that possibly be saying to women voters, three buttons?
DIMITRIUS: Well, I, I think that—

MATTHEWS: Is there some hidden Freudian deal here or what? I don’t know, I mean, Navy guys used to have buttons on their pants. I don’t know what it means. Go ahead.

[Eric Jaffa]

ChrisR -

There used to be a website called "Media Whores Online."

[Bruce/Crablaw]

Well at least Matthews is a Serious Journalist (TM) unlike us dirty &#(*%$# hippie bloggers.

While I am not religious, I have enough old nostalgic affection for Jesuit education to hope that the good Jesuits at Holy Cross would be ashamed of this puerile display by their alumnus of aggression against a non-aggressor, which is what sexual harassment is in substance. For Matthews, she's a plaything, not a professional trying to further a career and get paid in a tense, difficult industry. She hath no rights that a Tweety Bird millionaire need respect. Kind of like O'Reilly and the falafel [sic], only on the air.

I suggest a letter campaign to his wife urging her to give him a good knee to the groin while he's shaving. Get them by the ... and their hearts and minds will follow.

[Tyler]

I don't see what the big deal is. Flirting only becomes sexual harassment when the attention is unwanted, and judging by the expression on her face, she seemed to be more flattered than upset at his remarks.

[Count Zero]

Erin Burnett is the Ann Coulter of buisness news, so she probably loves the praise and affection shown by the Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reilys of the world.

[Count Zero]

Case in point...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/12/cnbcs-erin-burnett-we-need-chinas-toxic-food-and-lead-coated-toys-to-keep-economy-strong/

[inkybrain]

Tyler, I dunno, she looked confused and uncomfortable to me, which would make the attention unwanted. Moreover, and I think this makes the whole thing that much worse, he did it in such a way that she couldn't really respond effectively. That's the thing: it's less about "flattering" a woman than it is about demonstrating power, Matthews showing himself to be the kind of guy who has the authority to take a segment about economics and make it into something about a woman's looks.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Matthews is clearly making Burnett uncomfortable. She has to laugh along because she's a TV anchor. What else is she going to do? She's not about to tell off her boss on live TV.

She's a professional trying to do her job, and he's making her lurch like a trained monkey.

Matthews even comments on her expression, "Look at that look!"

Notice her uneasy laughter and the stammering at the end.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Burnett may be a lousy journalist, but she shouldn't have to put up with that kind of "kidding" from Matthews.

[ThinkItThroughNow...]

I don't have sound Lindsey, but she clearly was smiling and playing along.

I wouldn't take up the case unless she herself is voicing a complaint of sexual harassment.

Women, sadly, can be funny like that in being ok with using/exploiting their looks to advance...

At her age, and in our age, women should know how to respond, even if it is live and that's your boss. Flashing the smile is not exactly the only step short of telling off your boss.

If you cry harassment here, don't you have to wonder if her good looks and youthful attractiveness are exactly why she is on the show with him, over a more experienced yet perhaps homely looking female reporter?

Can someone transcribe what exactly was said? I'm no Matthews fan, nor do I care for Tim Russert. But as women, we really do have to take care not to throw the sexual harrassment charge around lightly.

Also, I can't imagine a man talking about Wall Street wearing an open-neck shirt like that. Is she competing based on knowledge, or her looks? If the latter, you really can't blame Matthews for being aware of it, right?

[Autumn Harvest]

I was watching Neil Cavuto a few days ago, and he had a female reporter explaining about the mortgage crisis, while the usual news flashes appeared below. At the end, Cavuto said "I don't know how many of you noticed the news flash. You might have been distracted by [the reporter], as she is very attractive, so for those of you who missed it, it said. . ."

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

There's a difference between benefiting from good looks and "using" those attributes to get ahead. ThinkitThrough, I think you're implying that because this woman is good looking, it's okay for Chris Matthews to comment on her looks in the middle of a report on the mortgage crisis.

Like almost everyone on TV, including Matthews, she's benefited from telegenic looks. Mainstream American news anchors have to look good on camera, it's an integral part of the job.

"Using" your looks to get ahead implies some active manipulation. If you show up looking your best every day and other people choose to treat you better than a less sttractive person, that's their bias, not your manipulation.

You seem to be arguing that because this woman looks good enough to get hired as a TV anchor, she's somehow asking to have her boss comment on her looks in public while she's trying to work.

[Autumn Harvest]

Whoa, "ThinkItThroughNow," you're all over the place on this, and I'm having trouble processing what you're saying in any sort of reasonable way. What you're saying seems to boil down to "There's a good chance that she was hired as a bit of eye candy, and that they didn't care about what might come out of her mouth when they hired her. She probably agreed to that when she was hired, so what's the problem if Matthews treats her like a pretty piece of meat?" Please tell me that's not what you're saying.

Let's leave aside the fact that you seem to conclude that this woman is using her looks to advance, and inviting comments about her appearance instead of the news analysis that she's given, solely from the fact that she's wearing an open-neck shirt. Even if everything you said was true, the idea that a news program would intentionally and openly hire men to do the serious reporting, and the women just for relaxing eye candy, is incredibly messed up. It's totally unprofessional, whether or not the woman is OK with it.

[John Lucid]

We talked about this story at the General's the other day. I don't see how anyone can interpret her reaction to his remarks as positive in any way. Sure, she smiled a little bit, but a lot of people smile when they're nervous, and some people even smile a little bit when they're starting to get mad. So much for her "wanting it" then.

I don't see how her style of dress makes any fucking difference to how she should be treated. It didn't look unprofessional to me. What exactly is "professional" appearance for ladies anyway? Do they all have to wear pantsuits or dress like Schoolmarm Condoleezza Rice to be considered "professional" looking?

Chris Matthews is an asshole. I think if this video were played in a courtroom before a jury, I'd bet anything that they'd unanimously say Matthews was indeed harassing her. Unless Falafel Bill was on that jury. Then it would be 11-1.

[Isaac Hill]

I couldn't believe it when I read this. Chris Matthews has millions of viewers?

I find Flash more trouble then it's worth, so I haven't seen the clip, but I've read the transcript. From the text, it seemed like he was telling her to lean into the camera like there was something wrong. Then when she did, he basically pulled a "made you look". The "you look great" seemed more like assuring her she didn't have anything hanging from her nose or something.

Does this fit in with the actual video/sound? Is it possible that this is asexual harassment, a hazing type thing he might do to a new male reporter? And is he really considered telegenic?

[ThinkItThroughNow...]

I don't see how her style of dress makes any fucking difference to how she should be treated.

I do.
Let's say she got this job over another qualified woman reporter who was more homely or conservative-looking, one who chose to wear either a suit jacket or buttoned-up shirt when anchoring.

Clearly, the woman is "using" her youth and attractiveness. And Matthews is remarking on it. But is this necessarily sexual harrassment? No. And it cheapens those women who actually are in situations where they are genuinely "sexually harassed".

My uncomfortableness stems from what so many of you here are taking for granted: that in order to be a business news reporter/anchor, you must look good. Present yourself like this -- she is dressed more for a date than a professional business setting. I don't have sound, but apparently he notices that, and she laughs -- a good-looking toothy laugh.

That is the way the new media game is played though. You can't get the job/dress the part based half on looks, then cry "sexual harassment" when the banter comes up.

What about the qualified woman who dressed more conservative and didn't get the position in the first place? Tough? If good looks are a job requirement, maybe that's what should be questioned. Having it both ways like this seems to cheapen true sexual harassment claims.

I predict this passes over, and if she is smart, she takes his hint and buttons up more next time. Then she'll know whether it's her skills and knowledge, or her shining knowlege and exposed neckline that have people viewing the business news.

I wish we could turn back the clock on the hiring though, and put up some less attractive but qualified as well women. Is it news or is it entertainment or is it a blend of both? If it's both, then the banter is a part of that, right?

We can't have it both ways as women, using our looks then crying foul when people notice them. Even our "bosses" because this industry clearly has become all about appearances over substance. And don't be too surprised when women like this are pushed out in a few years for a younger model, as they begin to show age and that less youthful fresh-out-of-school appearance. As a whole, maybe we would do well to button up and compete more on merit, just like the men, even if it means a few more years of paying our dues in the field before getting the on-camera break. You really can't have it both ways, and the informal dress doesn't much help.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

You're assuming that she chooses her wardrobe. There does appear to be a trend towards hiring conventionally beautiful young women as news anchors and dressing them more flamboyantly than their male counterparts. Cf. Samantha Bee's hilarious parody, News I'd Like to F$#k.

You have no idea what she wore to her job interview. Sure, she might have gotten a better job in TV news because she dressed and looked appropriate for the job her employers wanted her to do. How is that different in principle from shining your shoes, pressing your suit, and getting a haircut? Nobody accuses good-looking guys of "using" their looks to get ahead when they dress for success.

You have this bizarre idea that this woman deserves less respect because she has a certain look, which she may or may not have chosen herself. That attitude feeds into the cycle of disrespect for women. Yes, if we lived in a less sexist society, we wouldn't expect our female newscasters to look like Barbie dolls.

TITN, you seem to be arguing that these women deserve to be publicly disrespected because of the way they dress. Yet, treating them like bimbos on camera is not going to enhance the status of women. On the contrary, it just reinforces sexism and blames the victim. Junior anchors don't set the dress code. They just try to live up to it, like anyone else who wants to get ahead. It's a strange world where women are blamed for dressing to meet the expectations of their superiors. If there's blame to go around, why not place it on the people who actually make the rules, not the junior staffers who do their best to please.

Excusing Chris Matthews for being a boor isn't going to bring us closer to some hypothetically fair world where female TV anchors get to dress like bankers instead of pornified kindergarten teachers.

[ThinkItThroughNow...]

How is that different in principle from shining your shoes, pressing your suit, and getting a haircut?

Because it catches up to you. If you're hired on sexy looks, then don't be too surprised if people acknowledge that you look sexy. That's exactly what I meant in the first comment telling LB to wait until the woman herself cries sexual harassment.

It's an entertainment game, and she's playing and benefitting from it.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

How do you know she was hired "on looks?" That's a pretty sexist assumption right there. You have no idea what her qualifications are. You don't even know what she wore when she applied for the job or how much control she has over he on-air look.

Are you saying that when employers do discriminate based on appearance have less of an obligation to treat their employees respectfully?

[Autumn Harvest]

Sweet Jesus, did someone set the clock back to 1950 and not tell me? ThinkItThroughNow, you conclude that the woman was inviting this, and make all kinds of completely unsupported speculation abut her past behavior, based solely on the fact that her top button is unbuttoned? WTF? It's a shirt that let's you see a bit of the area below her neck, not a bikini. Why not just assume that she's a prostitute because she's not wearing a burqua?

[ThinkItThroughNow...]

Junior anchors don't set the dress code. They just try to live up to it, like anyone else who wants to get ahead. It's a strange world where women are blamed for dressing to meet the expectations of their superiors.

Yes, but...
when they start pulling your long hair forward like a high-school or college girl, when they coat your lips in shiny gloss, when they dress you in a purple blousey shirt with the open neck -- that's when you decide to object, or not.

He may have done her a favor here, if she honestly didn't realize she was being tricked up and played more for looks than anything she had to offer about the economy or mortgage crisis. Now she knows.

If the men were exposing chest hair, or had gelled-up metrosexual hairstyles that are "in", or whose appearance otherwise was shouting out sexy-look-at-me, that would be equal. They're not. Whether they object from the get go, or whether they are kept off the air until they are more mature and can handle situations like this, I don't know.

But if she can't handle the acknowledgement of her looks, she is not ready to play the game you say they have dolled her up to play. (I'm not so sure they dress and style her though.)

Yet, treating them like bimbos on camera is not going to enhance the status of women. On the contrary, it just reinforces sexism and blames the victim.

Absolutely agree re. reinforcing sexism.
But you can't be half in. And she is on CNN and maybe accepts this treatment, thus does not consider herself a "victim".

You mean well LB, but your really can't have it both ways. Women have a voice to say, "No, I won't let you make me up like that, overemphasizing my sex appeal." If they lose the job, they can join the younger men and more conservative/homely women in the corner, working on sharpening their business reporting skills.

Clearly, this is entertaining banter on a topic, where her looks matter to the job, not serious news reporting:

BURNETT: Well, they were part of the biggest increase in home ownership in this country that we've ever seen. I mean, home ownership's ticked up a few percentage points over the past few years, thanks to low interest rates --

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

BURNETT: -- and all those creative types of mortgages. And you could say that's a good thing, but, you know, Chris, I guess just to throw it out there and, you know, be provocative, but also ask a fair question -- you know, maybe not everybody is able to own a home. We like to think of owning a home as a right in this country."