Here is the exchange (h/t Think Progress):

Well, at least we now know where Glynnis gets her “news” from.

But what’s really interesting here, isn’t how Matthews (once again) says something bizarre and wrong… but how Mediaite (and Glynnis) will talk about this… but won’t talk about other things.

It’s interesting to me, how Ed saying this about “Morning Joe” wasn’t a worthy story:

SCHULTZ (08:12): So Mika starts looking at her Blackberry and so does Scarborough and obviously the White House is texting them or emailing them or whatever and they didn’t like the show. Because Arianna had been on there, I’m on there, Howard Dean had been on there and they wanted some balance.

Now think about that – here’s the White House getting in contact with ‘Morning Joe’ because they’re afraid there’s too many lefties on the air! Now if that’s not sensitivity at its highest level, I don’t know what is! I told ya a few days ago they had rabbit ears! They don’t like anything that’s being said right now, they’re getting beat up!

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/12/msnbc-libtalker-morning-joe-team-takes.html

Perhaps it’s more worthy because it exposes some really obvious hypocrisy at MSNBC… but somehow I doubt it will get mentioned… except by me.

Anyway… Politico is a good site, and had good folk from both sides. Of course, having people from both sides means the loons on the far side of the aisle will complain… and that’s probably where Matthews comes in. If Cheney releases statements to Politico… what’s the problem? Is Chris upset that he doesn’t get the “exclusive” first? As his ratings continue to slip, his grip on reality is slipping.

The Leftist media wasn’t expecting to be this enraged, this angry in a year where they kicked off what they saw as ‘government from heaven.’ I mean, LOOK at them all! Olbermann, Shultz, Maddow, Brooks at the NYT, everyone at Newsweek, TIME, et al. They’re all unhinged with RAGE! As someone from the ‘other side,’ this pleases me completely. It proves that this whole ‘government from heaven’ thing isn’t going quite as planned. Add to it the continued collapse in revenues across media (“Gee…where did all our PRIVATE SECTOR ADVERTISING go???”) and you have a perfect storm of unhappiness for all of them.

Matthews is correct here. The simple fact is that the Politico reporter who does these Cheney pieces is supposed to be a journalist — not an opinion guy. So when he simply regurgitates a statement from a public figure without so much as an ounce of fact-checking… well, that isn’t journalism. He is, in fact, simply acting as an arm of Cheney’s PR office.

And ImNotBlue, so someone using these nifty computer-type devices to communicate with another person or with multiple people is equal-to the state controlling the media?!? Question for you… do you have personal conversations with God? And does he answer back??

I have to applaud Chris. I watched this last night (the show’s second airing). It was appropriate and on-target. I don’t think the job of any media outlet is ever to simply pass on the random thoughts of anyone, particularly a greatly despised, grumpy old man who laments everything that happens in this nation.

Chris “I want to do everything I can to make this new presidency work” Matthews going after a media outlet for being an uncritical mouthpiece is about as overwhelmingly hypocritical as its gets.

Rachel “Madcow” fact checking? Yeah, right.

ChrisJones: “Rachel “Madcow” fact checking? Yeah, right.”

LOL… hell yeah!!!! I get it: “Madcow: because her name is Maddow… that is a good one!!! Highfive!!!1

Agent Orangutan says:
January 5, 2010 at 3:39 pm

The simple fact is that the Politico reporter who does these Cheney pieces is supposed to be a journalist…

Well, if the Politico reporter is simply expressing or presenting a quote from Cheney, then that’s his job. It’s not his job to interject his opinion all over Cheney’s statements. I think the issue comes down to opinion versus fact… you want more opinion to attack Cheney’s opinion, not facts to check his facts. Opining all over something, simply because you don’t agree with it isn’t journalism.

…so someone using these nifty computer-type devices to communicate with another person or with multiple people is equal-to the state controlling the media?!?

Well, your complaint should probably be with Ed Schultz then, now shouldn’t it?

Question for you… do you have personal conversations with God? And does he answer back??

Yes… we watch “The Office” together. God’s a fan of Jim’s whit, while I’m all about Pam’s sexiness. In other words… what the heck are you talking about, and how is it relevant to anything?

The Real Royal King says:
January 5, 2010 at 3:51 pm

In other words… don’t listen or repeat anything Cheney says, because I don’t like him.

WHOOOP WHOOOP… what’s that? Oh, it’s the hypocrisy alarm going off again. At this rate, I’ll run out of batteries before the end of the month!

Agent Orangutan says:
January 5, 2010 at 4:24 pm

Join with me in criticizing ALL people who use little name changes for personal insults… won’t you? And I mean, ALL people… not just the ones who agree with you… okay?

I don’t take anything Matthews says as fully accurate and balanced.Come to think of it I don’t take anything anyone on MSDNC or Fox Right News seriously.CNN for all their problems is a better source but not anywhere near that great.What does it say when there are no really good unbiased accurate news sources?When a site or channel tries to be balanced and fair they get skewered by the ones that are not.Such crap…I stopped watching almost all of it.Olbernamm,Maddow,Matthews,Hannity,Beck and more all seem to try to come across as smater than you and are smug as hell doing it.I don’t need someone who’s a raving lunatic telling me or hinting that they are far smarter and more enlightened than I am and if I disagree with them then I’m a kook.

There is no question, dhg, that CNN is THE most reliable cable news network. And, you are correct. Even given that, CNN has many problems. I wish the US version were more like CNN International, perhaps absent all the tennis and sailing coverage.

Chris Jones says:
January 5, 2010 at 4:18 pm

Rachel “Madcow” fact checking? Yeah, right.

— Actually, Chris, you may disagree with Rachel, as I often do, but she is very intelligent, and she tends to have a very high accuracy rate. Now, if you like fiction, Rachel is not going to work for you. That would be more of the Bill, Glen(n), Greta and Sean genre. —

ImNotBlue, I certainly didn’t, say nor remotely suggest, that Mike Allen should inject his opinion over Cheney’s comments. Your assertion that I made such a claim is laughable given that my comment is just a few inches above yours. If I were a journalist, I could easily fact-check your assertion against my previous comment and would note the discrepancies in my article — something Mike Allen should be doing as he is simply taking Cheney’s press releases and gussying it up to be posting on Politico. This is not the job of a journalist. When a news maker makes a declaritive statement, a journalist is supposed to fact check it and note the results of said fact-check. Mike Allen simply doesn’t do that with the Dick Cheney missives.

Great job Chris Matthews! You can be aggravating at times with the conventional wisdom beltway insider stuff but this was right on.

The right wing’s greatest fear is that the forty-year old bought and paid for Mighty Right Wing Wurlitzer, and it’s disastrous effect on public discourse and our democracy, will finally be exposed as the top one per cent shills they’ve always been.

Free speech, hey, they can say what they want. But our “independent media” is under no obligation to amplify their bullhorn without offering context, and yes right wingers, alas, facts.

Agent Orangutan says:
January 5, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Okay… I think I’ve let you have your “Chris Matthews is right!” fun for long enough. Too bad you didn’t check out the article that Allen wrote. Here are some paragraphs you might be interested in:

A senior Democrat said in response: “It’s telling that in attacking the president and the administration, that Vice President Cheney did not condemn the attack against our nation on Christmas Day.”

…

Although Cheney and other Republicans have accused Obama of a muted response to the attack, President George W. Bush was quieter for much longer about the attack by shoe bomber Richard Reid in December 2001.

…

It was six days after Reid’s attempted attack that Bush finally discussed the incident, saying as part of a response to a question at his ranch in Crawford, Texas: “[W]e’ve got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our government is responding accordingly.”

The day before, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had refused substantive comment, saying: “That’s a matter that’s in the hands of the law enforcement people.” Earlier, White House press secretary Scott McClellan had said officials were “continuing to monitor events.”

Also, Democratic officials maintain that Obama is, in fact, comfortable with the notion that the U.S. is at war with terrorists. Near the start of his inaugural address, he said: “Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

And John O. Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, declared in an August speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “[A]s the president has made clear, we are at war with Al Qaeda, which attacked us on Sept. 11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on Al Qaeda’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.”

The senior Democrat said: “There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference from the last administration is that we are at war with that which is tangible — Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists — rather than at war with a tactic, ‘terrorism’.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31054.html#ixzz0bocnQ7ly

So what part of that (and Royal, and Jim, and the rest… feel free to answer) wasn’t enough “checking” for you guys? Looks like Allen did exactly what you wanted him to do… and yet, Chris Matthews, WRONGLY, suggests otherwise… and you gobble it up.

Oh well… you know what they say about “assumptions.” I guess that works too for listening to Chris Matthews.