August 20, 2004

Matthews v. Malkin
Posted by Dale Franks

Judging from the transcript, Michelle Malkin didn't do as well on Chris Matthews as some of her defenders are trying to say. I heard the exchange on the radio this morning, and went to the transcript, to confirm what I thought about it.

Now, let's take it as a given that Matthews kind of drew Malkin into the Swiftvet story, even though she was there to talk about her book, In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror, which I've reviewed here. But, as she relates on her blog, this was not an ambush, in that they had asked, and she had accepted, to discuss the Swiftvets in one segment.

Perhaps she shouldn't have agreed to talk about the Swiftvets though, because, from what I can tell, it appears that she was, at the very least, trying to give the impression that Kerry intentionally shot himself to get a purple heart, and she implies that Unfit for Command alleges this.

MATTHEWS: No. No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.

MATTHEWS: Tell me where that...

MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969.

Malkin is factually incorrect. The Swiftvets do not allege that Mr. Kerry intentionally shot himself. The allegation is that Mr. Kerry fired a grenade, and caught a piece of shrapnel from his grenade when it blew up. That is "self-inflicted", but it is not intentional. It is merely one of those bracing "learning experiences" that military life is prone to deliver.

In reading the transcript, however, it seems to me that Ms. Malkin is trying to imply otherwise, and Mr. Matthews was right to pound her like a piece of cheap veal. Either she was simply wrong about the facts, or she was deliberately trying to leave a false impression through her use of language. Either way, her arguments were incorrect.

Ms. Malkin's account of the episode is here. In it, she writes:

I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were "self inflicted wounds." I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it.

For most-people, simply saying "self-inflicted" carries an implication of deliberate intent. Not only did Ms. Malkin not attempt to make it clear that these wounds are alleged to have been accidentally self-inflicted, in the section of the transcript shown above, it appears that she is, in fact, saying that the allegations are that Kerry intentionally wounded himself.

Now, perhaps she meant to make the whole context of the allegation clear, but didn't get the chance, or, in the heat of the exchange, she was unable to make herself sufficiently clear. But the implication of intent is certainly what I carried away from the transcript.

I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it.

That is, technically, true. What she said was that other people say it. This strikes me much as John Kerry piously intoning, "Some have questioned President Bush's military service, but I will never do that." No, of course, not. He'll just point you in the direction of someone who will.

Now, this doesn't mean that Matthews isn't an ass. He is. For instance, there's this:

MATTHEWS: I think the president, if he wanted this to stop would make one phone call. Karl Rove, would make one phone call and that would be the end of the ads. That‘s what think, and you know that‘s true, right?

First, let's assume that, even though Mr. Matthews statement here is almost a direct quote of Mr. Kerry's campaign spokesman, Chad Clanton, that is sheer coincidence. But, with that said, surely Mr. Matthews knows that such a call from the President would constitute an illegal "coordination" between a political candidate and a 527 organization. Moreover, it would add substance to Mr. Kerry's allegation that the Swiftvets are a put-up job by the Bushies, since, if Mr. Bush can stop it, one presumes he could've started it, too.

Indeed, if the Bush campaign were to make the—illegal, don't forget—phone call that Mr. Matthews suggests, it would be a political disaster for Bush.

Which, come to think of it, might explain why Mr. Matthews thinks Mr. Bush should do it.

Still, that aside, Mr. Matthews response to Ms. Malkin, as far as I can tell, is understandable, even if, as he is prone to do, Mr. Matthews' overdeveloped self-righteousness gene blew it a little bit out of proportion.

UPDATE (JON): Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler takes both Malkin and Matthews to task. Malkin for getting facts wrong, Matthews for--by his own admission--having no clue what he's talking about. (Somerby takes some of the SBV claims to the woodshed, too)

TrackBack

Comments

Saw the Malkin segment on Matthews, and must respectfully disagree with your assessment that Malkin was intentionally misleading. She quite simply could not get a complete sentence out between Matthews' interruptions, which I characterize, charitably, as argumentative but inane and misleading. This extremely non-informative interview style, if one can call it that, does not reflect well on Chris Matthews.

Posted by: me at August 20, 2004 01:12 PM

Dale,
I listened to the segment this morning and I think the msnbc.com transcript is flawed. There should be an ellipsis after "Yes. Some of them say that," not a period. Matthews cut her off before she was able to finish her sentence. Of course, what the remainder of the sentence was is pure conjecture and I don't want to speculate. Essentially, Matthews pulled an O'Reilly on her last night.

Posted by: Curt Mitchell at August 20, 2004 01:20 PM

Example of transcript error: the transcript reads: Malkin "Yes. Some of them say that." The line should be punctuated thusly: "Yes, some of them say that..." followed by Chris interrupting.

Malkin was trying to get a word in edgewise, and losing. Her "Yes" was not an agreement with Matthew's previous mis-statement about Kerry shooting himself. The line in the transcript was an interviewer-created Dowdism by Matthews.

This interview was like the funniest knock-knock joke ever (ref: The Rubber Chicken Book), only not as funny.

Knock, Knock.
Who's there?
Interrupting cow.
Interrupting co ---MOOOOOOOOO.

Posted by: me again at August 20, 2004 01:21 PM

I'm sorry, but she repeated "self-inflicted" too many times. Malkin is a member of the media. She is no novice to broadcast interviews. As I said:

Now, perhaps she meant to make the whole context of the allegation clear, but didn't get the chance, or, in the heat of the exchange, she was unable to make herself sufficiently clear. But the implication of intent is certainly what I carried away from the transcript.

Look, I love Michelle. I think about 90% of what she does is great. But last night, I think she at best fumbled the ball, and at worst, was trying to play cute games with language.

I dunno what she meant to do or say, and I grant that Matthews is a complete ass, and so is O'Reilly, while we're on the subject.

I also know that I would've done it a lot differently, and fairly easily, too.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 01:28 PM

Curt:

Yes. Some of them say that

Sorry, she lost me at the "yes".

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 01:29 PM

I have to disagree as well. Malkin clearly made reference to self-inflicted wounds. Matthews accused her of saying Kerry shot himself, after which she wasn't allowed to complete a sentence.

Had Malkin actually suggested that Kerry shot himself, I would support Matthews reaction 100%, because that is a ridiculous charge.

But I never got the impression that a self-inflicted wound meant shooting one's self intentionally. I was practically pulling my hair out when Matthews first mentioned it. So I don't know where you get off assuming most people would consider that assumption based on a reference to self-inflicted wounds, especially in the context of the SBVT's continuous and specific allegations of how those self-inflicted wounds occurred.

Posted by: Brian at August 20, 2004 01:30 PM

Malkin was trying to get a word in edgewise, and losing. Her "Yes" was not an agreement with Matthew's previous mis-statement about Kerry shooting himself.

Then, at best, she handled it incompetently. Mathews asked five times whether she was saying kerry had shot himself on purpose. Five times.

She had plenty of chances before the shouting started to make it clear that these wounds were accidental, and she went into weasel words.

MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?

MALKIN: Did you read the book...

MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers...

MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.

MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.

MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?

MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 01:35 PM

Yeah, I think this was a good example of two people, talking about the same thing, but not really listening to each other. They were talking past each other.

Malkin is guilty of being imprecise, even misleading. I have the impression she knew what she was talking about, but explained herself poorly. She shoulders the blame for not specifically pointing out that she was not claiming Kerry shot himself.

Matthews, on the other hand--and this is a very serious problem--just had no clue what the hell he was talking about. He didn't understand the charge, so he ran with his misunderstanding. It is to his discredit that he would do a piece on this story, while--by his own admission--not having a clue what the charges really were.


Posted by: Jon Henke at August 20, 2004 01:36 PM

Saw the Malkin segment on Matthews, and must respectfully disagree with your assessment that Malkin was intentionally misleading.

That was not, in fact, my conclusion. If you read the post again, I am equally open to the possibility that she handled it incompetently.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 01:37 PM

I don't think Malkin fumbled the ball, I think Matthews intentionally blitzed and face-masked her.

Posted by: me at August 20, 2004 01:37 PM

So I don't know where you get off assuming most people would consider that assumption based on a reference to self-inflicted wounds, especially in the context of the SBVT's continuous and specific allegations of how those self-inflicted wounds occurred.

A) Because in common usage, a self-inflicted wound in military service is usually referring to someone who shoots himself in the foot to get out of the line. Suicides on the news are commonly referred to as self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

B) Most people don't know the details of the swiftvet allegations. At best, saying Kerry had a self-inflicted would leaves wide open the possibility that he meant to inflict it.

You have to be clear about this kind of stuff, especially in broadcast. You simply don't have the time to parse language. You have to be blunt and clear. For whatever reason, Ms. Malkin was neither.

Oh, and look if you're going on Hardball, you already know what to expect. Mr. Matthews is as dense as Neutronium at the best of times, and is, at all times, prone to go off on a rant. So, you'd darn well better be prepared for that when you go on, and not toss him red meat.

If you can't do that, then wait for the Barbara Walters segment on 20/20, where you know you won't get hammered no matter how badly you screw up. Just tell Barbs what kind of tree you'd like to be and move on.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 01:46 PM

Are you saying that the words "shot himself" carry with them a default assumption of being intentional unless prefixed with "accidental? or "accidentally?" I don't think so.

This is becoming an exercise in Clintonesque parsing. And Chris Matthews is an ass. It's getting to where I don't want to turn my TV on because I might put my foot through it and I cannot afford a replacement.

Posted by: David R. Block at August 20, 2004 01:48 PM

Are you saying that the words "shot himself" carry with them a default assumption of being intentional unless prefixed with "accidental? or "accidentally?" I don't think so.

I do.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 01:59 PM

John O'Neill said nearly the same thing on Hardball, and Matthews said nothing.

O‘NEILL: I‘m saying that the third Purple Heart was another self-inflicted wound. I‘m saying he lied about the Bronze Star. And I‘m saying that you, Chris, could read the documents yourself, if you would take the time.

Hardball, Aug. 12

Posted by: Mario at August 20, 2004 02:21 PM

And I‘m saying that you, Chris, could read the documents yourself, if you would take the time.

But that's a pretty inconvenient thing to ask Mr. Matthews to do. I mean, first, he's got to learn to read, and that takes time...

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 02:28 PM

Reading your responses to comments I must agree with you. Malkin could have done better. I will predict that her content and presentation will continue to improve, however, while Matthews' will not.

Posted by: me at August 20, 2004 03:27 PM

Brian said:

"But I never got the impression that a self-inflicted wound meant shooting one's self intentionally."

Huh? NEVER got the impression? C'mon. And I NEVER got the impression that self-gratification meant intentional masturbations. Geez.

Dale is right on this one. If Malkin had simply ANSWERED THE DAMM QUESTION Matthews was asking she wouldn't have sounded like such an idiot. But she just sat there trying to side-step it.
What part of "you" did she not understand???

Matthews was exactly right to do what he did. Malkin was out of her league. She should stick to her blog. And keep those eyes in her head.

Posted by: mkultra at August 20, 2004 04:23 PM

While I generally agree Malkin could have performed better it should be pointed out that this line of questioning started with Willie Brown. It wasn't until Brown mentioned the injury that this exchange started.

Mkultra, it's hard to be in any "league" when each pitch is thrown directly at your head. If you believe it is right for a host to badger and obstruct a guest from answering a question fine, go apply for Matthews job.

My bet is he will be working as a clown at a WB Network show within six months.

Posted by: Marc at August 20, 2004 07:24 PM

"Huh? NEVER got the impression? C'mon. And I NEVER got the impression that self-gratification meant intentional masturbations. Geez."

I don't see how that's so outrageous. A self-inflicted wound can be intentional or could not. Under the circumstances, I assumed it meant not, because those are the allegations we've been hearing about, and the suggestion that Kerry shot himself on purpose is absurd. So, maybe I'm just weird. :)

Posted by: Brian at August 20, 2004 07:42 PM

Kerry discharged a grenade that exploded too close to the boat. He was struck by a small piece of shrapnel. Self inflicted, but not intentional.

But Matthews is such a schmuck that he won't let a guest put two words together. What an idiot!

Posted by: Fleming at August 20, 2004 07:43 PM

"Malkin is guilty of being imprecise, even misleading. I have the impression she knew what she was talking about, but explained herself poorly. She shoulders the blame for not specifically pointing out that she was not claiming Kerry shot himself."

Jon -- I watched while Andrea Mitchell re-ran that scene this evening. What I saw was a cheap insinuation. There certainly was a plausible distinction to be made between a "self-inflicted wound" and an intent to do that. Malkin had ample opportunity -- even accounting for the disgusting asshole, Matthews -- to make that distinction, but she didn't. And I'm convinced that it's because she favors the insinuation of an intentional self-inflicted wound, without coming right out and saying it.

To my mind, there are legitimate questions about this point, but they should be handled in broad-daylight explicit terms. Malkin couldn't hack the program.

Posted by: Billy Beck at August 20, 2004 08:32 PM

"...I'm convinced that it's because she favors the insinuation of an intentional self-inflicted wound, without coming right out and saying it."


- - -Perhaps, but I'm not willing to assign motivations without a great deal more evidence. If I'm going to make an assumption, I'll start with the assumptions that...
1: She didn't know better.
or...
2: She was caught off-guard.

...before I assume malice. To her credit, she explicitly stated--on her blog, when writing about this--that she did not intend to say that he had intentionally shot himself.

To his discredit, Matthews apparently could not comprehend of another meaning for "self-inflicted", beyond "intentionally shot himself", and the fact that he became wholly focused on that view is what really made this an issue.

But, you're right that Malkin had the opportunity to correct him, and she should have done so. It would be to both their credit if he had her back on the show to actually explain herself. (and he let her do so, without interrupting her to point out that he didn't know what he was talking about)

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 20, 2004 08:42 PM

I saw the Hardball incident and read Malkin's blog where she casts herself as an innocent who came on the show to promote her book and was ambushed by Matthews. Frankly I would like to have heard her discuss her book, which defends interment in some way.
And she could have done just that if she hadn't devoured the bait that was cast in front of her. All she had to do was say that she was only there to discuss her book and Matthews and Brown could talk about whatever they wished. She was definitely not prepared to discuss the Swift Boat topic and should have just kept her mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than ......
I recall the Vietnam days well and recall that this was the first war where our Veterans were not welcomed home with parades. We lost the war and the country was ashamed of it and consequently we weren't proud of those who reminded us of it. Our soldiers in this war were no more or less honorable than those in past wars. This was the first one that was brought to us in such a graphic way each day and it showed many that war really was hell.
There were heroes and cowards, and Saints and Demons just as there is in any large group of people. The best advice as to how to handle this was given to us by a great man 2000 years ago -- "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Posted by: HGH at August 20, 2004 08:55 PM

I'm surprised that anyone can even think clearly with that raging blowhard yakking in their face. Say what you will about O'Reilly, he's fifty times fairer than Matthews, and that's not saying very much.

My question is, why did Malkin even go on in the first place? I mean, if you appear on a show that nobody watches, did you appear on it?

Posted by: Chadster at August 21, 2004 03:27 AM

...John O'Neill said nearly the same thing on Hardball, and Matthews said nothing...

And that's what gets me about this whole kerfuffle. Malkin is likely guilty of poor choice of words (or baited into it), but Matthews should know better than his little hissy fit.

When Ted Koppel had Al Campanis on and Al talked about African-Americans not being qualified to managed, Ted looked a little stunned but let Al finish. Al subsequently looked really bad and got fired from the Dodgers. If Malkin was about to make an arse of herself, Matthews should have had the broadcasting acumen to step out of the way.

He didn't, and now Malkin is a sympathetic figure.

Posted by: Brad S at August 21, 2004 08:40 PM