So I just finished reading Capetown's post about Chris Matthews. In this fine post, Capetown praises Chris Matthews in light of Tim Russert's public dislike of the man. Now I don't really watch Hardball, so I decided to see what this guy was all about, so I went to YouTube and watched two excellent videos of Matthews talking to Don Imus. Judging from these videos there is no doubt in my mind that Matthews is one of the top journalists. His elevation of truth, honesty and substance above all else seems to set him apart from most of his peers. Of course, you should see for youself, so check out the videos I watched, highlighting Matthews' views on politicians and on the Iraq war.
Now I feel that some of Matthew's comments in the second link are pretty provocative, and I thought about writing a "Matthews v. Friedman" post defending Freidman and critisizing Matthew's emphasis on the importance of "instinct" (he critisizes other reporters for not having the instinct to see the true motives of the Bush administration, but wasn't the Bush administration, too, operating largely on instinct? Ehh Matthews?? So instinct can be cool I guess, except for when it happens to be the executives, wrong instinct), but I think that is a pretty complex issue that I don't feel like getting into in a blog post right now, and besides, I already got critisized by Virginia for using topics that are easy targets of debate. In any case, I find it interesting in light of Capetown's post on Matthews, and Capetown's and Brooklyn's posts about the use of language, in light of Matthews' invocation of the terms "instinct," "bullshit" and "fucking." Whoops, that just kinda slipped out, sorry.