Andrea Mitchell has a lot of gall, talking about problems in the economy when her frog was culpable

[LittleApple81]

in bringing this situation about...
(I refer to Colbert telling her to keep on kissing Greenspan because he might still turn into a prince)

[cliffordu]

1. And HER ignorance leaks through in every stuttering misstep as she

tries to pull a salient question out of her butt for the 'expert' she has on....

Waste of airtime.

[AndyA]

2. Really, in the interest of full disclosure, Mitchell probably shouldn't be reporting on this subject

unless she starts off with a disclaimer that she's married to Greenspan, and that he was in charge when a lot of this started.

It really makes the network look bad when this kind of disclosure is ignored. Kind of like when Fucker Carlson reported/commented on the Scooter Libby case. Carlson's father was one of the major parties in establishing Libby's legal fund.

This is why we need a (new and improved for the 21st Century) Fairness Doctrine type of law.

[otohara]

3. From A NYT's Article in October

For Greenspan’s Wife, Covering the Financial Crisis Is on a Case-by-Case Basis

Alan Greenspan’s name has come up dozens of times on MSNBC in the last month, but never during the 1 p.m. hour. That’s the hour anchored by Andrea Mitchell, who is married to Mr. Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

For years Ms. Mitchell, the veteran NBC News correspondent who specializes in foreign affairs and politics, has carefully kept her potential conflict of interest in check. But in the last month, as the weakness of the nation’s economy has dominated cable news and the campaign trail, Ms. Mitchell has faced the kind of ethical quandary that energizes the staff of the Columbia Journalism Review.

The Review raised questions about Ms. Mitchell’s status in an Internet article in late September. The writer, Megan Garber, observed that Mr. Greenspan is inextricably linked to the fate of the financial markets and wondered whether the MSNBC and NBC viewers “are best served by an anchor and reporter who is, in so many ways, so close to the story she’s covering.”

Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, called the article “overly simplistic.” The news division has allowed Ms. Mitchell to continue covering the presidential election, even when the candidates have debated the financial crisis, and has decided on a day-by-day basis what stories are not appropriate for her to cover.

“To me it’s a pretty easy balancing act,” Mr. Capus said in an interview Sunday. “She knows where to draw the line.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/business/media/13mitchell.html

[otohara]

4. The Elephant in the Control Room

Here's the article Steve Capus responds to in the above NYT's article.


Should Andrea Mitchell be reporting on the economic meltdown?

When Andrea Mitchell reports on the current financial crisis—or on anything that relates to the crisis, which is, these days, a lot—there is an excessively large elephant in the control room. Its name is Alan Greenspan.

That Greenspan is Mitchell’s husband doesn’t, under normal circumstances, warrant disclosure or special treatment. Mitchell is a career journalist who knows what conflict of interest is—and how to avoid not only its appearance, but also, one hopes, its effects. Under normal circumstances, it would be unfair to hold her husband against her.

Under normal circumstances. But the credit crisis—and the current meltdown we’re facing, whose effects, assuming we can find a way to stanch them in the short term, will likely be with us for generations to come—is not normal circumstances. Greenspan, by virtue of his nearly-nineteen-year chairmanship of the Federal Reserve Board, is, to some extent, culpable in the crisis we’re facing. Critics have accused the Greenspan-led Fed of inflating the housing bubble by keeping loan rates too low for too long, encouraging reckless lending and borrowing. Greenspan himself has admitted as much, telling CBS last year, “While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late. I really didn’t get it until very late in 2005 and 2006.” And as The New York Times put it in a December 2007 article headlined “Fed Shrugged as Subprime Crisis Spread” (emphasis mine) http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_elephant_in_the_control_ro.php?page=all

[political_Dem]

9. Too bad an objective fourth estate isn't required anymore.

What the Bush era ushered in is not only the FOX-ification of the news; he also made nepotism seem almost normal in the journalism profession. After all, Bush's cousin, John Ellis, called Florida on FOX during the 2000 election.

You can read about it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/19/uselections2000.usa2">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/19/uselections2000.usa2

So is anyone not surprised that Mrs. Greenspan is there giving her opinion about politics on MSNBC? I'm not.

[No Elephants]

5. Maria Shriver lost her job when Ahnuld sought public office, on the ground that the inherent

conflicts of interest were just too great for her to be a good journalist. How come Andrea gets to not only keep her job, but also to comment on the economy?

Anyone willing to go to bed with Greenspan needs to be cut some slack, but this is really beyond the pale.

[political_Dem]

10. I agree. She should have stepped down.

But that requires some sort of conscience and a sense of ethics.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. Da Span is her house frog.

Yes, her house frog.


Badabing.....

:rofl:

[styersc]

7. Everybody who pays more on credit cards then they......

.... put in savings is culpable. We have been living high and now we have a hangover. Change your life and your circumstances and quit whining that everyone else got us into this mess. We all did it and with Obama's leadership we will band together and make it right!!!!

[applegrove]

8. LOL! Colbert actually said that? That is hillarious.