It has been suggested that I have been a bit too hard on the media recently, and I've been invited to point out some good journalism when I see it. While it is true that I have been media-bashing for the past few weeks, I would tend to frame it as their drivel being too hard on my ears... but that wouldn't solve the problem, only make it worse. Ahem.

So, while we all anxiously await the close of the polls in Indiana and North Carolina tonight (I thought about liveblogging them, but I have a scheduling conflict tonight, so this won't be possible), I thought I would shine the light on one example of (local) media speaking truth to power -- and by "power," I mean "the national mainstream media."

Last weekend, on The Chris Matthews Show (I watch these shows so you don't have to!), two of the guests were local NBC political journalists, from their affiliates in North Carolina and Indiana. And what they had to say to Matthews and (to a lesser extent) Dan Rather made me feel like standing up and cheering.

But before I get to that, I have to include the "bad" and the "ugly" with the "good." The "ugly" I found in the same exact show, so it could not be ignored. The "bad" was from Laura Bush's response to the Burmese cyclone disaster.

Sorry, but you'll have to sing your own "Good, Bad and Ugly" theme song, to introduce each one. But I have helpfully provided "lyrics" for you to do so:

The Good

[A WAH-a Wah ah... waaah waaah waaah...]

In my television market, The Chris Matthews Show is broadcast after all the other Sunday talk shows, so I see it last. And by that point, I was so tired of hearing about Reverend Wright I almost didn't watch.

The show, as expected, was mostly about Reverend Wright. Read the full transcript (May 4th, 2008) if you think I'm exaggerating.

But the two guests invited to provide "local color" to the political discussion were the best thing I've heard in a while. Because instead of deciding what was a story and then beating it into the ground for weeks, they actually went out and talked to people and reported back what was really going on. Committing an act of journalism like this on national television shouldn't be stunning, but (sadly) these days it is as stunning as it is rare.

I won't excerpt all the blathering which precedes these quotes, so just assume a stupid "gotcha" question about Wright was asked. Here are Kim Genardo from WNCN in Raleigh, and Andrea Morehead of WTHR in Indianapolis, trying to explain Journalism 101 to Chris Matthews:

GENARDO: Yeah. Absolutely. We've seen a lot of narrowing. Clinton might be the comeback kid here, but does she have enough to get it done? I don't think so, but it's going to be close. And they'll spin that as a victory anyway. But as far as Reverend Wright, we're hearing from voters there that it's not really influencing them too much. At least, the smart, educated pool of voters who go to the primaries, they're not buying necessarily this guilt by association. But, that being said, what about your more conservative, white, rural voters? And I don't know that I'm that in touch with them to know if that's going to make them...(unintelligible).

Even Matthews is stunned by this, a coherent bit of journalism which also points out the limits of knowledge of the reporter. His response: "What an honest reporter you are." I guess he doesn't meet many.

MOREHEAD: Well, it's really difficult to tell right now what kind of impact is being had based on the comments that Jeremiah Wright said. I know I've interviewed Obama over the last few weeks, and of course he has been out there distancing himself from his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. And when you talk to voters in Indiana, they're more concerned about the issues. This is not something that people are talking about. I mean, they're talking about it at the water coolers, of course, and the barbershops, and at grocery stores, but in terms of how it's going to affect their vote next Tuesday, it's really difficult to tell. They're more concerned about jobs. They're more concerned about the economy coming back. They're more concerned about the war in Iraq. They want to talk about the real issues that affect us...

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

MOREHEAD: ...in Indiana.

GENARDO: Yeah.

MOREHEAD: So we don't know if this is actually going to play a role so we have to see how it all shakes out.

This is the first answer both of them gave, and they are both essentially saying the same thing: this just isn't that big a story. People are concerned about real issues. But this isn't going to stop Chris Matthews from devoting almost the entire rest of the show to it. Morehead valiantly tries to make her point again, but it is largely ignored.

MOREHEAD: But let me say something. The people that I'm talking to in Indiana, they're saying, this is really a distraction. How many times does he have to say that he's guilty by association. How many times does he have to say, "This is not who I am, this is not who defines me, this is not who I am as a person." How many times does he have to say, "This is not who I represent."

Dan Rather disagrees with her on how he reads things and makes a few valid points, but Matthews can't seem to grasp the idea that real voters were more concerned with other issues, and the media (and himself) are obsessing over it too much. Morehead tries one final time, but Matthews just completely ignores what she is saying:

MOREHEAD: Well, obviously they're going to keep playing it, but the issue is -- and I think what I'm hearing from voters in Indiana is -- when are we going to let it go? How many times does he -- does he have to say, "I don't agree with that"? How many times does he have to say, "That is not who I am"? So the question is, are the American -- will the American public finally stand up and say, "You know what? We believe in you. It's about the issues. We believe that on day one you're going to take care of us in terms of jobs, the economy, the war in Iraq, as well as these gas prices."

So to both Andrea Morehead and Kim Genardo, thank you for providing some good journalism on NBC, against all odds.

The Bad

[A WAH-a Wah ah... waaah waaah waaah...]

First Lady Laura Bush just gave a press conference on the cyclone disaster in Burma at the White House. Some of her remarks were unintentionally ironic, but the White House press corps had more pressing questions about Jenna's wedding, so they committed a sin of omission by not asking her about her statements. Now, I realize that Laura Bush has been a champion of pressuring Burma to change its evil ways (and they are evil ways, no doubt about that at all), so most of her remarks were ironic but in the interests of being polite, could be ignored. But one of her remarks went over the line, absolutely begging a question that just wasn't asked:

MRS. BUSH: But I think in front of their own people and in front of the world, if they don't accept aid from the United States and from all the rest of the international community that wants to help the people of Burma, that that is just another way that the military regime looks so cut off and so unaware of what the real needs of their people are.

She made this point over and over again -- that Burma should accept aid from any country willing to provide it, and put aside politics and national pride and just accept help from anyone willing to give it to them.

Right after she made this point, the questions turned to Jenna's wedding.

Now, most of what she is saying doesn't seem ironic on first reading her words. But if you contrast what she is telling Burma to do with what her husband did after Katrina, the irony comes out in full force. And on this one point, she should have been asked about the following, from CNN, September 5, 2005:

HAVANA, Cuba -- Cuban President Fidel Castro told more than 1,500 doctors Sunday night that American officials had made "absolutely no response" to his offer to send them to the U.S. Gulf Coast to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Castro, a longtime adversary of the United States, initially offered to send 1,100 doctors and at least 26 tons of supplies and equipment, but the Communist leader announced Sunday during a televised speech that he had increased the number of physicians to 1,586. Each doctor would carry about 27 pounds of medicine.

"You could all be there right now lending your services, but 48 hours have passed since we made this offer, and we have received absolutely no response," Castro said at Havana's Palace of the Revolution.

"We continue to wait patiently for a response."

The Ugly

[A WAH-a Wah ah... waaah waaah waaah...]

From the same installment of The Chris Matthews Show, Chris reminds us all why the media are seen in such a bad light in this country:

MATTHEWS: Is this [Reverend Wright] always going to be available as a way for [Obama's] critics and opponents to put him back in the ghetto?

In case we missed the point, he returns to it a little later on:

MATTHEWS: The verdict on that is going to be rendered by voters, and -- perhaps fairly or not -- it's going to be white voters. They're going to say whether they think this puts him off in the corner.

MOREHEAD: Hm.

MATTHEWS: Not as a transitional figure but as a ghetto figure in a sense. White voters in Indianapolis, in Indiana. They're going to decide this thing.

The only thing Chris Matthews knows about a ghetto is how to pronounce the word.

There are indeed elitists in this race for the presidency. But they're not out on the campaign trail. They're sitting in front of television cameras telling the rest of us what they think that we think. Or should think.

And sometimes, it's just plain ugly.

-- Chris Weigant