So FiveThirtyEight.com sez that Chris Matthews is running for the Senate in Pennsylvania. Matthews responds, saying, "It is absolutely not true."
OK, but now we see this AP storywhich I will quote from extensively, starting with the headline: "Official: Matthews weighing Senate run." That would seem to suggest some fire underneath all that smoke, huh? Here's the rest of the story:
A Pennsylvania Democratic Party leader says MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews may be considering a run for U.S. Senate in 2010.
The Patriot-News of Harrisburg reports Matthews met with state party leaders this past week in Washington to discuss a possible bid to unseat Republican Sen. Arlen Specter.
Party official Mary Isenhour says she left the meeting feeling that Matthews still hadn't made up his mind.
The 62-year-old Matthews hosts MSNBC's "Hardball" and provides political commentary on NBC's "Today." He ran unsuccessfully for a Pennsylvania congressional seat in 1974.
There was no immediate comment from Matthews on Saturday. A reliable home telephone number could not be located and a representative of MSNBC did not immediately return a call.
So what's going on here? Is this some sort of "Rashomon"-like situation, where different people see the same set of facts differently? Could be.
But there's one way to settle this. Matthews should go on "Hardball," his MSNBC TV show, on Monday night and level with the viewers--and the voters. What steps has he taken? Has he raised money? Has he made promises in exchange for support? Most of all, is he running, or not?
In the meantime, the suits at MSNBC/NBC should answer all the "what did you know and when did you know it"-type questions.
To repeat: The Cable Gamer thinks that Matthews has a perfect right to run for the Senate in Pennsylvania. And if the people of PA think that President Obama needs a smart spewtron fan in the Senate, they should elect Matthews in 2010.
But the Hardballer should not be able to use his MSNBC gig to support his candidacy, nor should viewers have to put up with deliberate "softballing" of Democrats as he sucks up to big D's in pursuit of his political career.
This principle of one thing at a time is important to keeping trust with audiences: MSNBC should understand that any high-profile side-deals by its talent will inevitably pollute the brand.
That's why Dan Abrams should not be able to use his MSNBC gig--or the continued appearance of an MSNBC gig--to push his own private venture. (Which reminds me to check: as of Sunday morning, the MSNBC website still lists Abrams as "Chief Legal Correspondent for NBC News and MSNBC.")
Abrams doesn't seem too anxious to clear up the confusion, does he? Or maybe it's his enemies doing it to him, trying to make Abrams look bad. If so, the enemies are winning.
