Is Andrea Mitchell a Wingnut?

The great majority of them are one and the same. Even when they're blissfully unaware of it, all republicans do the bidding of their wealthy masters.

'Nuff said.

I must have been the only one on D.U. not aware of this!

Greenspan is a lifelong admirer of Ayn Rand. He knew her personally, and was devoted to her.

about. I didn't know Mitchell was his wife though. A Rand devotee? That explains our economy going down the tubes.

trust Republicans with a real economy.

The economic genius that helped quarterback the disaster of an economy President Obama inherited.

I didn't know who her hub was. This explains a lot.

and to whom she is married is irrelevant to the job she does (contrary to opinion of some.)

however, in this thread so far, it seems to be the opinion of all. Due to your comment, however, I shall keep an open mind.

had a VERY long 'debate' with DUers on the subject (generally) some time ago. I don't watch her every day, but whenever I do, my opinion is confirmed. (and as I've noted, Rachel appears to share my opinion, fwiw.)

Not surprised this thread doesn't accord with my opinion; hence not reading the thread!

No doubt about it.

....for expressing it.

I share the opinion that Mitchell is right of center, and I am neither ignorant nor prejudiced in any way.

Maddow gets along with Mitchell because they both share common support of equal pay for women and other women's rights that should have been corrected long ago. But, other than that, they do NOT share common political beliefs, and I've been watching Mitchell since the 1970s.

She was also one of the journalists to whom Valarie Plame's name was leaked, a Bush Administration plan of revenge on her husband Joe Wilson for his report that Niger "yellowcake" was not being sold to Iraq.

But I will say that sometimes her reporting slides a bit to a Republican slant. This happens to every broadcast reporter, since they speak often adlib with out the advantage of editorial review.

However, she does go at dems harder than repubs. It's annoying.

connections of journalists to major power are always relevant.

and if anyone says journalists are impartial and these things don't play into how they perform their jobs, i say BS.

but nutz works

sure about the wing.

what worries me more though is the content of todays show, and the prospect of another "compromise" cave in... how is this possible after a mandate victory?

And grew up at the feet of Ayn Rand.

Unlike most DUers, I find Andrea tolerably non-partisan on the whole in her news coverage. She blows both ways. I think the same of Chuck Todd. Around here people think all MSNBC pundits should lean toward liberals.

I'm a lot more left than they are mostly, but I tolerate more diversity in my entertainment. I even somehow like Michael Steele. Go figure.

--imm

... an open mind. You and elleng seem to agree. It was the content of todays show I found troubling.

--imm

I wonder what DUers are seeing that I am missing. I think it's a plethora of confirmation bias.

I appreciate your concordance, and your posts.

--imm

Ayan Ryan follower. First,she is not a journalist,never was and never will be. Second,her job was a give me by Jack Welch and G.E.,as a payback to Greenpants. Third,it's all about the D.C. cocktail circuit and the Pundtocracy. Fourth,if anybody thinks the media isn't biased,you are living under rocks.

I've seen on D.U. you have.

Having a spine is a dangerous thing.

and you appear to be confused about the history of parties to this particular marriage: Alan Greenspan is/was the ayn rand follower.

Furthermore, about her career and private life:

She went on to receive a B.A. in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania in 1967, where she served as news director of student radio station WXPN. She stayed in Philadelphia after graduation, hired as a reporter at KYW radio. Mitchell rose to prominence as the station's City Hall correspondent, and also reported for sister station KYW-TV. She moved to CBS affiliate WTOP in Washington, D.C., in 1976. Two years later, Mitchell moved to NBC's network news operation, where she served as a general correspondent. In 1979, she was named the NBC News energy correspondent and reported on the late 1970s energy crisis and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Mitchell also covered the White House from 1981 until becoming chief congressional correspondent in 1988.

She married her second husband, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, twenty years her senior, in 1997.

. . . is off the table. That was good to hear today.

I knew it was anyway.. But, I'm glad Schumer's out there verifying for those who just don't or won't get it.

WE WON, brush! Nevada..thanks to you and all those who helped get us Nevada!

Right-wingnut from birth.

Both she and Chris Matthews are simply savvy enough to see which way the wind is blowing at the moment. Perception is everything and there is no memory in media.

She's on MSNBC, but she's about as liberal as Joe Scarborough.

If you watch her show, you will find that she allows Republicans to recite RW talking points, almost unquestioned. Occasionally, she asks them a follow up, but its usually worded to give them an easy OUT.

When she talks to other talking heads, she tries her best to frame the discussion within RW boundaries. When a Dem is on, she tries to frame the questions in a manner negative to the President and the left.

But she's not good at it. What you can notice (and this is what might have raised your radar) is that she stutters a bunch as she tries to bridge her way to the RW talking point and framing. Its noticeable. You can see her trying to build the question so it reinforces some RW perspective. But it takes her too long. So she stumbles verbally as she does so.

You can also notice when a strong dem smacks one of her silly framings into the cheap seats. She becomes very flustered. Because her efforts to reframe things in a RW model causes her to make mistakes, she can't respond when a stronger Dem point those out and disagrees with her framing.

I think she can swallow whatever value Mr G sends her way.

beyond that she needs to be ignored.

I've noticed it again and again and again and again and I've sent I don't know how many e-mails to MSNBC over statements she's made. I started noticing it during the Occupy movement when she could barely contain her contempt for the participants. She invites right wing shills on her show and lets them ramble on while challenging liberals. In this clip with Chris Matthews she has a hard time containing her support for Mitt Romney. Matthews attacks Republicans in this clip and you can see how upset Mitchell looks. Matthews accuses Romney of having a hard time reaching people on an emotional level and proving that he's a human being. Mitchell abandons her unbiased journalist's hat and offers her opinion on Romney's wonderful heart and soul, arguing with Chris Matthews. Anyone who has watched Mitchell's show knows the subtle hints that she consistently sends out to show her political leanings.

“With all due respect, Mitt Romney did a very good job at that convention of showing the human side of Mitt Romney. (…) He did show the heart, the soul, and the man.”

social liberal , fiscal conservative.

She did at least appear in a couple MSNBC commercials where she spoke on women's rights and people's right to vote being at risk. And she also called out Sununu for calling Obama dumb and lazy. I know others on this site have problems with her, but I think people like Hannity and O'Reilly are far worse hands down. Those two don't even try to hide their bias against Democrats and liberals, and they always say blatantly racist things on the air, whether it's Hannity and him constantly trying to make some scandal out of 2 or 3 black guys at some polling place, or O'Reilly calling blacks and Latinos "people who want stuff". Andrea doesn't always call out the GOP as much as I'd like, and I think she sometimes tries too hard to appear neutral, but at least her show is tolerable.

They don't work for a news network.

I imagine there's a good chance she's a republican because of who she's married to, but I think she tries hard to cover it. More than right wing politics, I believe she has a great sense of accomplishment for smashing the glass ceiling as a news anchor. I think she strives to appear objective so as not to lose journalistic credibility.

Ms Mitchell tries to get the quotable quotes and let the pundits sort it out later on the evening shows. Because she doesn't dress down her subjects like Lawrence O'Donnell would, she can raise the short hairs of many a DUer for letting republicans lie to her (our) face. Because of this though she can snag the interviews that evade others on MSNBC.

lazy and whatever, she reacted (to the extent she ever reacts....she's a stalwart old-time journalist who does not show emotion). She cocked her head ever so slightly to the side and her eyes did a short, but definite, something weird, and she asked Sununu, "Did you just call the President lazy?" In her ladylike and journalistic way, she called him on the disrespectful statement. Of course, being full of hate, Sununu repeated his statement.

n/t

And spins to the right far more than calling the RW nuts on their BS