UPDATED: The Matthews Speaking Fee Controversy
ThinkProgress has learned that NBC anchor Chris Matthews has received tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for delivering speeches to corporate interest groups. Matthews’s speaking engagements appear to be in direct violation of NBC’s policy prohibiting its employees from accepting such fees.
Last week Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest documented Matthews’s speaking engagements, but was unable to confirm whether he was paid.
In 2002, Howard Kurtz reported in the Washington Post:
I’ve been critical of journalistic buckraking since the mid-1990s, when I wrote about a $30,000 speech that Sam Donaldson had given to an insurance group…The issue began to fade as a number of news organizations, including ABC and NBC, banned the practice.
Three trade associations independently confirmed to ThinkProgress that Matthews spoke for hefty fees on several occasions, as recently as last year:
- The National Venture Capital Assocation (NVCA) confirmed that Matthews spoke at its 2005 Annual Meeting. NVCA told Think Progress that it booked Matthews through the Washington Speakers Bureau and that he received a fee of approximately $35,000. He received speaking fees from NCVA on at least two other occasions.
- The National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) confirmed that Matthews spoke at its 2001 Annual Meeting. NACDS said it booked Matthews through the Washington Speakers Bureau and that he received a fee for speaking.
- The American Hospital Association (AHA) confirmed that Matthews spoke at its 2005 Annual Meeting. AHA said it booked Matthews through the Washington Speakers Bureau and that he received a fee for speaking.
In an email to ThinkProgress, MSNBC President Rick Kaplan said information that Matthews was paid to speak to outside groups was, “Totally untrue…totally.” He provided no evidence to support his claim.
UPDATE: On Thursday, we were contacted by MSNBC President Rick Kaplan who elaborated the blanket denial (“Totally untrue…totallyâ€) he provided to ThinkProgress pre-publication. According to Kaplan, while these groups may have paid fees for Matthews to speak, the fees did not go to Matthews directly, but to a charity of Matthews’s choosing. Kaplan added that NBC policy prohibited anchors from personally accepting speaking fees and anyone who did so “would risk being fired.â€
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
59 Responses to “UPDATED: The Matthews Speaking Fee Controversy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
SOUNDS LIKE KAPLAN’S A LIAR.
OF COURSE, I WOULD EXPECT AS MUCH FROM THE HEAD OF MSRNC.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:35 pmIt certainly looks to be true when you look at the WSB’s web site. It has “Fee code” right on the page, and when you click on it, it gives the applicable pay scale. It doesn’t mention how much WSB would take as a cut, but I’m certain they don’t get 100%.
Does Fox News have this policy? I’ll bet Hannity, O’Reilly, et al get lots of cash from speaking engagements because journalist ethical policies don’t exist over there.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pmI would bet that FOx requires their big dogs to go out and sell the cause. The guys get big $$ for speaking and they are essentially getting paid to advertise Fox news and views. Its all about the $$ with these people.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:44 pmUh oh.
Too bad IRS records aren’t public record. It’d be real easy to see if he got paid.
Of course, are any of the companies he spoke to publicly held companies? If so, their records could be public.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:59 pmYeah, and I know where the damn missing WMDs are…
-
March 15th, 2006 at 2:01 pmMove along! Nothing to see here! Party’s over, folks!
March 15th, 2006 at 2:01 pmSounds like we need a conference on blogger ethics to sort this out…
-
March 15th, 2006 at 2:02 pmYes!!
March 15th, 2006 at 2:03 pmIn the last week or so, I wrote to David McCormick, VP of NBCUNI.com (I think that indicates NBC-Universal). In a carefully worded, diplomatic Email, I asked about the news reports claiming Matthews had accepted speaking fees, against NBC ethics rules, while purporting to be an objective journalist on MSNBC. I also noted his connection to Jack Abramoff and the Capital Athletic Fund dinner.
He sent a typical, terse, corporate reply:
You have accused Chris Matthews of accepting speaking fees from “various conservative, Republican, and other political groups.”
Can you please give me specifics…names of the groups, the date of the appearances and proof of speaking fees.
I shall look into the matter.
Thank you.
David McCormick
Vice President
News Policies
NBC News
He would not accept my inquiry; he tossed it back with “prove it.”
I am glad to see TP has dug into this matter and provided some of the “proof.”
BTW, I did write back to McCormick to express what I thought about his reply.
Just a quibble. The middle example shows a 2001 date. Since the Kurtz quote was circa 2002, that doesn’t present a strong argument that this one was in violation of the ban. At least I don’t see a specific date that NBC banned fees.
However, two time is plenty to demonstrate that the guy is in the wrong. And from an ethical standpoint, once would be sufficient.
I’m so proud to see the way our media people operate.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:05 pmChris Matthews, part of the good’ol “Liberal” media. Where do the cons come up with this stuff? I hope TP digs into FOX “News” next.
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
Progressive commentary on the issues that really matter
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
March 15th, 2006 at 2:06 pmThe home of Florida’s progressive community
#10 - Chris Matthews, part of the good’ol “Liberal†media. Where do the cons come up with this stuff?
Excellent. Well said!
March 15th, 2006 at 2:10 pmBesides the possible violation of NBC rules, I fail to see the big deal in reporters/media types getting payed to speak. Why does this matter enough to have been made against company regulations?
March 15th, 2006 at 2:12 pmwere the fees confirmed or not? the post does not answer that.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:13 pmnor, when challenged by dave mccormack does the writer provide that information.
accusations of the nature “your man is doing wrong. please look into it and see if you can clear him of whatever he might have done” are pretty damn annoying. well, it might get a person a job with the NY Times or such. No, really. The Times is looking for those kind of reporters.
Fox-TV is well known as the voice of the White House, so their anchors accepting speaking fees is irrelevant — besides, I doubt FOX has any ethics restrictions.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:21 pmIt is the national, network and cable news anchors who are supposed to be objective, who are supposed to remain “neutral.” Until they all declare themselves as spokesmen for Bush&Co, they are bound by certain rules. After all, they are “public” airways, at least for now.
Matthews is another glowing example of the so-called, “liberal” press - there is no liberal press. The press was purchased a long time ago.
What the hell are the Republicans going to do when they lose power and want answers and all they get are lies? Rules, laws, agreements, treaties, why bother if the people in charge never uphold any of this or use it at their convenience. I say ignore the Uber-egos and get as many young people as everyone knows to just have them ask You & me for info and blog links. Constitutional amendment needed: Change voting day to Saturday. AND Term Limits. The MSM just buys ad time, everytime I watch Wackjob, he spits and dribbles and blurts for a few seconds and then it’s a commercial I see this as just as inscestous as the Congress and the lobbyist, face time for money.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:25 pmWhy does this matter enough to have been made against company regulations?
Comment by squegeeboo — March 15, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
The appearance of impropriety, he can not get money from corporations and then seem unbiased if he fails to report things negative, so he tries to keep the money secret…
March 15th, 2006 at 2:28 pmThe best “impartial” journalism that money can buy.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:30 pmMarie since Faux is run by a former repug operative they probably have the same rules as those repugs in congress and the administration;
Grab it quick and as fast as youy can…
March 15th, 2006 at 2:31 pm#14 you might modify that from Fox is the voice of the White House to Fox is a cheerleader for the White House and the Voice of the Republican Party.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#12 - Conflict of interest. Interesting coming from Howard Kurtz, who holds himself out as a media watchdog/critic, but works for the WA Post.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:37 pmBesides the possible violation of NBC rules, I fail to see the big deal in reporters/media types getting payed to speak. Why does this matter enough to have been made against company regulations?
He tries to portray himself as impartial, but takes money from corporate or right-leaning interests. I know it’s a foreign issue to conservatives, but most professions have a code of ethics.
Sounds like Matthews broke it.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:41 pmSorta like Tucker Carlson’s dad working on Scooter Leaky’s defense fund. Every single peep out of his mouth has been negative Fitz. But did he ever say his dad was involved, no. There are no degrees of seperation. I’d be interested to see if some one at NBC’s ad division contacted any of these groups after Wackjob spoke to hustle them for placement. That’s where it would get ugly to me. You know let Chris out for some freelance ad work. This should keep cooking for a while this really asks some good questions. Thanks for the Topic.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:45 pmIf only it were possible for Keith Olbermann to nominate Rick Kaplan and Chris Matthews as Worst Persons in the World. Kaplan’s defense seems to be predicated upon the old [I believe] Groucho Marx line; “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes”?
March 15th, 2006 at 2:51 pmdidnt rick kaplan of MSNBC get fired recently?
March 15th, 2006 at 2:51 pmHere at Jossip, we predict the future. As in, sometime in the near future, Rick Kaplan is gonna get the boot at MSNBC — something we’ve been rumoring about for months. But he’s not the only one on the chopping block. Everyone at MSNBC – save the Tucker’s, Rita’s, Chris’s, and Joe’s – might be seeing more pink than their Secaucus makeup room can offer.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:55 pm#16 thanks, never thought of it that way before. Always knew about the ‘conflict of argument’ reasoning, but always thought that honest people will be honest, and dis-honest will find some way to get something from it either way, such as perks instead of money, but the appearance issue is a new take on it for me.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:57 pm“Fair enough. Ha!”
March 15th, 2006 at 2:59 pmChris Mathews is an ugly skank. Hope he gets his ass fired. If not, hope he gets himself involved with Repub corruption and ends up in disgrace. I wish him the absolute worst in life.
March 15th, 2006 at 3:12 pmBOYCOTT MSNBC, WATCH FAUXBOY MATTHEWS SHOW AND SEE WHO ADVERTIESES ON HIS SHOW, EMAIL THEM AND TELL THEM YOU’LL BE BOYCOTTING THEM UNTIL HE’S FIRED!
March 15th, 2006 at 3:56 pmFire Tweety and replace him with David Gregory!
March 15th, 2006 at 4:34 pmI thought I was going to be sick the other knight listening to Chris Matthews kissing up to one of the White House’s Assistant Press Secretary. It is obvious that Matthews is on the take.
March 15th, 2006 at 4:36 pmhmmm….
Andrea Mitchell gets “30-50K” per speaking engagement….
http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/ sportspeakers/ browsecategory.php?maincategory=113
and the same site lists Brian Williams, Al Roker, and whole host of other NBC personalities
(geez, even liberal icon Eric Alterman, who works for MSNBC’s web site, is listed….)
March 15th, 2006 at 4:39 pmpoo-squeegie
Are you really young, or really entrenched in the whole avoidance of reality thing. “Ethics” and “code of ethics” are things that a profession has to maintain the integrity of the profession, they are rules that the professional is expected to abide by. The “code of ethics” were designed by panels, committees, and various professionals in the field for practical reasons. It’s as important as a mission or vision statement. The code of ethics for a given profession provide legitamacy, professionalism, and ensure the profession is recognized as a profession. If professional codes of ethics were not followed the profession would no longer exist. Kinda like how it seems real journalism is so scarce, the ethics are not being followed as much nowadays.
March 15th, 2006 at 4:39 pm26,
Squeegee poo
Appearance is everything to conservatives. Do you even know why you are a conservative? Besides your parents telling you to be one?
March 15th, 2006 at 4:43 pmCHRIS MATTHEWS HAS NO SHAME OR ETHICS. HE HAS BECOME IMHO A FLACK FOR BUSHCO. HE CONSTANTLY BOOKS HIS SHOW WITH REPUG PUNDITS AND ON OCCASION WILL ADD A DEMOCRAT AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO APPEAR ‘BALANCED’. IF MSNBC HAD ANY SCRUPLES THEY’D ADD A TRUE PROGRESSIVE HOST AND REMOVE RITA COSBY.
March 15th, 2006 at 4:53 pmIf Matthews has a contract with NBC wouldn’t the contract terms spell out whether he can or can’t accept speaker fees? If he had an attorney to help negotiate that contract and didn’t have a carve-out for that,his attorney committed malpractice.
March 15th, 2006 at 5:25 pmHmmm…I wonder what Matthew’s home/s look like. I’m sure he is highly paid at MSNBC/NBC, but it would be interesting to see if he lives much larger then others with his income. It wasn’t hard to figure out Duke was living way above a congressmen’s salary….I’ll bet anything, Chrisypoo lives quite the grand life as a paid neocon shill.
March 15th, 2006 at 5:45 pmdoesn’t chris matthews have a twin brother, a troubled twin brother? the answer may lie with him…
March 15th, 2006 at 6:12 pmSee the Daily Howler (7/22/04) about Chris’ Nantucket get-away. As Somerby says,you’re paying for it.
March 15th, 2006 at 6:19 pmIf he had an attorney to help negotiate that contract and didn’t have a carve-out for that,his attorney committed malpractice.
Comment by TJM — March 15, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
Or certain portions of the contract are dead letter for all intents and purposes.
Matthews: “I wanted to ask you about this clause.. the one about charging fees..”
March 15th, 2006 at 6:19 pmNBC boss: “What clause? What fees?”
Matthews: “You know, the one that says I can’t charge fees for speeches”
NBC boss: “Oh yeah! That one… don’t worry… it’s a standard contract. We all had to sign it. We know you will never break our code of ethics” [wink, nod, smirk]
MAYBE IT’S TIME TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE ADS. AND STOP BUYING THE PRODUCTS.
March 15th, 2006 at 6:21 pmGregor,the wink and a nod approach is common,I suppose,but I do wonder whether Matthews’ has a contract to allow him to collect outside fees since he is a “personality” not a journalist. Although that part is pretty obvious.
March 15th, 2006 at 6:54 pm[…] Meanwhile, proof recently emerged that Matthews accepts speaking fees from corporate groups. Previous: George Lucas and Paris Hilton || Home || No Comments so far Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Basic HTML is allowed. Including more than one link makes you look like a spammer and will cause your comment to be held in moderation. […]
March 15th, 2006 at 7:19 pmEither the President of MSNBC is lying or Matthews is lying to the President of MSNBC. I wonder which one is really is???
March 15th, 2006 at 7:20 pmIt’s one thing to consent to speaking engagements at non-partisan events; it’s another thing to speak at distinctly political events, while claiming to be objective.
March 15th, 2006 at 7:33 pmJoe Scarborough was on stage with Bush last summer on Bush’s social security circuit. We all know Scarborough is Republican, but even so, as his present career is that of a news anchor, it was unseemly for him to be there.
Tweety is a huge offender of the NBC ethics clause.
#19, Mark,
March 15th, 2006 at 7:34 pmI agree, your version is indeed more accurate.
[…] Proof that Chris Matthews accepts speaking fees from corporate groups. Previous: Keith Olbermann Doesn’t Hate Bill O’Reilly || Home || Next: Conservatives Who Oppose Bush 1 Comment so far […]
March 15th, 2006 at 7:36 pmChris Matthews violates NBC rules…
Think Progress has the details:ThinkProgress has learned that NBC anchor Chris Matthews has received tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for delivering speeches to corporate interest groups. Matthews’s speaking engagements appear to be in direct …
March 15th, 2006 at 8:01 pmDoes anybody know what he spoke to the groups about?
I’d love to see copies of the speeches, or hear from people in the audiences who heard what he said.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:54 pmBlaahhh Blaahhh Goes the matthews media sheep whore, drunk on lies, a full fledged member of the Orwellian Crazy Farm.
“4 legs good!, 35 K better!”
“4 legs good!, 35 K better!”
Matthews bleated.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:55 pmChris Matthews is nothing more than a media WHORE who would sell his mind, body, soul and opinion to anyone with a dollar. Edward R must be rolling over in his grave everytime Matthews name is mentioned along with “real” journalism.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:58 pmA few years back, I attended a conference organized by a big bank that had Fred Barnes and Eleanor Clift doing a point - counterpoint thing. I know that both were paid speakers at this event. I do not believe this is unusual; maybe Chris Matthews violated NBC’s rules, but then what does that prove? Who are GE and NBC to talk about rules and ethics? Please ….
Mr. Matthews is an opportunist trying to earn a living like the rest of the good citizens of this nation. There is something to be said for caveat emptor, …. fool me once …. foll me twice …., fool me every evening of every day ….
March 15th, 2006 at 9:19 pmI just rented “Good Night and Good Luck” last night. I’m planning to see it tommorrow
March 15th, 2006 at 11:11 pmnight after Countdown and CSI. This film should remind us of what used to count as great journalism. Chris Matthews, O’Lielly, Scarborough, Throaty McHuskington and the rest of the McCarthy lovers should be tied to their chairs by Mr. Olbermann and us and forced to watch this movie several times till they see the light.
[…] Perhaps Mr. Kaplan should have a sit-down talk with Mr. Matthews and figure this out. Permalink| […]
March 16th, 2006 at 12:43 amJIMBO -
You won’t be disappointed. It was the first movie I actually applauded in the movie theater during the film.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:02 amchrissy the repub whore, should be on fox.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:17 amI see no reason to believe the man’s lying, although I’d like to see a little evidence.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:35 amWell, what about the charity explanation? If it’s true, is Matthews off the hook for violating that particular MSNBC policy? I’m not saying Matthews isn’t a media whore, just that we may not have an airtight gotcha in this particular case.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:16 pmSo ask him which charities he gave money to, and confirm it with them.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:16 pm