NYT reporter: Misdirecting on Clinton stories is what Media Matters "exists to do"

A rare and enjoyable moment of open dissent on Alex Wagner’s MSNBC show today as both New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters and Bloomberg reporter Josh Green refuse to recognize the House of David Brock’s Hair as the legitimate news source is very definitely is.

JEREMY PETERS, NEW YORK TIMES: The Clinton campaign is certainly already taken some steps to try to get ahead of public relations problems like that, for example, Hillary resigned from the board. I think they’re going to have to be more transparent about the speaking fees because those questions are just going to keep on piling up.

What I wonder is if the Clinton message machine ever decides to kind of recalibrate and dial it back a little bit. Because right now, and this isn’t all coming from the Clinton camp itself but from the orbit around them where you have these people whose main goal is to misdirect and obfuscate every time there’s the slightest bit of criticism about the Clintons leadership.

Well, in their mind they’re not misinforming and obfuscating, they’re “clarifying.”

JOSHUA GREEN, BLOOMBERG: I don’t think that’s true at all Alex. They know what they are doing.

PETERS: Exactly. They are definitely misdirecting here. I mean, this is what Media Matters exists to do.

Peters is on a roll. This from “Morning Joe”:

Peters worried that legitimate questions about the Clinton Foundation are “going to be obscured by all of this character assassination that you’re seeing. When, in fact, the real question is not about Peter Schweizer, it’s not about whatever book he may have written about Disney before. I’ve met Peter Schweizer myself. He has very good, strong working relationships with a lot of journalists in Washington, and they guy has an ideology certainly, but I wouldn’t say that he’s an ideologue. But what we’re seeing consistently from the Clinton world, is that there appears to be no criticism of her leadership, of the former president’s leadership that is legitimate. And that is going to be a real problem going forward, because they’re basically saying ‘off-limits, anything you want to say, anything you want to report about their background, you’re biased. you have an ax to grind, and you’re part of the vast right wing conspiracy.’”

Annnd, Peters vs. Howard Dean.