MSNBC host Chris Matthews was a guest on Larry Elder’s conservative radio talk show, a visit arranged by his publicist to market Matthews’ new hagiography on Jack Kennedy. Elder was hardly friendly, immediately shifting into an adversarial mode and challenging the surprised Matthews on his integrity as a journalist, objectivity and  fairness. After Matthews absurdly described himself as “slightly to the left” politically (actually a fair description one upon a time, but no longer), Elder produced a recent clip of Matthews declaring that Republicans want “people who don’t have insurance to die on the gurney,” and enjoy “causing cruel pain on people.” When Matthews tried to explain, Elder broke in, saying, “I’m sorry for cutting you off the way you cut your guests off.”

That was the entire point of Elder’s performance. He set out to treat Matthews exactly as confrontationally, rudely, and unfairly as Matthews routinely treats his own guests onj “Hardball” when they hail from the other side of the political spectrum. He was an excellent mimic. He gave Matthews “a taste of his own medicine,” as the old saying goes. Even a fan of the MSNBC host might have smiled at it. Chris has had this coming for a long, long time.

But was it ethical for Elder to give it to him?

The rule in ethics is that the bad conduct of another doesn’t justify you acting as badly or worse toward that individual or another—two wrongs don’t make a right. Matthews may have richly deserved to feel the effects of his own increasingly over-the-top interview techniques, which are now part of the MSNBC brand. It still doesn’t make Elder’s use of them any less unprofessional or unfair. Matthews was clearly under the impression that he would be given the chance to talk about his book, “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero.” He was ambushed; Elder set out to embarrass him and put him on the defensive, and did an expert job.

Yet the fact that conduct is unethical doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t have beneficial effects. Matthews is a thoughtful man, and does have integrity; it is quite possible that Elder’s message might have gotten through. We shall see. It was impressive that Matthews never quit the interview (it was by phone), for Elder seemed to be trying to make him hang up. Matthews took his medicine. He deserves credit for that. He didn’t run and hide.

At one point, Matthews told Elder that his interview “is why this country is being torn apart, with this kind of hatred.” He was right, as was Elder’s rejoinder that Matthews seemed to think the same tactics were all right when Matthews employed them.

Maybe he won’t think so any more. I don’t believe Elder was trying to reform Matthews, I think he was punishing him. If his tit-for-tat lesson has a good effect, Elder’s not getting any credit from me. Nevertheless, it’s possible.