He screwed up, but I think I'd have to agree that he's more being punished for Chris Matthews' sins than for his own. What he did is by no means worse than stuff MSNBC gives a free pass to all the time. And as long as I'm making sure that General Electric News will never have me on, why not like again to "The Unbearable Inanity of Tim Russert".
« On The Record | Main | Cluster Bombs »
Shuster Out
09 Feb 2008 11:32 am
Comments (51)
"I think I'd have to agree that he's more being punished for Chris Matthews' sins than for his own."
Yup. Most definitely.
Though if he'd been smart enough to quickly figure out that he'd crossed a rhetorical line and apologized, he'd have avoided the punishment. Stonewalling was the wrong response.
-----
Given the Obama enthusiasm amongst the MSM, Team Clinton is going to have to mau-mau the media to win this thing.
And Shuster gave them a perfect opening.
A) The TPM post, while titled "He's outta here," only repeats the news that he's suspended.
B) This is another fake controversy. He said something stupid, he initially defended himself, and then he came around - whether forced to or on his own.
This idiotic comment, balanced against years of great reporting, is incredibly insignificant and only being highlighted by a bored media and Matt Drudge.
To think that THIS is what gets and MSNBC political reporter/commenter (in the role he was playing at the time) suspended on a network with Tucker, Matthews, Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough - amongst others - it's a joke.
We should all be embarrassed.
Hillary's trying to force her PCness on the rest of us. Have you ever watched the MTV show Pimp My Ride? What Shuster said was no different. Pimp is now a normal word used without any suggestive connotations. This is another attempt at faux outrage by Hillary.
He's been suspended; I doubt he'll be fired.
Shuster said a stupid thing, but he's a pretty talented reporter.
He is talented. I hope that he keeps his job. I'd hate to see his career ruined, even though his comment was really tasteless and dumb.
Other than this tasteless and offensive moment, Shuster is one of the good guys. What happens to his spot on "Bush League Justice" series now?
"Shuster said a stupid thing, but he's a pretty talented reporter."
No doubt. He's one of the most interesting folks to watch in cablenewsland.
-----
MSNBC really is putting together an impressive stable. Schuster, Todd, and now Maddow (!).
I still watch CNN on election night's, since they've got such great factual breakdowns, but every other day of the year, all the interesting talkers are over on MSNBC.
Dan Abrams has done some very good work over there.
The only real problems - Matthews and Russert - are holdovers from the evil Jack Welch era.
I'm glad to see I'm not alone in thinking this is a crazy over-reaction. Shuster is one of the best reporters on MSNBC. I know that's a low bar, but I'm a big fan of his work as a correspondent for Countdown.
And I watched the clip (media matters has it here). I'll agree, there's nothing wrong with Chelsea working with the campaign. At the same time, I also agree that if she's going to be a political operative the press is entitled to treat her like one. And it's really annoying that this context of the "pimped out" comment is now lost forever in the blog-rage.
"I'm glad to see I'm not alone in thinking this is a crazy over-reaction"
And I'm glad to see the that the Obamabots have no conception of what a perfectly normal reaction would be for Shuster, while working for an Obama slanting network, calling Chelsea a hooker.
If the Obama army had even the vaguest idea of how the game gets played, they might even have a shot at winning the nomination. But they don't, so they keep amped up a narrative that works against their messiah.
Team Clinton will successfully be able to take more and more aggressive shots at a media that is clearly working hand in glove for their opponent, and leverage it to their significant benefit.
br, she's not a frickin' "political operative," she's a daughter supporting her mother, and even if she were a "political operative," that wouldn't provide "pimped out" a "context:" it's simply a dopy comment.
i don't watch any of these morons, so i'll take others word for it that shuster is not normally a jerk, but his willful refusal to back down makes it hard for me to believe he's not normally a jerk: what is it about media clowns that makes it so hard for them to acknowledge that sometimes sheer rubbish comes out of their mouths?
it's really annoying that this context of the "pimped out" comment is now lost forever in the blog-rage.
Say what you like about the Clinton campaign, but it knows how to cash out an opportunity.
Shuster's emails to the Clinton comms. director made the point that journalists have been 'come down hard' upon by the campaign for simply trying to ask Chelsea questions. This ensures that she'll receive special treatment -- and before you jump down my throat, I mean 'hide behind the campaign when the press asks about her campaign work' -- for the duration.
If the Obama army had even the vaguest idea of how the game gets played, they might even have a shot at winning the nomination.
Unpleasant side effect of bringing lots of new people into politics and activism . . . . Still, you have to think their presence helps Obama more than than their credulity hurts him.
And this isn't David Axelrod's first rodeo; I've got to believe he grasps the import of this story.
"And this isn't David Axelrod's first rodeo"
Well, it sorta is, considering that he'd been relieved of his duties by November 2003, the last time around...
Team Clinton will successfully be able to take more and more aggressive shots at a media
Simply more evidence of the dictatorial nature of Hillary Clinton.
I find this absurd for a completely different reason. I was a teen during the Clinton years, and I remember people CONSTANTLY making jokes about Chelsea's appearance. Rush Limbaugh definitely did it. Adults did it. Kids did it.
Recently, St. McCain made a joke suggesting that Chelsea was unattractive because her father was Janet Reno. And the press covered up for him, but I heard it got a great laugh at the family values meeting to which he spoke.
All of this is deplorable. It's disgusting that the discourse was polluted with jokes making fun of a teenage girl for her looks, for no other reason than to tar her parents. People should be ashamed. But the press ensures that the Republican Nominee can do it without consequence, where radio personalities do it with almost no blowback, and where many everyday people do it without any criticism.
But, for some reason, this "pimp" comment is beyond the pale? I find that utterly strange.
Petey, you actually think David Shuster meant to say that Chelsea has sex with men for money?
Now that you're fully on board team Clinton, we'll see how far faux-outrage gets you, and them.
Once the media realizes they've been played by fake feelings, yet again, there will be a backlash indeed. Just not in the direction you, or MY, predict.
Anyway, Petey - welcome back, and please consent to do a podcast interview with Matt.
Your public is waiting.
she's not a frickin' "political operative," she's a daughter supporting her mother
But she's doing things that political operatives do, while the campaign sets up barriers for the press to even ask about it. That's a privilege that Tagg Romney didn't have.
I was sympathetic to Chelsea receiving greater protection from the campaign press pack during the early primaries, given the shit she had to deal with growing up in the White House. But she's a grown-up, and if she's providing more than set decoration and boilerplate rah-rahs at public events, that's newsworthy.
None of that justifies 'pimped out' as a description. But that particular stupid comment doesn't justify the campaign putting the squeeze on reporters who ask about Chelsea Clinton's personal outreach to superdelegates and celebrities.
I give you plenty of shit on threads where you don't call shenanigans on the insiders like Matthews and Russert, so just wanted to post to say kudos for taking them on. "General Electric News" indeed.
"If the Obama army had even the vaguest idea of how the game gets played, they might even have a shot at winning the nomination. But they don't, so they keep amped up a narrative that works against their messiah."
You're right, they're not nearly as successful at team Edwards, right Petey?
pseudonymous, she is not doing the things that "political operatives" do: she is making speeches on her mother's behalf, and sometimes she makes phone calls on her mother's behalf, as part of a brief leave of absence from her hedge fund.
and if she doesn't want to answer idiot questions from idiot reporters, power to her!
"Now that you're fully on board team Clinton, we'll see how far faux-outrage gets you, and them."
I feel only a very small amount of outrage at the corporate media channels pimping out the candidate who they see as least threatening to their corporate interests.
That's just what they do. Unions support a certain kind of candidate, and General Electric supports a different kind of candidate.
But as to what it'll get Team Clinton, I suspect it'll get them a lot. The media knows when it's gone overboard, and becomes very vulnerable to successful mau-mauing at that point.
See Dan Rather and Bush the Younger in '04.
See Dan Rather and Bush the Elder in '88.
When you give an opportunity for a major candidate to be a victim of your news organization, you're offering that candidate a major unintended gift.
And that's exactly the road Chris Matthews has been walking down, of late. Matthews is to Clinton as Rather was to both Bushes. You can win elections running against the media when the media takes sides.
howard,
The problem is not that the media are complaining that Chelsea doesn't want to answer questions, the problem is with Hillary dictating to the media that they can't ask her questions. If Chelsea wants to keep her life private, fine, but then she should stay out of the public arena.
You can win elections running against the media when the media takes sides.
Not when you have already cried wolf and your opponent in the general is St. Juan McCain.
Schuster must be so confused. MSNBC was just fine with Olbermann saying that Bush "pimped" Petraeus. So why should there be a problem with saying that Hillary "pimped" Chelsea? After all, if a network that is so in the tank fo Obama is going to allow them to use the word to bash Bush, what's the problem with using the work to bash a different Obama opponent?
and if she doesn't want to answer idiot questions from idiot reporters, power to her!
This is exactly right. Reporters act as if it is their God-given right to have all their questions answered. If Chelsea don't want to answer no questions, too f*&#ing bad for the reporters.
what's the problem with using the work to bash a different Obama opponent?
I appreciate that a large part of Al's job is pretending to be a moron, but I imagine days like this must be pretty wearing.
Shuster is a repulsive degenerate who lies and says nasty things about Republicans all the time without retribution. Double standards at work. Now it's good to see this p.o.s. get payback.
This post is a bit misleading, making it sound like msnbc fired instead of suspended him.
"What he did is by no means worse than stuff MSNBC gives a free pass to all the time."
You have got to be kidding. I'm not going to argue that they're perfectly even-handed; even I, an Obama guy, can see MSNBC trends Obama (with the quite significant exception of Abrams), but nothing even Chris Matthews says comes anywhere close to calling the candidate's daughter a whore.
The problem here was whoever decided to put a guy who does excellent firecracker four-minute fact pieces in the host chair for an hour. Those execs are just blanking dumb. And Abrams used to be one (still is?).
On the general MSM anti-Clinton bias charge, I think it is perfectly appropriate that the networks are tougher on the Clintons if they do in fact cultivate this intimdation routine, which I think is well documented. Campaigns make choices about how to handle the media, and those choices play out as they do. There is no law requiring perfect balance, keep in mind.
Mainly though, if everyone really thinks this Shuster thing is just par for the MSNBC course, then they really need to be throwing their examples up for examination. That goes for Yglesias, the campaigns, and everyone.
Peace.
Shuster is a straight reporter trying to play in the big leagues of msnbc stars. Sure, the Clintons are master manipulators, but is there anyway this would be said about any other candidate's kids?
Having an adult kid calling delegates is unseemly? Give me a break. Mundane politics. I get the slang and that msnbc all-stars have said worse, but it's pretty f'ed up and the Clintons might actually be genuinely pissed off on this one. They should at least get the benefit of the doubt.
I think there are a couple issues at play here.
First of all, there is a fundamental difference between attacking a candidate and attacking a candidate's children. Frankly the media can and do say just about anything they want about the candidates themselves. And no one really blinks. The right has been screaming about the Clinton's for years and on the left the vitriol directed at Shrub the Chimperor knows few limits. That's just normal political discourse. So Olberman talking about Bush pimping out Petraeus is in a different category
Second, the children of candidates are really in a tough spot. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The children of all the candidates have parents who have basically dedicated themselves singlemindedly to a single cause for a year or two. If your Dad or Mom is campaigning for president about the only way you'll ever have the slightest chance to see them is if you tag along. I'm willing to bet Hillary's schedule doesn't allow much time for relaxed weekends in NYC visiting her daughter. And if your parent is running for office and you aren't 100% supportive that becomes a story in itself. Witness the Giuliani children.
Finally the media has a sordid history of trashing Chelsea to a far greater degree than they ever attacked the Bush twins, who frankly are much more deserving targets of scrutiny.
Frankly I think the Clintons were laying down a marker rather than playing faux victim for current media effect. If she goes on to win the nomination and White House she's saying "lay the fuck off my kid".
Now as for the entirely separate matter of whether or not Chelsea is media-accessible. That's a big so-what. She's not obligated to do any interviews. If reporters want to make that a story then its fair game.
All of this mealy-mouthed crap about what a "talent" Shuster is is a joke. He is and always has been a complete media whore with no decency and no real regard for anything but David Shuster. Fuck him. This is from a Glenn Greenwald column:
"I previously thought that the worst and most anger-inducing period of time to research was the late 2002/early 2003 "debate" over whether to invade Iraq, but the trashy filth which spewed forward on a virtually nightly basis during the Lewinskly "scandal" is actually far worse. As but one example, here is how David Shuster led off Tony Snow's Fox program on March 15, 1998:
SHUSTER: Once a reluctant witness, former White House aide Kathleen Willey described to Kenneth Starr's grand jury, and earlier to attorneys for Paula Jones, a 1993 meeting with President Clinton. Willey wanted to discuss a personal crisis with the president. But the encounter, she says, soon became sexual.
"The hug just continued longer than I expected."
Jones attorney Donovan Campbell -- "Was there any kissing involved during that hug?"
"There was an attempt."
"Please describe that as fully as you can."
"He attempted to kiss me."
"Mr. Clinton did?"
"Yes."
"On the lips?"
"Yes."
"Did Mr. Clinton ever seek to take either of your hands and place it on his body any place?"
"Yes."
"Please describe that."
"He put his hands -- he put my hands on his genitals. I recall him saying he had wanted to do that for a long time." "
I hope David Shuster ends up covering Pee Wee Hockey in North Dakota. Who needs idiots like him and for what?
What an idiotic controversy.
Is everyone in this hread a square or what?
The word pimp today is used in many different ways that old people seem not to understand.
The folks who are saying it is calling Chelsea a whore are reactionary fools who need to get outside more.
Frankly, I think the Clintons drummed this up bc it fits into their race baiting strategy. Or their victim strategy.
Because today in youth culture, being a pimp is a GOOD thing and has nothing to do with whores.
Act like you know.
Glad to see I injected some life back into this thing.
Here goes:
LarryMoeWhatever: You obviously hold the trump card on Shuster-research--I tip my hat. But it doesn't look like he was doing much more than setting up some audio or video in your quote. The problem with the Lewinsky thing never was the mainstream press--what, they weren't going to cover it? It was out-of-control investigators fueled by the right-wing machine and the Republicans thmeselves.
Getting back to recent memory, if you don't think Shuster's coverage of Libbygate for NBC was of decent quality, fine. I'm not trying to make him into some latter day Murrow. I just think he did a pretty okay job of keeping a lot of facts together for people who don't spend every waking minute on news. They should keep him on that stuff and not let his idiot reptile brain off script. In no way am I sayinf he didn't make his own bed, especially if, as is of course the case, he's pushing for maximum airtime. He's just obviously not ready for primetime in the host chair.
As for "pimp" being good? Muncher, I would say the problem is exactly that: Shuster talked "like he knew." aka, he forgot himself. That's what makes Matthews the pro and Shuster not-ready-for-prime-time. You're saying you want "pimps and hos" to fly on NBC? Good luck with that.
I'm still waiting for all the clips of Matthews going anywhere near where Shuster did.
Pumped to hear yall's comments, yo!
Glad to see I injected some life back into this thing.
Here goes:
LarryMoeWhatever: You obviously hold the trump card on Shuster-research--I tip my hat. But it doesn't look like he was doing much more than setting up some audio or video in your quote. The problem with the Lewinsky thing never was the mainstream press--what, they weren't going to cover it? It was out-of-control investigators fueled by the right-wing machine and the Republicans thmeselves.
Getting back to recent memory, if you don't think Shuster's coverage of Libbygate for NBC was of decent quality, fine. I'm not trying to make him into some latter day Murrow. I just think he did a pretty okay job of keeping a lot of facts together for people who don't spend every waking minute on news. They should keep him on that stuff and not let his idiot reptile brain off script. In no way am I sayinf he didn't make his own bed, especially if, as is of course the case, he's pushing for maximum airtime. He's just obviously not ready for primetime in the host chair.
As for "pimp" being good? Muncher, I would say the problem is exactly that: Shuster talked "like he knew." aka, he forgot himself. That's what makes Matthews the pro and Shuster not-ready-for-prime-time. You're saying you want "pimps and hos" to fly on NBC? Good luck with that.
I'm still waiting for all the clips of Matthews going anywhere near where Shuster did.
Pumped to hear yall's comments, yo!
Glad to see I injected some life back into this thing.
Here goes:
LarryMoeWhatever: You obviously hold the trump card on Shuster-research--I tip my hat. But it doesn't look like he was doing much more than setting up some audio or video in your quote. The problem with the Lewinsky thing never was the mainstream press--what, they weren't going to cover it? It was out-of-control investigators fueled by the right-wing machine and the Republicans thmeselves.
Getting back to recent memory, if you don't think Shuster's coverage of Libbygate for NBC was of decent quality, fine. I'm not trying to make him into some latter day Murrow. I just think he did a pretty okay job of keeping a lot of facts together for people who don't spend every waking minute on news. They should keep him on that stuff and not let his idiot reptile brain off script. In no way am I saying he didn't make his own bed, especially if, as is of course the case, he's pushing for maximum airtime. He's just obviously not ready for primetime in the host chair.
As for "pimp" being good? Muncher, I would say the problem is exactly that: Shuster talked "like he knew." aka, he forgot himself. That's what makes Matthews the pro and Shuster not-ready-for-prime-time. You're saying you want "pimps and hos" to fly on NBC? Good luck with that.
I'm still waiting for all the clips of Matthews going anywhere near where Shuster did.
Pumped to hear yall's comments, yo!
Oops, posted thrice! My bad.
If Chelsea don't want to answer no questions, too f*&#ing bad for the reporters.
In which case, the reporters can then ask their sources about Chelsea, no? Which is what the Politico did. But simply raising the subject earns the ire of the Clinton campaign.
If Chelsea wants to keep her life private, fine, but then she should stay out of the public arena.
To be more precise here, if the campaign doesn't want people asking her questions about what she's doing to help her mother get elected -- and I stress the asking as opposed to her answering -- then she should stick to appearing at public events and shaking hands.
Having an adult kid calling delegates is unseemly?
Having her call the uncommitted 500 or so people who could conceivably decide the nomination after millions have voted, and having the campaign say she's off-limits to questions? Seemliness is in the eye of the beholder, but it appears that she's making the most of being seen as a non-operative to do direct, personal campaigning.
Whoever's doing Obama's outreach to superdelegates -- and his campaign is undoubtedly doing it -- isn't subject to that kind of media blackout.
"Youth culture" my ass. That "youth culture" usage of "pimp" is a couple of decades old already, and Shuster damn well knew the negative connotations of the word, especially when he's talking about pimping out one's daughter. He got a well-deserved kick in the ass on this one, and Chris Matthews, who despises the Clintons, may get one too, if only indirectly.
And I'm not a Hillary supporter. I voted for Obama this past Tuesday, and I hope he wins out, both because I prefer him as a candidate and I think he's the better bet to beat the living shit out of the Repiglicans in the fall. But fair is fair, and Shuster was (knowingly) out of line.
I would have preferred to have Matthews suspended, but Schuster will have to do.
Here is Clinton's message to NBC:
Dear Mr. Capus,
Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster’s comments.
I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.
However, I became Chelsea’s mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.
I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.
There’s a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Several weeks ago Matthews was made to give his non-apology for his crude comments on air. The next morning the analysts and anchors circled the wagon around him and cried foul - the PC Police! It has only gotten worse on that network since. As Senator Clinton wrote, it is time "to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language."
Perhaps if we had all been doing our job on the "progressive" blogosphere and writing to them to call them to account for their sexist and mysognyst comments, it wouldn't have to come to this. I see plenty of genuine outrage over racially bigoted slurs, but too often snickering when it comes to sexism. This needs to change.
Matthews and Russert have been mentioned as knuckleheads that will remain at NBC, but no one has mentioned Tucker. Tucker's show features precisely the kind of overly flippant sort of banter that can eventually veer into tasteless territory.
Victim hood. Clinton hood.
GMAFB
Too bad she didn't make such a big stink about her husband's allegation of rape, Jennifer flowers, bimos in jail covering his lies,
Monica and the blue cum stained dress.
"Pimping" is a common expression.
Grow the fuck up and get over it rather than acting like the Bush/Cheney/Rove Brown shirt fascist thugs.
Is she so desperate that her only hope is to come across as an extreme, vicious heartless asshole/bitch with no sense of proportion or decency?
So much for the 1St Amendment. Buch/Clinton signing statements and Unitary view of power.
Yo Billary, send Shuster to Gitmo….torture the bastard.
dana wins the comments.
No, actually, leahm. does.
I do feel a bit bad for Schuster, he is one of the most fair cable reporters out there. But this stuff must be stopped.
GWBush is in the White House, and thousands of US soldiers and Iraqis are dead, and Roe is in jeopardy, because the MSM was allowed in 2000 and 2004 to invent a make-believe world in which Dems are corrupt, phony, elitist whores.
Push back has been needed from so-called liberals for a long time. If this is a tipping point, it will benefit Sen. Obama very much if he is the nomninee.
Clinton: "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."
Bullshit.
The word "pimp" is well known as a metaphor - yes, derived from the sex trade - for "using someone else to get benefit for oneself."
Shuster's use of the word was in the context of Chelsea being used as a political operative by the Clinton campaign while refusing to permit the press to treat her like a political operative.
His remark in that context was entirely correct.
Now one can easily and correctly argue that he should have known that word would get him in trouble. One can also argue as many others have that equally facile remarks have been made by others at that network and elsewhere. All that is irrelevant to the basic issue.
As an aside, I see a headline over at HuffPo as follows: "Kanye West Or Amy Winehouse: Which Obnoxious Bitch Will Wow The Grammys?"
Who's gonna get fired over at HuffPo?
Anybody?
Thought not. Yet half the articles over there are about this nonsensical "pimp" comment as a bunch of morons demonstrate their "moral superiority" over everyone else.
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Thank you dana and Richard Steven Hack. Thank you for your "progressive" viewpoint.
You're welcome. Any time. No charge. Free to all comers. Take one, get one free. Mention me to your friends. I appear here most evenings.
Sam Boyd points out an interesting (and revolting) comment made by our Republican hero, John McCain back in 1998. It was a "joke" McCain made about Chelsea Clinton that was swept under the rug by the MSM during the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal. http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html
Hillary and her dipshit champions want to sanitize and eliminate any humor that goes beyond Paula Poundstone hilarity. That's why she is worse than McCain.
Comments closed February 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Shuster will be more at home on Fox News with their huge crew of sneering assholes. It's only a matter of time. Maybe he can sit on Novak's lap while they break him in.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 9, 2008 11:45 AM