Opinion: Why the Shuster suspension was warranted…
ICN is hearing that the fallout from the David Shuster suspension is rocking 30 Rock. Some staffers believe Shuster was thrown to the wolves for two reasons. One, to appease the Clinton campaign and “save” the debate to be aired on MSNBC between Clinton and Obama. Two, because they can; because Shuster is a small fry, a low man on the totem pole, and expendable. The argument would be it wouldn’t have happened to someone higher up, more important, like Olbermann or Matthews.
There may be something to both points. But at the same time I believe that’s totally irrelevent to the matter at hand. When you get right down to it, what Shuster said merited punishment of some sort. Suspension may have been severe but not something that shouldn’t have been on the table. The fact is Shuster has been dancing on the edge for years now in his reporting and commentary. When you live on the edge like that for that long, eventually you’re going to go too far. Just ask Don Imus. Imus, by the way, would be a rebuttal to the point that Shuster only got a time out because he’s small fry. They fired Imus and MSNBC’s morning ratings cratered and still haven’t recovered to where they were before he got fired.
This incident does however raise an issue that concerns MSNBC of late. And when I say of late, I mean over half a year.
Over at Media Matters, Jamison Foster is using the Shuster suspension to note a bunch of other “transgressions” made by MSNBC recently towards women.
Foster is missing the overall here. He’s concentrating strictly on the “treatment towards women” angle and he’s doing it from an ideological point of view. Which undermines his argument to some extent.
That said, even a cursory examination of MSNBC going back to Imus shows an escalation of opinion injection of an edgier variety into MSNBC’s broadcasts. Opinion injection by itself is fine and in many cases proper. But the injection of opinion I’ve been noticing is far more of the shoot from the hip variety. And that I believe is dangerous for the network utlimately for reasons that now appear all too obvious. Shuster is just the latest example of this. There was the ho pas incident on Countdown. There was Don Imus of course. There was Chris Matthews and his Hillary comments. And now Shuster. All of these events ocurred within the past year and all resulted in over the air apologies. This is not a good track record to have. And I firmly believe this is a direct result of the encouragement by MSNBC to have their hosts be edgier and more outspoken but without the proper supervision to establish what the ground rules should be. Morning Joe in particular is bordering on going too far and if it keeps this direction I can just about guarantee we’ll be seeing another apology at some point. Countdown frequently goes over the top in its O’Reilly attacks and attacks on FNC. And Matthews has his “issues”. If you play with fire, you may get burned.
I just know what some of you are thinking as you read this. You’re thinking what about FNC? What about Gibson and Ledger? What about O’Reilly? And what about HLN and Nancy Grace? Or Glenn Beck? Or even what about Lou Dobbs at CNN? Those networks and people aren’t the subjects of this entry and I’m not “giving them a pass” by omission.
The issue for me is the dangers of opinion injection into news without adequate safegards and supervision. All networks should use the Shuster incident as a tool to re-acquaint all their talent with what’s appropriate commentary and what isn’t. It’s easy to say “you should be able to tell yourself what’s appropriate and what isn’t. It’s obvious.” It’s another thing entirely when you have to make split decisions on the air regarding judgement and you’re flying by the seat of your pants on live TV. It can happen to anyone. Brian Williams once compared the shock and awe bombing of Iraq on the first night to the annihilation of Dresden in World War 2 and got publicly chewed out shortly thereafter by Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference, though Rumsfeld spared Williams further embarrassment by not mentioning him by name.
Cable news is more opinionated than broadcast news. Frequently your job isn’t just to discuss the story but what you think about the story. That’s the way things are these days. But that doesn’t mean that the nets and their talent shouldn’t constantly be questioning themselves about what the boundaries should be.
Everything you say is true, Spud. MSNBC is in fact walking a fine line between being “edgy” and offensive.
But again, why don’t they care when conservatives are attacked? And look at how Shuster treated the whole “Plamegate” affair, going on TV constantly at the time, stating how Karl Rove’s indictment was imminent? And what about Olbermann and his unbelievable rhetoric against the President? And Scarborough’s comments about Thompson’s wife, and Matthews MANY comments about Hillary and anyone else.
It hardly seems fair that Shuster alone gets chastised. They ought to come out with a policy stating that they’re going to clear up the entire news operation, and have program hosts clearly delineated between those who dispense the news and those who dispense opinion. And use those people ONLY for those purposes - if Shuster and Olbermann want to make their snide opinions known, let them do that and that alone, and clearly mark them as pundits. And let others do the news, keeping their opinions to themselves. These delineations may help matters somewhat.
Comment by Missy — February 8, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
Well the real question is how many free passes can MSNBC give KO for all his racist and sexist remarks?..Shuster was a token ..they threw him under the bus to make the Clinton’s happy so they won’t boycott the upcoming debate.
Comment by mlong — February 8, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Yes Missy. This whole situation, where Shuster said awful things about the Clintons, simply brings to light how HORRIBLY the CONS(ervatives) have been treated. Jeez, why didn’t anyone else think of that? It’s a travesty I tell you!
Comment by Shaun — February 8, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
Management of MSNBC are such butt kissers of the Clinton’s it makes me sick…if anyone should be reprimanded it should be that arrogant Chris Matthews. He is a bigot and Olberman isn’t much better. People wonder why their ratings are so low well, there you go. When they get someone decent and is likable they find some reason to get rid of them.
Comment by Gayle — February 9, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Shuster was tossed under the bus to save the debate. MSNBC has not taken action against its host and reporters over the last few months except for when things reach critical mass. The Imus situation went as follows: comments, apology next day, blow up over weekend, no response, no response, suspension, until finally Capus had to personally can Imus.
The difference between Imus and these Matthews/Olbermann/Shuster incidents is that Imus had far more viewers/listeners, other media paying attention to him, and fans, Imus was a nationally syndicated radio host with his show simulcasted on a national cable news channel, there is little backlash against MSNBC for their hosts comments because, simply, not that many people pay attention to MSNBC. Regular non-cable news viewers can identify FOX News or CNN, but MSNBC seems like some unknown entity to them.
Comment by Aaron — February 9, 2008 @ 12:11 am
Spud obviously knows the inner workings of the cable news networks, but in regards to the lack of supervision and the way MSNBC has gotten edgier in thier opinions (shoot from the hip, as aptly put), I would think that it was a tactical decision by the network.
They were consistently 3rd in the ratings and needed something that would grow their audience. If you look at what is “suceeds” on the cable news shows today, I think there is a general shift towards the more bombastic, “edgy” opinion content. O’Reilly does well in part because a portion of his programming is conflict driven and hyperbolic in rhetoric. Lou Dobbs audience seemed to grow as he become more opinionated and stronger with said opinions.
I think MSNBC latched onto that and, perhaps, tried to up the ante. I view it along the lines of competing shock jocks who push the envelope further to gain an upper hand. Eventually someone goes too far, as Shuster did and a few others that were noted.
I agree that the suspension was a result of the Clinton camp threatening to pull out of the MSNBC debate. Just to note - I watched Olbermann tonight and he was apologizing profusely to the entire Clinton family over the remark.
That said, I do think that MSNBC would be wise to dial it down (if indeed there is a lack of oversight) a notch and not forsake the reputation of the network (and the NBC news brand, as Williams and Russert have shown up on their election night coverage) in order to get ratings by injecting over-the-top analysis.
Comment by FishOil — February 9, 2008 @ 12:31 am
It was a poor choice of words. And the Clinton campain is a master of spin, so they got what they wanted. They ignored everything he said before that word and were horribly offended by the word pimping. Read his email exchange with the clinton camp, he makes some valid points. And on a slightly different note what is up with Msnbc running the headliners and legends of hillary thurs during the doc block? really? do they need a debate that badly? Are they giving equal time to Mccain, Huckabee and Obama in doc form? Haven’t they played this H&L episode enough over the past, what, 8 years?
Comment by chase — February 9, 2008 @ 1:17 am
let her pull out of the debate you nitwits at msnbc
come on, clinton is running out of money she needs the air time, clinton to pull out of the debate would not be msnbc’s loss but it would be her loss for no free pr
you think about it, no one really watches msnbc’s debates so now msnbc has a full weekend of free promo’s on cnn and fox news, i say that because now another story concerning hillary is now out and you know she must be loving this
msnbc caving to campaigns just shows there is no free speech available anymore it kinda just makes watching the news really boring.
Is throwing your reporters under the bus just to keep good friendships with campaigns really the way of todays media?
Im tellin you guys right now hillary will win that damn white house just because the media is so called giving her the full red carpet treatment.
im sorry if there is any mis spellings kinda just threw this together
Comment by john — February 9, 2008 @ 1:24 am
chase you make a good point i was going to tune into the mind of manson witch i may add was said on my guide but when i turned it on, DAMN IT WAS HILLARY??????
can you say Ass kissing or msnbc is ready to pucker up to the clintons when they pull their trowsers down or when a fly is accidently pulled down? (no point intended to bill that is)
Comment by john — February 9, 2008 @ 1:30 am
The ONLY reason this has become such an issue is because it was a Dem on the other end of the attack. If the same comment was made about Jenna Bush, there wouldn’t be a headline on Drudge, it wouldn’t be major news, and there certainly would be no suspension.
In fact, there would have been high fives all over 30 Rock and laughter in the background from the camera ops.
The worst part about this is allowing Hillary to play the victim card at a time when she needs all the help she can get.
Shuster’s shoddy reporting and past transgressions were every bit as bad as this one … “And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted”. He reported that repeatedly.
And let’s not forget his pathetic sandbagging a (Republican) Congresswoman and attacking her for not knowing the name of a soldier recently killed in her district, when in fact the soldier he was referring too didn’t even live in her district.
Forget the suspension. I think a pink slip is long overdue.
Comment by bigred — February 9, 2008 @ 2:37 am
The ONLY reason this has become such an issue is because it was a Dem on the other end of the attack.
It wouldn’t have occurred to a newsie to use such terminology to a Cheney daughter or an Obama. It’s OKAY to trash a Clinton, however. They’re just asking for it, right?
Comment by Arthur — February 9, 2008 @ 4:47 am
Did any other MSNBC host or anchor apologize for Shuster’s words? Olbermann’s apology seemed a bit over the top but maybe he really does run the network. lol However, the network response that looks like they’re succumbing to political pressure is interesting to watch.
Maybe it’s best that Chris Jansing escaped from MSNBC. She has too much integrity than to be linked with this type of nonsense.
Btw, for how long is Shuster suspended? Was a date given?
Comment by Char — February 9, 2008 @ 8:11 am
Spud,
We are discussing this subject here too.
http://imustimes.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/lockdown-david-shuster/
Shuster having what is described as an Imus moment because for some reason when Imus made an on air mis step last April his was the only one in cablenews history that has ever counted.
Shuster is an obvious liberal, isn’t this out of character for him to say something negative about the Clintons? Isn’t the result of what he said, to make Hillary Clinton appear more sympathetic by trying to paint her as a “victim” of the Media? Was this staged for Clinton’s benefit when the delegate count finally started getting reported correctly showing Obama in the lead? Did Shuster take a dive? What is the perception, we are left with, that the MSM is hostile to Hillary Clinton NO IT ISN’T!
On a side note, there is a soundbite, I have heard recently on cablenews, re the Clintons “infulence peddlers” is coming up alot.
Comment by Ree — February 9, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Has nobody noticed that, at the same time as the Shuster suspension was coming down, CNN sent out a press release saying their revamped Prime News would have “attitude”? Hmmm.
Comment by DK — February 9, 2008 @ 9:12 am
I really have had a problem with Shukster as of late. Tryin’ to be like his idol Chris Matthews, I guess!
Comment by cornycob — February 9, 2008 @ 9:29 am
This story is bigger than I thought it was. This morning, it was reported in a radio “news break” on Southern Connecticut “Best Of…” radio station. This means its gone national, and even the smaller stations are talking about it.
IMO, we may be hitting critical mass… and end of Mr. Shuster’s career in front of the camera at MSNBC may be in sight.
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 9, 2008 @ 9:35 am
My God. Olbermann was literally falling all over himself in his apology on behalf of Shuster and MSNBC.
But once again, Keith has said things THOUSANDS of times worse about people, yet no apology was ever issued. The fact that the Clintons were the supposed victims here is the entire issue, and of that I am certain.
Comment by Missy — February 9, 2008 @ 9:38 am
Do I think the Clinton campaign is taking advantage of this? Of course. But as I said, it’s irrelevent. Because at the end of the day you just don’t use the term “pimped out” to describe someone’s behavior. I’m only concerned about what was said, not the political and ideological ramifications of what was said.
Comment by Spud — February 9, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Once upon a time I was a big Olbermann fan. Then I began to notice a rather disturbing trend on his show of him dissing women repeatedly. In his eyes apparently, the greatest crime any woman can commit is to be over 30 or be 10 pounds overweight. I heard him make slams at women both famous and not and for no other reason than he could. And not one word of apology was ever heard. But that’s just a very small part of the whole picture at MSNBC. Joe Scarborough said that Fred Thompsons’ wife looked like she “worked the pole”. Keith Olbermann referred to Wendy Vitter (wife of a disgraced Senator–and a Republican) as a “‘ho” for wearing a revealing dress. And who can forget his “Rita Cosby is dumber than a box of rocks” comment? And God knows I long ago stopped counting the sexist comments made by Chris Matthews. There seems to be a network-wide “boys club” mentality at MSNBC where it’s perfectly okay to say whatever you want about women. No wonder Shuster didn’t know where the line was-he’d seen bigger fish in the tank get away with far worse without so much as a peep from the public and never have to apologize for 99.9% of what they said. So he’s a small fry and he’s been thrown under the bus. But the others? Sacred Cows–although even Chris Matthews had to suck it up and apologize last month, even though what he said had a lot of truth in it I think. All the Sacred Cows have to do is issue an apology when they go one step too far and all is well in the world again, if they get called on it at all. The only reason Imus got fired is because he was far better known than Scarborough, Matthews, and Olbermann and because he’d made many enemies in his long career who were all too happy to go for the throat when they perceived an opportunity.
And Spud I have a question for you. What exactly ARE you supposed to call it when a candidate declares that the press aren’t allowed to talk to their “child” when the “child” is 27 years old? No other campaign has issued such edicts regarding their adult children on the campaign trail for them. And what do you call it when the candidate then uses the “child” to phone “Superdelegates” and beg them for their vote (and this nomination may very well come down to those superdelegate votes)? What do you call it when a candidate has the “child” phone the panel members of the View on ABC to ask them to vote for her Mom? You and I both know that those phone calls were very well-timed in hopes that the View panelists would then TALK about their phone calls on air (free publicity) and that the vastly female audience of the View would suck it up and then go out and vote for the candidate too? They are using her. And they are continuing to use her and this whole Shuster kerfluffle to garner more press attention at a time when we know the Hillary campaign is hurting for money. What has the news cycle been for the past 24 hours concerning the candidates? Pimpgate. Hey maybe Hillary can work up a tear or two over this and get another 24 hours worth of media attention.
And let’s get honest about something else here–don’t you think that the Democratic party would rather have the debate on CNN or Fox News since they get much better ratings with their debates than MSNBC? The Pimpgate mess was a really good excuse to pull the debate from the ratings-challenged MSNBC and give it to a higher rated network. And hey if Shuster loses his job in the process? Big deal. He’s small fy. But don’t tell me that MSNBC had to kiss butt to the candidate the way they are now because it was the right thing to do–since when has MSNBC cared about what was right?
Comment by Alison — February 9, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Spud
Unless it was staged!
Comment by Ree — February 9, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Twelve years ago two upstart cable TV networks manifested in the cosmic etherland. Fox News and MSNBC joining “serious news” CNN. What has happened since is nothing short of a journalistic breakdown.
The decline and fall of American television news standards was chronicled by Paddy Chayefsky in his prescient script for the 1976 movie “Network” directed by Sidney Lumet. The greedy, corrupt, amoral TV network sacrificed news anchor Howard “I’m Mad As Hell” Beale to the Gods Of Ratings by letting the “Mad Prophet Of The Airwaves” say and do anything on the air.
It took two years for the new cable TV networks to start slip slidin’ away. The seminal (no pun intended) event was the 1998 Clinton/Lewinsky sex scandal. The wall-to-wall news coverage of the 1994 O.J. Simpson slow speed freeway police pursuit and the subsequent murder trial provided a glimmer of what was to come.
With the suspension of MSNBC’s David Shuster for his on-air Chelsea Clinton comments, it behooves the TV news industry to conduct an inventory of standards and practices.
To invoke a Clintonesque phrase: It’s time to end “the politics of personal destruction.” Journalism has been jettisoned in pursuit of ratings.
It is time to reign in the likes of Fox News Bill O’Reilly, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews and rewrite the attendant philosphy, practices, and standards banning no-holds-barred slander.
It is time to call a truce between warring cable TV networks, and show hosts. New ground rules must be enacted to set clear boundaries governing appropriate and inappropriate on-air behavior, opinion and analysis.
The David Shuster incident is opening the door for network news management to collectively agree that enough is enough and declare a truce to restore television news to the level of credibility the networks - and viewers - deserve. To invoke a diplomatic term: peaceful coexistence.
Let us embrace the “civil” in civilization.
Comment by Chickaboomer — February 9, 2008 @ 11:37 am
You’re making way too much sense Chickaboomer. What in the world would the cable news nets ever do without the likes of Paris Hilton, the trials and tribulations of Britney and the latest celeb to OD? You honestly expect them to cover. . . news? Do they even remember HOW to–if they ever knew at all?
I actually had hopes for the Democracy there for awhile with the writer’s strike and all. The numbers showed people were atually watching the debates and following the race. Record turnout in many states–but now the strike is (probably) over so it’ll be back to the usual swill they pass off as “news”.
And look, if you took away the “let’s beat up on the other networks” sthickt from some or their faux indignation at the political party of their choice, you wouldn’t be leaving some people with very much material for an actual show. Oh yeah, except for news and that’s not what they are really there for now is it?
Comment by Alison — February 9, 2008 @ 11:39 am
The irony is that Shuster defended the Clintons when MSNBC’s Obama shills attacked them constantly. Perhaps that’s why he’s been suspended. The blatant bias against Clinton and the lovefest for Obama is staggering.
Shuster’s words were perhaps ill-chosen and merit a reprimand, but certainly not a suspension. He rightfully apologized; that should have been the end of the story. He is one of the few interseting anchors/hosts on MSNBC. Given the hours that he’s on the air every day, it’s inevitable that something slip off the cuff. Once again, a Stalinist move — speech should never be punished in a free society.
I agree that they’re throwing Shuster under the bus. Obermann has said equally distateful utterances, but nothing has happened, and as already mentioned, Scarsborough’s remark about Thompson’s wife was equally sexist and in poor taste.
Comment by ind2002 — February 9, 2008 @ 11:44 am
If Shuster had made the same comment about Obama, he would have been fired, not suspended.
Comment by ind2002 — February 9, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Alison, to be fair, Keith Olbermann did not refer to Wendy Vitter as a “ho”. If I’m not mistaken, it was referenced in writing in the lower-third during a show where he was not even hosting, Alison Stewart was (guest-hosting). And I think that an apology was offered after the fact. Just to clear that up…
As for the ‘pimp’ comment, I think there’s a generational divide in terms of reaction. As someone who is 30 years old, I’ve been hearing the term ‘pimp out’ for 15 years, and prostitution doesn’t always come to mind. People ‘pimp out’ their cars, their homes, etc. MTV has a show dedicated to ‘pimping out’ things. So I personally don’t find it that offensive, but I can see why others might. That being said, it probably is a term better suited for Real Time with Bill Maher, as opposed to a news program on a cable network.
Comment by J — February 9, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Hillary, wanted to be offended, Media Matters For America trolls the broadcasting day for things for Hillary to be offend by. Now Mrs Clinton can play the victim of the big bad media. I don’t want a victim for President. I guess I am saying Mr Shuster, you can get up off your knees N.O.W.
Comment by Ree — February 9, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
You’re making way too much sense Chickaboomer.
Alison: Sorry but the dude is making absolutely no sense. He pontificates well but is really saying nothing!
Why should there be a truce between the networks? This guy can’t be serious! Having three competitive cable news networks is great for the consumer, far better than before 1996 when it was only CNN. Why should O’Reilly, Matthews or even Olbermann be reigned in for giving opinions and commentary?
The marketplace (and if that fails, the legal system) will ultimately determine who will or should be reigned in!
Comment by ira — February 9, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Arthur, in no way, shape or form did I defend Shuster’s comment. It’s not ok for a journalist to say (oh wait, a journalist didn’t say it, that’s giving Shuster too much credit).
It’s not ok for a commentator to say about anyone, including a Clinton.
The point is, again, if it was about Liz Cheney or a Bush daughter, it wouldn’t have become a story in the mainstream media, and there would be no suspension.
Shuster should be canned. He’s a joke. Period.
Comment by bigred — February 9, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
The point is, again, if it was about Liz Cheney or a Bush daughter, it wouldn’t have become a story in the mainstream media, and there would be no suspension.
You’re missing MY point, bigred. It never would have been said about Liz Cheney or one of the Bush girls - it never would have occurred to anyone, even tho’ they did the exact same things campaigning for their folks as Chelsea is doing.
It has always been acceptable to say things about the Clintons that would be considered beyond the pale about anyone else. It’s just part of the mainstream culture that Clintons, any Clinton, are fair targets.
Comment by Arthur — February 9, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Ira,
Marty Davis is a woman and if you look she is in Spud’s blogroll. Marty has insider knowledge click on her link that is what she blogs about. Chickaboomer is the name of her blog.
Pimping, it isn’t just for street walkers anymore GRIN.
Comment by Ree — February 9, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Arthur
“SUPER DELEGATES” this will effect the outcome of the Democrat’s nominee for President. It isn’t even the samething as just campaigning for your mother or father.
Comment by Ree — February 9, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
The marketplace (and if that fails, the legal system) will ultimately determine who will or should be reigned in!
Great summation of the Libertarian point of view. However we both know that’s not the way the world works. In the real world, Imus gets fired. Opie and Anthony get fired. Michael Savage gets fired. Not because what they do is more severe than anyone else, save maybe Savage, but because there’s an agenda at work.
I don’t have a problem with the back and forth between the networks. I do have a really big problem with the disengenuous back and forth between the networks. If you’re going to attack, attack with the facts. Not the spin you want to put forth and the hyberbole you use to make the other guy look worse than he really is. The average viewers are neither plugged in enough or care enough to figure out what the real story is. They just lap it up like mother’s milk and take it at face value. Under these condistions the marketplace is incapable of functioning as it should because everybody is guilty, therefore nobody gets punished. And the legal system will not step in. Nor should it.
People only get punished when there’s an agenda at work. It just so happens in Shuster’s case that the punishment was arguably appropriate. But nobody seems to care about that because all they’re talking about are the agendas…
Comment by Spud — February 9, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Right…because no one ever attacks the Bushes or Cheneys.
Is that what you’re honestly saying? The poor Clintons get attacked all the time, but not Bush/Cheney????
These two families have taken the brunt of the most vile and repugnant slanders of all-time. I don’t recall anyone equating Clinton to Hitler (like Olbermann, Moveon, others have with Bush).
You’re living in a cave if you honestly think the Clintons are victims more than Republicans are.
The Bush twins have received plenty of negative comments and criticisms, including a story in the NY Times about Jenna being arrested twice (she was never arrested).
Comment by bigred — February 9, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Spud,
You want me to agree that Shuster should be suspended for being able to get some attention for an issue, that wasn’t being reported on else where? I don’t think Shuster is dumb or incompetent so where does that leave me in opining about his comment - his soundbite? Is this to cause a distraction from some real news in the newscycle? Is this to drum up ratings for the network..is it both? Is he being coached and by who and is it expensive GRIN. Yeah, I know this is serious.
Comment by Ree — February 9, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Wanna talk about someone living on the edge?? OK, well let’s start with Olbermann’s recent racial slurs against blacks and Spanish people! Wonder why Bathtub boy hasn’t been suspended????
Comment by Mike — February 9, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Shuster isn’t a green reporter right? This being said, how did this happen and why should he be suspended. I think that is all Spud wants to know. I don’t think so, look at the MTV jewel, Pimp my Ride, nobody thinks they mean prostitute my ride. It is a stretch of reason that the word pimping not to be able to be interpeted in many ways. Did Shuster mean, The Clintons were literally pimping their daughter? This is how some people “feel” about the word pimping, not how people “think” about the word pimping.
I think it was staged! I just heard Bill Press on Fox stating everyone feels all right about saying whatever they want about the Clintons but you don’t hear people speaking the same way about McCain or Obama…really he doesn’t, what rock has he been under? I hear Obama constantly being called Muslim and Osama er I meant Obama. I hear McCain being called Juan McCain and McShamnesty. Bill Press playing the victim card for Hillary Clinton “the media is unfair to Hillary Clinton” No it isn’t!
Comment by Ree — February 9, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
I hear Obama constantly being called Muslim and Osama er I meant Obama. I hear McCain being called Juan McCain and McShamnesty.
Ree, do you hear this on mainstream news programs? or on blogs and talk radio? There’s a difference, or there’s supposed to be.
Comment by Arthur — February 9, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Spud: You needn’t worry about how these matters will be handled in the future.
Prediction: Assuming a Democratic Congress, and irregardless of whether Hillary, Obama or McCain is the next President, the Fairness Doctrine will be reinstated. But this time, it won’t stop with talk radio.
“Fairness” will also be applied to both over-the-air and cable TV. And possibly also to segments of the Internet and pay (Sirius and XM) radio.
IOW, if this matter happens on 2/9/09, David Shuster would probably go to jail!
Comment by Ira — February 9, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
The Fairness Doctrine will never be reinstated. I don’t know what conspiracy tin-foil hat wearing person is telling you that, but you should really stop listening to them.
Comment by Steve — February 10, 2008 @ 6:19 am
Arthur,
I heard Bill O’Reilly say one on the Factor, he slams the left for their, his words, vicious behavior on the blogs and he wouldn’t brook it from the right, then he stated, I mean like “Juan McCain” I know because I was discussing this very point with Marty on Chickaboomer. Because you know the right has many colorful names for Hillary Clinton and Bill never brings that up! I told Marty I habitually watch the Factor and for the first time in a long time, I changed the channel to comedy central. Bill O’Reilly showing his bias -if it isn’t okay with him for the right to call John McCain, Juan McCain. Then it shouldn’t be all right with him for the right to call Hillary all those names. By the way, they put themselves out there. I don’t think they should be called anything obscene but other then that if they can’t take the heat, they need to get out of the kitchen.
Comment by Ree — February 10, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Arthur,
There has been coverage about the references to Obama being called muslim ect..they discuss the fairness of the smears and that these issues, have already been addressed and settled. In context of the opposition to Obama’s running for President.
Comment by Ree — February 10, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Howard Wolfson, as usual, has managed to blow this way out of proportion to distract from the other news about Hillary Clinton this weekend.
If Chelsea is going to be on the stump for her mother, she ought to be available to the press–like the 9 year old she blew off last month.
I don’t agree with a lot that David Shuster says, but I was watching Tucker when he made the comment and it didn’t offend me. I am a 57 year old woman with a 30 year old daughter.
Comment by smh — February 10, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
I hear Obama constantly being called Muslim and Osama er I meant Obama. I hear McCain being called Juan McCain and McShamnesty
Ree: While I’m reading ICN and typing; on his syndicated radio show, Bill Cunningham is constantly talking about “John Wayne McCain” and “Barack Hussein Obama!”
Comment by Ira — February 10, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Ira,
It is convienent outrage but That Obama swept all the states in play this weekend is still in the newscycle so if this exagerated offense was supposed to distract the electorate it didn’t. On another note I am arguing this point with a democrat on a conservative woman’s blog about a liberal David Shuster..only the conservatives and I an Independent, are pointing out the double standard. The democrats are aruging that David Shuster called Chelsea Clinton a whore. Really I am not making this up. My last comment on the subject #85 on that topic Michelle Malkin’s blog. Yes I cut and pasted the transcipt and stated to show me where he said what they claim, and then I told them you are making stuff up because that is how you “Feel” oh yeah alot of women come tuesday in Virginia will be able to emotionally identify with Hillary…Mission Accomplished.
Comment by Ree — February 11, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Some may differ, but MSNBC needs to do a better job of clarifying roles of their on-air talent. You can’t have a talking head come back from a commercial break and suddenly be serious journalism guy and I think the MSNBC talent needs to be reigned in. While Olbermann does a better job than Matthews a “serious anchor guy” on election nights and debate coverage, it’s not clear to the viewer which one he is at any particular time. Sometimes I thing those on-air try and have it both ways.
Comment by DanOregon — February 11, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
In the 2004 election both Bush and Kerry stated that Israel was not on the table for discussion. No one discusses Israel publicly, but Sat. night Tim Russert interrogated Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on their positions in regard to Israel. Anyone who has any common sense knows that it is our relationship with Israel that causes spikes in terrorism. The american people need to know about our relationshp with Israel. How many Arabs/Muslims have we helped Israel slaughter? “millions” and we wonder why arabs are angry at us. They have a right to be angry at us. We are the fanatics, not them and if the american people knew more about Israel and their likeness to Apartheid, americans would not support them, but rather work against them as they did apartheid south Africa. Thus, the big secret which endangers all americans. That secret is protected by political, journalism, religious leaders and the pro-Israeli fanatics with access to the highest levels of power in this country.
Comment by Percy Wallace — March 2, 2008 @ 5:49 pm