Comments on: Shuster suspended “indefinitely”

by: Ira

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:11:19 +0000

John: Your #18 post borders on the absurd! As Blue says, Shuster already worked on Fox. And at both networks, he was no better than a field reporter or substitute host.

We’re not exactly talking about Edward R. Murrow.

by: ImNotBlue

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:50:25 +0000

Well john… I believe Shuster was fired a few years back from FOX, before he was picked up by MSNBC. So if MSNBC lets him go, there’s only CNN… and I guess (according to TVN) Bloomberg.

However, at this rate… we’re going to find Shuster on QVC doing a little “pimping” of his own.

by: john

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:12:05 +0000

if david does loose his job dont you think other networks would like to get shuster on their network[s] hell i notice that people from msnbc reads this blog

their loss will be somone elses gain thats just the way it is, hopfully the people who work for nbc/msnbc enjoy being the network to cave to “raise baiters” - “campaigns” what else will they be known for

why not just do us all a big favor and just pull plug on your networks and save us the enjoyment of watching you all fail

by: Missy

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:56:43 +0000

It’s kind of ironic. I’ve disliked Shuster all this time because of his vitriol toward conservatives, yet the thing that brings him down is the ONE remark he makes that disparages a liberal. Who knew?

(BTW, he didn’t even state that “pimping” was going on here; he just posed the question!)

by: StephenMartin

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:52:04 +0000

The only sympathy I have for Shuster is that he doesn’t get it. And he’s not alone in that. Most in the media don’t get it. Other than that, what goes around, comes around. Nuff’ said.

by: Jim

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:55:22 +0000

It’s Hannity’s job to be partisan and give commentary and opinion. Shuster is not sure what his job is yet. He still thinks he can be partisan and be objective at the same time.

by: LR

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:02:51 +0000

I’m a fan of Obama, but the truth is if he had said that phrase in regards to Michelle Obama all hell would have broken loose and rightly so. Why is it different that is was Chelsea? The comment would be bad no matter who he said it about. I don’t think he should be fired over it but maybe he needs to think about his choice of words in the future.

by: john

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:52:50 +0000

I don’t see sean hannity getting fired or suspended for the things he does commentry or even packages on his opinions on hillary or even the clintons either.

Msnbc caving to political agendas really makes me hate watching many media outlets everything has gone to to PC. this whole thing with david is just proving that the don imus effect is now the main role in media you say somthing your being held accountable and when nbc head bosses send you out to say sorry

they cave in and still fire you but this time suspend you. Anyone who is out to defend hillary get your heads out of your but cheeks and see she is playing the “sympathy card” over and over

when she crys its reported about non stop when shes out of cash and then said to of given her own money to her campaine think about it you nitwits

she needed this pr cause what david siad was TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT how much money do you think she raised out of this stupid senerio that was blown up.

by: mlong

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:44:17 +0000

This is all so funny..who would of thought a year ago that Hilary Clinton would be feuding with MSNBC and making nice with FOX News? LOL!!!

by: Enquiring Minds Want to Know

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:41:07 +0000

Yes, but if he made the “pimping” comment about Obama’s wife, he definitely would’ve been fired, not suspended (and he would’ve been pilloried far worse than Imus!).

I agree that Chelsea is an adult and therefore open to media scrutiny, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to make any kind of crude comment about her just because she’s HRC’s daughter.

by: blogthat

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:32:29 +0000

You also have to remember that Obama kids are still children. Chelsea Clinton is 27 years old. She is actively involved in her mother’s campaign.

The situations are not analogous.

by: Lurker

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:59:21 +0000

He’s not going to say that about Obama. That’s his horse in the race. He wouldn’t have talked about Chelsea either if it was down to Clinton vs. McCain.

by: Arthur

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:32:25 +0000

however, imagine if he had made that comment about Obama’s kids or wife. The uproar would have been worse.

No kidding, Obama supporters would be lying in wait for him with cudgels.

by: Char

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:01:59 +0000

According to Big Head DC, Phil Griffin “screamed” at reporter David Shuster for not agreeing to immediately apologize to Chelsea for his remarks, and then Griffin threatened to fire Shuster “on the spot.” As someone who supervises others, if one of my employees did not do what I asked (as long as it is a reasonable request) that is grounds for dismissal. Given the circumstances I would really irritated if I were Griffin and Shuster refused to apologize. It was an inappropriate remark on air and the suspension seems like a logical step.
But looking at the other problems Shuster has had on air I would say NBC is on firm ground for firing him. The Blackburn incident, the assertion that Rove would be indicted, etc just doesn’t fall in line with solid reporting.

by: Aaron

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:55:10 +0000

Shuster is not a fair reporter, but this Chelsea comment was just a poor choice of words. The entire context of the conversation shows he was praising her before. The Clintons are playing this for all it’s worth. Phil Griffin is rushing to cave in to save future debates. I wouldn’t be surprised if Shuster is fired pretty soon. Chris Matthews would defend Shuster, but then he would get canned from political coverage. Keith Olbermann (who sees himself as the Ed Murrow of MSNBC) goes out and apologizes for Shuster. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. But, before that on Morning Joe, Scarborough tells off Shuster. All of this proves MSNBC is out of control. I think it’s time to clean house.

by: LR

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:20:34 +0000

It has gotten overly PC these days, however, imagine if he had made that comment about Obama’s kids or wife. The uproar would have been worse. He’s actions are his own and I don’t think this has anything to do with the Clintons. Any other candidate would have been just as outraged (right or wrong).

by: Chris

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:02:47 +0000

Honestly, this has gotten so ridiculously out of control, I mean, there are countless pundits/reporters/anchors who have said idiotic things in the past and have survived. As much as I watch MSNBC as of late, this just seems like catering waaaaaaay too much for the Clintons, I mean, why not just have Bill come on and host a show, they aren’t that far from bending that far over. Ugh!

by: Alison

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:24:54 +0000

This is absolutely ridiculous. I guess indefinitely works out to being “until they hold the Democratic debate that MSNBC wants so desperately to air”. Or maybe it does mean he’s fired. Either way, MSNBC has caved in, rolled over, sucked up and otherwise really shown us what a textbook definition of “whoring yourself” is.

by: cornycob

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:23:47 +0000

By indefinitely, Russert means “until the dem debate is over.” After the debate, he will come back in a limited sense if he is not fired. MSNBC has a big problem with throwing there own people under the bus. Sucks to be a member of the NBC News Microsoft bastard child that is MSNBC.

by: Liz

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:39:03 +0000

As long as Hillary is happy. Too bad you couldn’t go back and use the same logic on the things said about Bush. The
TV news would have a lot fewer folks on the air.