Shuster: Cross-pollination issues at MSNBC?
In a must read, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Tim Cuprisin hits a home run in his critique of the talent issues at MSNBC, though Cuprisin gives Joe Scarborough a pass when he criticizes Olbermann’s insertion into straight news coverage because Scarborough himself has been inserted into straight news coverage.
The suspension of NBC correspondent David Shuster last week for an unfortunate and offensive crack about Chelsea Clinton points out a bigger problem on MSNBC:
Why are reporters hosting personality-driven shows?
Shuster, an experienced correspondent, was filling in for Tucker Carlson when he went on about the former first daughter’s role in her mother’s campaign.
Said Shuster: “Doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
Hillary Clinton’s campaign went ballistic, and Shuster was ordered to apologize and was suspended. There’s a back story here, including a couple anti-Clinton comments that aired on MSNBC, that led to the strong punishment for Shuster.
It was a poorly chosen word to describe Chelsea Clinton, especially as it comes from a guy who has to cover politicians. Still, the real question remains: Why was Shuster filling in for Carlson in the first place?
I don’t think there is necessarily an inherent problem with reporters participating in personality-driven shows. The problem occurs when networks don’t clearly differentiate between what is straight news and what is opinion. For all the criticism the network gets for biased reporting, Fox News in my opinion does the best job of distinguishing between the two. If Cavuto or Brit Hume share an opinion, it is in a separate segment and is clearly labeled as such. And the personality shows are promoted as personality shows, and their hosts, O’Reilly for example, never appear on straight news programs. Contrast that with someone like Olbermann, whose opinion program is labeled as hard news and who transitions between personality, straight news, political coverage, debate moderation, and even sports coverage without the network ever making an effort to differentiate between the lot.
Comment by Caufield — February 13, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Shuster was describing what Chelsea was doing not Chelsea…first off that gets blurred alot because you know it is all about empathizing with mothers, you know so they can emotionally identify and vote for Hillary out of Sympathy.
The thing is Hillary isn’t writing anyone about the use of the word “Pimp” in the case of the American Military, so she doesn’t care that our American Military is being disrepected but she wants to be their Commander and Chief. How does describing Chelsea Clinton’s participation in the Clinton Campaign effect say National Security? No one not one of the candiates, are commenting on Code Pink calling Marines’ Bush’s Death Pimps…hmm Hillary must be livid someone send me the link to her statement on this subject.
No I won’t be holding my breath.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/13/the-berkeley-after-action-report/
Comment by Ree — February 13, 2008 @ 11:03 am
My favorite pointed statement in that piece? This one which sums up my feelings on blurring the line between news and opinion: “Olbermann is an acid-tongued commentator, not an expert on presidential primaries, and shouldn’t be anchoring straight news coverage.”
Someone in the mainstream media finally stopped fawning over Olbermann long enough to call him out for trying to play both sides of the street.
Comment by Alison — February 13, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Thank you for the great precise and informative post
By Caufield and
by Ree
Sarahnia
Comment by Sarah P — February 13, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
MSNBC is the worst offender in blurring the distinctions between “news” & “commentary”….in its primary coverage thus far, Olber-Bore & Chris Matthews continually “report news” and add their own “commentary”…frequently in the same sentence.
It is all part of NBC/MSMBC’s function as the “most liberal” of the cable news outlets…this is the direction corporate had dictated, and it permeates every aspect of their coverage. Is it any wonder when Chris Matthews expressed a negative view of Hillary Clinton he was forced to apologize immediately? How exactly did Joe Scarborough go from former GOP congressman to attacking the Bush Administration daily? Does anyone wonder how Keith Olber-Snooze managed to build an early prime time show almost exclusively on smearing George Bush and his administration and/or replaying video from the program that kicks his ass virtually every night, “The O’Reilly Factor” {albeit frequently with deceitfully edited clips that distort O’Reilly’s presentations to suit “Countdown”s purposes and deceptions}? Even Tucker Carlson has altered his previous conservative image and just babbles to an ever-decreasing audience.
There IS a place for reasoned, serious liberal discussion…in fact, I’d really like to hear solid liberal ideas on how to apply left-wing “solutions” to America’s problems….if these solutions exist. I’d love hearing how the liberal left will raise the trillions of dollars universal healthcare would cost annually, and how the Federal Government would run the inevitable massive cluster of brand-new bureaucracies efficiently when they have failed in every other attempt to run anything cost-effectively.
Instead, MSNBC gives us Chris “Hillary-Got-Elected-By-Monica” Matthews, Olber-Snooze, and “Pimp My Chelsea” Shuster….and that is why no one can take MSNBC seriously.
The history of broadcast journalism gave us Edward R. Murrow, who fretted over the powers of his medium and struggled honestly with his desires to pro-actively apply his commentary while remaining a trusted news source….and these problems helped drive him to government work in his last years.
Now….if we could just figure out how to drive these bozos out of the media, and keep them out of government, too….There’s the challenge of our time…..
Comment by Nick D. — February 13, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
MSNBC has brought this mess on themselves. David Gregory, the White House reporter, filled in on the Imus spot AND has filled in on Hardball.
FNC (this is hard to admit) does a better job setting their news people apart from their opinion folks. Even on Special Report Hume or fill-in Matthews or Brett Baier will sit at the other end of a longish desk, setting themselves apart from the talking heads and acting as more of a referee or at worst, a Socratic-method lecturer.
Comment by DanOregon — February 13, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Nick:
“How exactly did Joe Scarborough go from former GOP congressman to attacking the Bush Administration daily?”
He is a deficit hawk, protectionist Conservative (as is Tucker Carlson). Bush does not equal conservative in a lot of conservative circles…just in the right wing media.
Not that cable news would be able to show it, but there are a lot of shades to both conservatism and liberalism instead of simple anti-party people. They just don’t get as much air time because their opinions don’t fit into 30 second to 2 minute segments. Cable news is mostly “This person disagrees with this person…and…FIGHT!” without someone who calls either side on their false statements or factual distortion.
Comment by Cory!! Strode — February 13, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
#7, Tucker is a libertarian, thus, not a protectionist.
Comment by cornycob — February 13, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
How neat! Is it raelly this simple? You make it look easy.
Comment by Billybob — September 21, 2011 @ 1:34 am