David Shuster: Who Is MSNBC's "Pimped Out" Reporter?

David Shuster's had a long, rough 24 hours, with a media firestorm erupting over comments he made about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" by her mother's campaign, which has now led to his suspension from MSNBC. Who is he?

From his MSNBC bio:

David Shuster is an Emmy award winning MSNBC correspondent based in Washington, D.C. He reports daily for the network's "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

In August 2006, he was awarded the prestigious "Bugle Award" by the 1.3 million member organization "Disabled American Veterans." The annual honor recognizes journalists who bring attention to disabled veterans. Shuster won for his extensive coverage of the 2005 National Disable Veterans Winter Sports Clinic, including an hour long special that aired on MSNBC.

From his Wikipedia entry:

A native of Bloomington, Indiana, Shuster graduated with honors from the University of Michigan, and started his journalism career at CNN's Washington, D.C. bureau. He was an assignment editor and field producer from 1990 to 1994, covering both the Persian Gulf War and the 1992 presidential election campaign. Shuster left CNN in 1994 to become a political reporter for the ABC affiliate KATV in Little Rock, Arkansas, covering the Whitewater controversy. At KATV, he won a regional Emmy Award for investigative journalism for his reporting on a manufactured housing scandal.

David Shuster was married in 2007 to journalist Julianna Goldman. They live in Washington, DC.

Shuster was forced to eat his words before — after Ohio State beat Michigan in 2006.

Previous controversies:

• Shuster said, "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted.",
  
• When Journalists Attack: Truth-Squadding David Shuster
  
• Rush attacks David Shuster over his coverage of Limbaugh's "Hagel/Betrayer remarks"
  
• Shuster courted controversy around Rep. Marsha Blackburn.
  
• David Shuster: Bloviating Jackass

Comments

[rkrenke]

Chelsea Clinton is no longer a child and chose to put herself in front of the electorate. As such, the media has every right to question her actions, as well as her role in the campaign.

While David Shuster's comments were unprofessional, the Clintons have certainly heard worse from the likes of Limbaugh, Savage, Dobbs, Beck, etc. If we are going to hold journalists responsible for these types of comments, then everyone who participates in this type of dialogue needs to be held to the same standards.

There is a very good chance that HRC is going to lose the primary so I'm not surprised that she and Bill would try to change the message. Once again, instead of talking about the real issues facing this country, the Clintons have successfully focused all media attention on themselves and their personal tribulations.

If Chelsea chooses to actively participate in her mother's campaign as a spokesperson, she does not have the right to say that she's off limits to the press.

[christylou]

I support Hillary Clinton BUT if she can forgive Bill, she can certainly let this go about David Shuster...... I want him back on air immediately. I look forward to him daily on MSNBC. Yes he made a poor choice of slang terminology.... but suspended? Gimme' a break.
Chelsea should come out into the open and talk freely in interviews, especially when she feels just fine talking to whomever over the phone from the background.... she's an adult and needs to either come out into the light or be quiet. Sheez.

[sammy2]

As a mother of two daughters I did find David Shuster's comment distasteful. However, I do believe he was using the term "pimping out" as a methaphor. I feel David Shuster is a fine, objective reporter. He is the only one on MSNBC who does not report like he is enamored with Obama. Having said that, I am a strong supporter of Hillary. I believe the Clinton backlash has alot to do with MSNBC's ongoing anti-Hillary biased reporting.

[VillyVal]

Slander and libel are not protected by the First Amendment.
While TRUTH is the best defense against a charge of libel, untrue charges made solely for the purpose of demeaning another person are actionable in a court of law. Just because someone is a public figure does not excuse gratuitous, misogynistic and slanderous attacks.

[yummymaplesyrup]

The sad thing is that it does not make it any better.

Being as accomplished as he is he should have known better.

[BroadwayCarl]

Good point, Greg, and there is the crux of the problem. The double standard.

An unfortunate phrase? Yes. Suspension? Maybe. Firing? Absolutely not. Not until Rish Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Lou Dobbs and any of the other idiots that can say anything they want without fear of repercussion get canned.
Let's not forget the King of Mudsling, Bill O'Reilly as well. And to hear the excuse that Fox News doesn't count because it's not really a news organization is another bogus, double standard argument. True news organizations lost their credibility when the corporations that own them made them "for profit" entities.

[USNewsLink]

David Schuster is not a law abiding person. He is a lawless thug. I worked side by side with him in Little Rock covering the Whitewater trials and he was extremely abusive to me. He harassed me inside of the Federal courthouse in Little Rock and on the grounds of the Whitehouse. His harassment of me continued for months. I filed a complaint against him with the federal marshals and with the local station who employed him. Nothing was done about him. I am not surprised that he would abuse the nation's airwaves with his unlawful characterizations of Chelsea Clinton. Not only should he be fired, he should be sued for defamation, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for intentional harassment. He should have been prosecuted for what he did to me in Arkansas and in DC and the only reason he wasn't was because he was a Clinton hater. Given his history of harassment, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and immediately. Judith Haney, USNewsLink

[USNewsLink]

David Schuster is not a law abiding person. He is a lawless thug. I worked side by side with him in Little Rock covering the Whitewater trials and he was extremely abusive to me. He harassed me inside of the Federal courthouse in Little Rock and on the grounds of the Whitehouse. His harassment of me continued for months. I filed a complaint against him with the federal marshals and with the local station who employed him. Nothing was done about him. I am not surprised that he would abuse the nation's airwaves with his unlawful characterizations of Chelsea Clinton. Not only should he be fired, he should be sued for defamation, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for intentional harassment. He should have been prosecuted for what he did to me in Arkansas and in DC and the only reason he wasn't was because he was a Clinton hater. Given his history of harassment, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and immediately. Judith Haney, USNewsLink

[AJ39]

Thank you NBC. Shuster was way over the line. He's often a good reporter but I have noticed he's been getting really smart-mouthed lately and injects personal comments not appropriate for a reporter. I really hope that NBC's action will be a wake-up call to all these talk show hosts/reporters who have gotten way too big for their britches.

To those of you who think Shuster's comments were okay, did you also approve of Imus' remarks about the Rutgers team?

[dlee]

I have watched and enjoyed Mr. Shuster for many years now and I am totally shocked that he made that comment. However, I do not want him to be fired. He is an excellent reporter and as long as he offered a sincere apology to Chelsea and the Clintons,he should be able to continue on the network. All one has to do is listen to right wing hate radio and by comparison you will see what David said was simply a very unfortunate comment. The war mongers on the AM dial like Rush and Sean and the rest of them, spew so much hate and lies it's truly unbelievable and disgusting. Mr. Shuster made a mistake and he should be allowed to return.

[JiminNC]

Jaded vs Cynical - Which is worse? The reason this is a good question is that it speaks to why I think many people support Hillary Clinton. Are her ideas better? Is she more ethical? Truly more experienced? We know the truth of that. They do too. Really they do. But many are convinced that sleazy politics is the only possible reality. If you accept that as given, Hillary Clinton becomes the most likely candidate to succeed in the November election. But what if we could have more than success as measured by the lowest of standards ... we win, they lose.

The real problem? So many people are jaded from a lifetime of political con-artists, cheaters and grifters. So many more are simply cynical, unwilling to tempt the experience of being marginalized, choosing rather the perceived high ground of non-participant and "above it all."

The real problem is that neither the jaded nor the cynical can easily cross the threshold, that of suspending their well-founded belief system for a few moments. The most difficult barrier is not race, gender, conservative, liberal or any other wedge label that has been hung around the neck of every citizen by decades of "divide and conquer" power-mongers. The most difficult boundary is belief. Belief that it might be possible for someone to enter politics that can be just as honorable, strong, reasonable, compassionate and respectful as ... me ... or as you.

Every one of us can recall a story of that one politician that we sent to DC that was going to be above it all only to watch them sucked into the blender and turned into a Washington insider.

The key to reaching people is not your ability to shout them down or eclipse their achievements in news-spin or money collections. The key is in convincing the cynics and the jaded to lower their boundaries long enough to consider the possibility that Barack Obama may actually be what he and half the country believe he is.

[OSUMercutio]

Finally someone here supports the First Amendment instead of the Clintonistas. David Schuster did an excellent work covering the Scooter Libby trial that. These Clinton smear attacks are disgusting.

[onenation]

The standard:
If you are for the Republicons, say anything and it is :ohwell:.
If you cover both sides straight or to the left, Say anything and get shot, hung and drawn and quartered.
How about your kids learning that - How to test the wind and go along. Very 1776.

[OSUMercutio]

"Give me liberty or give me death!"
-Thomas Paine

Amen, brother!

[CalliDem]

Way to stick up for him!!!
Just because he has a Emmy doesent' give him the right to call ANYONE a prostuite and refer to Hillary as "pimping" out her daughter.
He needs to be FIRED;

[Forwhatsitsworth]

Firing is too much...he misspoke...he apologised...give him a break!

[gulopartisan]

Shuster is suffering for the contemptible arrogance and gutter values of his profession. Like the little, not so bad but admiring kid who hangs out with thugs and ends up getting killed. Nothing to see here folks.

[lruettimann]

Shuster said something stupid, yes, but I hope we can get past it.

Politicians and corporate media benefit when Americans are distracted. Instead of paying attention to the more important & complicated issues related to gender (i.e., equal pay for work, health care, gun control, protection against violence, abortion rights, access to birth control), there are members of the American electorate & media who would love for us to watch David Shuster fry on cable television.

[MamaBird62]

Language is important and powerful. A slang term for the sexual exploitation of women has no place in a reporter's description of the daughter of the first female candidate for President. If you can't see that, you're part of the problem.
Would you just say "let's get past it," if he called Obama the "n" word?

[OSUMercutio]

He didn't call Obama the N-word
He didn't call Chelsea a prostitute either
You're taking the statement out of context that - Chelsea is trying to pin down the Super Delegates for support.

[MamaBird62]

I've been the one to inform a number of 6th graders that the noun "pimp" is a slang term for exploitation of women, and that I don't want to hear it in the classroom. It's wonderful new usage as a verb has entered everyday language and its pretty sad. Some younger teens use it without realizing the original meaning. They think it only means styling something up, as in with lots of bling. So, parents and teachers, how about let the kids in on the original meaning and ask them to come up with something else?
This guy clearly knows what it means so he made an expensive mistake. I mean what's next, is someone going to call Sen. Obama the "n" word? I'm sure he'll do the honorable thing and apologize personally to Miss Clinton and her parents.

[gregohb]

As Mamabird points out, this is common slang. So I don't see a single thing wrong with what Shuster said. Scarborough was unprofessional and should have to make an apology - but Shuster is not named Clinton so he can get away with it.