L'Affaire Shuster: Big Camel, Big Straw

The arc of l'affaire David Shuster has been interesting to observe,* from shock and outrage to debate over whether it merited suspension to the release of the letter from Hillary Clinton to NBC President Steve Capus and the email exchange between Shuster and Clinton staffer Phillippe Reines, to the Monday-morning quarterbacking (i.e. "Give Shuster a break!" on The View to "MSNBC is a pit of unfettered misogyny!" on Media Matters) and, of course, to the backlash back at Clinton, who either reacted honestly to a swipe at her daughter and a pattern of unfair treatment or seized upon a sympathy peg and coldly exploited it, depending on which excitable commenter you read on which blog.

There's a lot to it — and I do think it's fair to look at the situation in the larger context. Here's the question I asked myself when I heard about Shuster's suspension from MSNBC for wondering on-air if Chelsea Clinton had been "pimped out" for her mother's campaign: Would this have happened without Chris Matthews? The this here is two-pronged, referring to the suspension and to the remark itself, but the answer to both questions, I think, is no.

There are three issues here: (1) Shuster's remark as inappropriate because it was sexist/sexually implicative; (2) Shuster's remark as inappropriate because it reflected a bias against the Clintons; (3) Shuster as scapegoat for greater issues at MSNBC.

Let's examine them in turn. I don't think anyone who heard that comment thought Shuster was suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was selling her body to superdelegates and turning the proceeds over to her mother. The use of the word pimp as a verb has entered the vernacular in recent years, thanks to shows like MTV's Pimp My Ride and songs like Jay Z's "Big Pimpin'." See Urban Dictionary for the recent alternative definition:

As an adjective: If somethin' is pimpin', it's pretty darn cool. It's probably something "normal" that's tricked out ghettolicious and gawdy. Basically, you look very ghettofab and blingbling.

However, as a verb
1.) to pimp something out is to *make* it look very ghettofab and all that nifty stuff in the above paragraph.
2.) to pimp is to advertise (generally, in an enthusiastic sense) or to call attention in order to bring acclaim to something; to promote.

I think it's safe to say that once the slang reaches Mitt Romney, it's gone pretty mainstream.

So, we know what Shuster meant here, fine. The issue now becomes whether the term's general use (a) is divorced enough from its classic meaning and (b) whether colloquial acceptance rendered it appropriate for air. The answer to both questions here is clearly no. (See: Media Matters, Taylor Marsh, Emily's List). Probably most people watching were struck by the term as it was used, not only because the word "pimp" is still recognizable for its initial connotations but also because it's a word that is rarely used in the context of traditional television news coverage. It may be possible to let Shuster off the hook for the intention behind the usage — taking a sexist shot at Chelsea Clinton — but it doesn't let him off the hook for having the bad judgment not to recognize its effect, and how it would immediately be perceived.

Issue #2: Bias against the Clintons. I didn't see the original "Tucker" wherein Shuster made the comment (hell, it's "Tucker," not many people would have), but when I viewed the clip I was struck immediately by something odd: How off it was to imply that there was something wrong or unusual about a candidate's child assisting with the campaign. See below:

DAVID SHUSTER: Bill, there's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea's out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom, and she's apparently also calling these super delegates.

Story continues below

BILL PRESS: Hey, she's working for her mom. What's unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it's great, I think she's grown up in a political family, she's got politics in her blood, she loves her mom, she thinks she'd make a great president --

SHUSTER: But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?

Actually, it doesn't — which brings us to the question of anti-Clinton bias. There is nothing unseemly about Chelsea Clinton assisting on the campaign trail. In fact, it's the most natural thing for a kid to do — so natural that NBC Nightly News did a series on how all the candidates' children were getting involved. Sarah Huckabee. Megan McCain. Cate Edwards. Ten zillion Romney boys. Here's what correspondent Maria Menounos wrote about them on the Daily Nightly: "The candidates' kids have been very visible in this campaign, more so than we've ever seen -- and all in very different roles." Or, in case Shuster missed it on his own network, how's this story from ABC News: "Candidates' Kids Step Into Media Spotlight: Many Children of the '08 Candidates are High-Profile Characters in Mom or Dad's Campaign." It is unlikely that someone as steeped in the minute-to-minute coverage of the campaign like Shuster would have been unaware of the phenomenon — so the use of the word "unseemly" suggests that Shuster was uninformed at best — or unfairly applying a double standard at worst.

Anyone who wants to argue that Hillary Clinton doesn't get held to a higher/more skeptical standard is being willfully blind — the heightened scrutiny applied to a front-runner does not cover comparison to a nagging housewife or reducing her accomplishments to her husband's infidelity or Maureen Dowd. It's something I have argued against frequently and strenuously, and it's pretty well-established by this point.

Now, we know from the subsequently-released emails between Shuster and Clinton spokesman Phillipe Reines that the reason behind the segment was the double-standard the Clintons applied to Chelsea: Holding her out as a Clinton surrogate but refusing to make her transparent or accountable to the press. And that would have been a fair point to make — if Shuster had made it. However, the point he made was that it was "unseemly" for Chelsea to work on behalf of her mother — and he made it in extremely questionable language. The tone of his emails to Reines was indignant and somewhat angry about the Clinton campaign "slamming" reporters for approaching Chelsea, yet during the segment Shuster neither explicitly said so nor offered evidence of such behavior. In fact, the two have nothing to do with each other, i.e. whether Chelsea can campaign for her mother vs. whether Chelsea is obligated to speak to the press. That they were melded in Shuster's mind seems indicative of a larger tendency to impute the worst motives to Clinton — what Paul Krugman yesterday called "Clinton rules" - the tendency to "treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."

Which leads us to number three, and back to our original question: Would David Shuster have been suspended were it not for the previous complaints about Chris Matthews, and to a lesser extent, about the culture of acceptability created by other remarks at the network? (Whatever they are, Media Matters has them indexed, cross-referenced and neatly catalogued.) All things considered, I do think the answer is no. On the sliding scale of egregiousness, Matthews' crack that Hillary was "only a front runner because her husband messed around" is probably the most sexist thing I've ever heard said on MSNBC. As I said above, I considered Shuster's remark to be distasteful and inappropriate, but Matthews' comment went to the heart of all Hillary Clinton had accomplished and shrugged it all off, based on the most humiliating moment of her life . Furthermore, Matthews had had a history of questionable comments about Clinton, based on the fact that she's a woman: see here and here and here and here and here. These comments well preceded the camel-breaking remark mentioned above,, but it took a groundswell of anger and opprobrium — including an actual march on Washington (that is to say, NBC's DC offices) — for the network to press Matthews into making an on-air apology.

And that was that — until Shuster. Whatever band-aid had been holding things together was ripped off as the remark bounced through the echo chamber of the blogosphere and the outrage bubbled up again and Howard Wolfson threatened that Clinton might pull out of the debate and through it all, Media Matters posted and posted as it gunned for another scalp. On the inside, what we didn't know was that in the meantime, NBC prez Steve Capus had received a letter from Hillary Clinton, and we didn't know that Shuster had made a bad situation worse by trading haughty, self-righteous emails with Reines, rather than handing it off to NBC PR team to diffuse. Capus, who had called Clinton himself to offer an apology, made the right call: This time, there had to be consequences. They'd tried the apology (and indeed, Shuster tried two of them), but suspending Shuster sent a message to the world that said, we get it. And we're dealing with it.

But though he took the fall, it wasn't entirely Shuster's fault. Yes, he said something stupid (and offensive, and inappropriate). But let's put it in context — the context of a network where conversation is free and easy and where spicy rhetoric has been robustly encouraged, because it's been working in the ratings but also because frank, no-holds-barred commentary is fascinating and fun to watch. The risk, though, of skating close to the edge is sometimes you go over it. Probably no one means any harm. Probably they're just being kidding around - but it creates a norm, and not always a great one. It's within that kind of norm that talk becomes more casual, edgier. Shuster would never have made that comment were he to appear, say, on "NBC Nightly News" — it would have seemed wildly inappropriate and out of place for that no-nonsense, straight-up news environment. But elsewhere on the network, that line has become blurred — as Cenk Ugyur points out, more and more the news has been shot through with strong, spicy opinions, and that affects the atmosphere and that affects the discourse and that affects the norm.

This is a long post, and part of that is because there are many moving parts here, all of which had to converge in some way for this to come to a head. (And there are still more; we'll leave Shuster's initial apology and whether he did, in fact, profess to love love love Chelsea Clinton that much). There is one more part, however, and it's still moving — and that is the Clinton response. Clinton's letter to Capus came after Shuster's suspension, and called for more: "No temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient," she wrote. " "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." Some people thought this called for Shuster's firing, but they're wrong: It called for an examination of a pattern of behavior. That's fine and presumably Shuster's suspension is a sign of just that: A strong message about what's not acceptable, and a recognition that previous remedies had been ineffective. Fin. At this point, Clinton and her team should know that any more is gonna smack of politics; her point has been amply, amply made. Any more, and that's a moving part that will move like a boomerang and fling right back at her. Not like that backlash needed much help, but still.

That's Clinton's problem and alas, as Krugman notes, her lot in life. For MSNBC, their problem is the particular set of circumstances that led to this situation — the casual-ing of the discourse, the default attitude towards Hillary Clinton — and the fact that, suddenly, they've been branded as the sexist network. Now, the Clinton Rules will be applied to them: Any time Chris Matthews opens his mouth, someone at Media Matters will be there, pointed finger at the ready. It isn't fair — take a look at the fine commentary of Rachel Maddow or the fair, fact-based examination of these issues again and again by Dan Abrams — and if you want a reality check, I've got two words for you: John Gibson (and actually, two more: No suspension. So, things aren't always fair — but even so, that's how it's going to be until the pendulum swings back.

The good news for MSNBC is that it's really easy from here: Just don't screw up. Easier said than done, maybe, but I don't think so — the bench is deep, and strong, and those who need it have been put sufficiently on notice. As for Shuster, this will probably be great for him — a high-profile learning experience which will give him a high-profile platform for a humble, hardworking and principled return, plus the tacit appreciation of coworkers who understand that there but for the grace of God goeth them all (Chris Matthews, you owe him lunch in perpetuity). Episodes like this can make everyone better. That's the best part.

Related:

Press: Caught In The Middle of David Shuster's Screwup [HuffPo]
Uygur: Defending David Shuster [HuffPo]
Krugman: Hate Springs Eternal [NYT]
The Mess at MSNBC [Media Matters]

*I should note here that I have appeared many times on MSNBC on behalf of the Huffington Post, as I have on CNN, Fox News and — once — the recently-departed Star Jones show.

Comments

[balderdash]

This whole incident was about taking MSNBC to task. It crossed the line too many times with offensive remarks by "newsman" like Matthews that it was time to call them out. If they are going to simply spout opinion then they should take out the NEWS in the description of their programming and let the "opinionaters" have at it.

David Shuster's "pimp" remark about Chelsea Clinton was the scapegoat used to get the network to account for the patterns of sexist behavior that was increasingly becoming more overt and acceptable. If Shuster had made that "pimp" remark about Senator Obama's children being on stage with him, the blowback would have been hard and fierce and there would be no talk of suspension, he would be fired immediately and the uproar would be phenomenal.

Why are the people who are so offended by Racism not also outraged by Sexism? Rachel Sklar writes that the harsh media standards for Hillary is "Clinton's problem and alas, as Krugman notes, her lot in life." but that is not acceptable.

In Senator Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope", he writes about empathy declaring that "It is at the heart of my moral code, and it is how I understand the Golden Rule--not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes."

There is a disheartening lack of empathy for our mothers, daughters, wives, girlfriends and sisters in the media. Women are derided and objectified, villified and sexualized every day and that is not just a Hillary Clinton problem. It's everyones problem.

[MNmommy]

Excellent analysis Rachel.

Thank you!

p.s. Watching Tucker this evening, it's clear that the folks at MSNBC continue to be petulant.

[Chip1222]

I thought Shuster's job was "news." Can't see Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley or even Dan Rather using "pimped" in a story about a campaign. With Matthews and Olberman, there's no pretense of news. Shuster and others are supposed to be reporters, aren't they?

Good column. I think it's all 3 answers.

[dknightpost]

Rachel,

Thanks for another insightful post.

Reaction to Shuster's comment has as much to do with the venue it was made in as it does with the actual remark.

I doubt such a comment would have created a firestorm of equal proportions on "Real Time" (HBO) or on "The Daily Show" (Comedy Central).

That may be one reason that younger (and older more free speech versus censorship inclined) voters tune in to those shows. MSNBC has a different type of venue and reputation it seeks to preserve, and perhaps rightly so.

It's tough to believe that anyone seriously thought Shuster was implying anything related to actual "pimping" was taking place. But that word, which has gained such widespread use among the masses, is still not appropriate to use in the elite circles of media and politics... at least not publicly ...or until it leaps from the Urban Dictionary to Webster's.

What seems sadly minimized in the discussion is the bias and complete inappropriateness of singling out Chelsea Clinton. Family members campaigning and twisting arms for relatives has been going on as long as most of us have been alive. That's a bias that deserves an apology and a lasting remedy.

[usindecline]

In 2008, in the USA it's not okay to be openly racist, but it is okay to be openly sexist. Ergo, at this time and in the foreseeable future we will not have a female president.

Personality traits that reflect a decisive, ambitious, strong personality in a woman are frowned upon by the majority of men and women. If you are a 60-year-old woman, you need to remind folks of a cookie-baking grandma to be liked and admired. It's a shame when a leader who is clearly smart, capable and qualified has to endure openly sexist bias from the main stream media.

Afterall, it's been less than 100 years since women got the right to vote, as granted by the 19th amendment in 1920. Black men have been voting longer (since shortly after the civil war), courtesy of the 15th amendment. Actual voting rights for all African Americans were seriously flawed within many states until the mid sixties (evidenced by poll taxes and other civil rights violations) -- but the US Constitution clearly favored men regardless of their race long before it even considered voting rights for women.

Women will continue to be second class Americans for some time to come, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

[ibsteve2u]

I was going to say something about this cogent, well-written, and distinctly unbiased entry of Rachel's with some comments on specific details, but I chickened out.

Why run the risk, eh?

[clevelandchick]

Rachel,

Thank you (I think) for your lengthy analysis of this diversion from the candidates' positions on the issues and the continuation of the 'Oh My God The Media Hates The Clintons' story. Because...like that's news to anyone who may not have lived through the 90s.

I don't know which came first..the Clinton's hate of being scrutinized or the media's hate of the Clinton's hate of being scrutinized. It's not like this whole dance wasn't predictable, it doesn't excuse some of the more outrageous media comments but I'm not sure if it's all sexist or instead misplaced venom directed at her husband.

Seriously. Like anyone with half a brain didn't see this whole scenario coming down the pike when she decided to run? Again, not excusable, but highly predictable.

I actually like Hillary but this whole 'the media is against me shtick' is getting old. Okay, I get it and agree totally, but why does your healthcare plan include garnishing the wages of financially strapped people that can't afford the premiums even with government assistance? That doesn't sound very feminist when women make up the majority of uninsured people in poverty. In the end I care more about the issues as a voter.

And I'm sorry the over-the-top-moral-outrage the Clinton camp is waging is a bit hypocritical when you read a story of Bill Clinton arranging a breakfast meeting with a 21 year old Super Delegate and his daughter:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4273078&page=1

Maybe 'pimping' is too strong a term here but then again maybe it's not.

[kirotahoe]

i'm so f'cking sick and tired of the political correctness police!

[turkeyneck]

This whole trumped-up (or pimped-out) nonsense w/Shuster is fast becoming moot in any case as mama-hen Hil withers on the campaign vine. On to Tejas, madre! Your fate awaits!

[bethinCary]

Shuster apologized on-air and that should have been the end of it.
Asking for more is overkill.
She's trying to blame the actions of Chris/MSNBC past bad PR ALL on Shuster and that's just not fair.

Second;the word pimped out has various meanings and is slang-meaning to use in an immoral way. Well, the Clinton camp did have Chelsea out calling Super Delegates, yet won't allow the press to speak with her....

Third: Shuster usually does reporting on Wash. as a journalist/reporter(and is great).
At the time he made those comments-he was filling in for Tucker as the host.
Most hosts of shows are given more leeway to give off the cuff remarks and use slang. They are, after all, paid to make outrageous statements. They mean to stir up controversy in the same vein of a "Can you beLIEVE what our govt. is doing now...?' Lou Dobbsian commentary.
HelloOO?
Rush, Ann, Howard Stern...????(Chris, KO, Tucker, Joe).
THIS IS WHAT PUNDITS DO-make outrageous comments.
As a journalists, reporter-I have never seen Shuster ever be anything but professional.
Having him play dual roles is probably unfair to him.
That's MSNBCs' fault though-not Shusters'.
It's also MSNBCs' Admin. fault for cancelling Allisons' half-hour entertainment show-instead replacing entertainment news for actual REAL news-and force-feeding the public Paris, Brittney, and baby in microwave stories..in a 20-min. continuous day-long loop that's nauseating.
MSNBC needs to figure out what it is-entertainment or news. they can't have it both ways-cause it sucks.

[Bozwellian]

(LOL, notice how CNN and even CBS are slithering on by even thou THEY show obvious biasness and make outrageous statements and then there IS/remains FOX...LOL, the CLinton Camp is presently using FOX for coverage as they NOW put out FOX is FAIRER and FAR LESS BIASED in their coverage of her>>>>MAJOR GBO !!! and reality check and find the Shuster "suspension" ridiculous and think the notation of WHO he was filling in for and WHAT sort of "normal" TUckering goes on on that particular show and how Shuster was just filling in and providing for THAT show..like HURUMPHABLE , gimme a break and gag over the call for political correctness by the C-campers who have crossed over lines and claimed elsewise for figure THEY "should" be given a break and considered BUT "good intentioned/honest/forthright...etc/etc"...uh, a snoopy=BLEEEEEEEEEECH !!!

[bjorn]

Thank you for this column Rachel. It is one of the more sane things I have read online. I would also like to add that Obama followers keep ragging on Clinton for complaining about Shuster. What MSNBC has not reported is the number of emails they received from viewers complaining...well before Clinton said anything. Why don't they make that information public? Shuster was suspended, I believe, because of an overwhelming negative response from viewers.

[nadinesellers]

Hillary Clinton is a woman--with qualities attributed to the reasonable gender. However i fear that which is admirable as wife, useful as mother, may not serve the whole citizenry.

let's remember Margaret Thatcher, and a few other "Queens" past. Angela Merkel is a very effective ruler now, but no one has any illusion as to Hillary's style of governance anymore.

Controlling the media is the first order . Apply tourniquet, twist, and watch the unpleasant limbs fall off. Draconian, unpopular but effective.

[ignorantwillyharper]

Ask poor old Billy Dale along with his staff at the travel agency what they think of Hillary's style of governance.

[CarlyCorday]

The night heads at MSNBC are way, way too free with their imagery, way too "cool" by half, and should be brought to heel by the scariest means available, ie, embarrassment and job loss. But they probably won't be, ever. Bad things don't happen to really bad people. Matthews will go right on being an ass, but he'll keep saying GWB is "not an evil guy," and that's the only civility that matters out there. Tucker didn't even stir a breeze when he said he'll be glad when the last baby-boomer is dead. I looked, and only at the AARP message board did I see one miffed reference to it. Even there, nobody cared (probably because they are too old, and still think a "baby boomer" is some kind of kid).

This thing with David Schuster is just like the thing with Imus. There's something going on here, but it isn't logical or just; don't expect logic, justice, or anything of the sort--or for any tacky trends to be slowed by this.

[banats]

I thought that Rachel's article brought a rational perspective to this controversy. I had not realized that the word "pimp" had become an acceptable colloquium to use in the context that it was used. OK. I can accept that. Language evolves. But obviously it still retains a strong sexual connotation. Otherwise, why the controversy? And no matter how you spin it, if Shuster made this remark regarding Obama and his photo shoots with his kids, all hell would have broken lose. As it rightly should. You can hate Hillary, but you can also hate the fact that her daughter was vilified. Shuster made an extremely inappropriate remark as a professional. Maybe his suspension will help to bring a return to civility and professionalism in TV news. Or am I indulging in the audacity of hope?

[mooph]

Chelsea may have been pimped, but Shuster is being punked.

[YellerDawg]

Thanks, Ms. Sklar, for giving the Hillary haters another opportunity to bash her. Ain't we got fun?

[hank48188]

Please read the E-mail exchange between Shuster and the Clinton camp, you will see that Shuster was strongly defending his actions and NEVER offered an apology, HE JUST DIDN"T GET IT, you know Imus was fired even though he instantly knew he was wrong and did offer a full and real apology. The difference between the two, Imus is a SHOCK JOCK,his comments are required, Shuster ia a NEWSMAN, his comments were way out of line.