Caught in the Middle of David Shuster's Screwup

Meet the man in the middle. MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended for a question about Chelsea Clinton he asked -- me!

Appearing as a guest on Tucker last Thursday, with Shuster sitting in as guest host, I was puzzled when he brought up Chelsea's increasingly prominent role in the campaign and suggested that this was somehow "unseemly." Not at all, I responded. She was campaigning for her mom. Just like the Bush twins stumped for their dad. What's unseemly about that? (I should have, but didn't, think of mentioning the five Romney sons).

But Shuster persisted. Chelsea was even calling super delegates. Wasn't she being "pimped" into a more active role? Even though I winced at the word "pimped," I stuck to my point that Chelsea's campaigning for her mother is what family members always do. Like Michelle Obama, campaigning for her husband. No big deal. "Give Chelsea a break," I told Shuster.

Did his question merit suspension? Absolutely. Shuster's a damned good reporter, who's always been religiously fair. But even the best of us can sometimes go over the line. Chris Matthews did, earlier. This time, it was Shuster. Except he, unlike Matthews, has to pay the price.

But, of course, this isn't the first sign of media bias, intended or unintended. What's most disturbing about Shuster's pimp remark is that it reinforces the impression of media bias in this campaign.

It began with the networks' deciding which candidates were serious and which were not -- and therefore ignoring qualified contenders like Joe Biden or Ron Paul. It continued with the media's admitted infatuation with John McCain and Barack Obama. It culminated with the media's declaring open season on the Clintons. In contrast to fawning reports about Obama crowds, every story about the Clinton campaign is sprinkled with snide, critical, even crude, comments about Hillary or Bill. Now not even Chelsea is spared.

Enough's enough. The media's role is to report on the primaries, not decide the primaries. No candidate deserves favorable treatment. The media should treat all of them equally badly. That's their job. And there's a big difference between their job and ours. To bend a phrase: "They report. We decide."

Comments

[realistic2008]

Well put it Bill. Does Mathews knows how you feel? and I agree what you say about David Shuster too bad he is being influenced by the pompous Mathews.

[DJGriffin]

I've work from my home, which allows me to have the television on in the background most of the day. I watch as I hear the exact words of a candidate then, as the "news" is played throughout the day, I watch as the media puts the "spin" on what was said. I have become infuriated as I hear a line taken totally out of context. For those who haven't been glued to their sets all day, that out-of-context spin is the only thing they'll hear. That's not fair. It screws up the process.

Is this unfair spin intended? I think it is. Unfortunately, there is no place on television to get a fair report of what's said by any politician. Actually, I don't need those reporting the news to tell me what they think or give me their opinions. I'm a college educated woman with excellent critical thinking skills. I can parse my own information, thank you very much! I especially don't like when I'm told how my demographic thinks.

[shadow322]

Good report. This "Fair (but biased) Reporting" has to stop for all our sakes. We are watching propoganda in its truest form and we're taking it. I am amazed at what we are turning into as a nation. Even worse than bias, we don't even blink any more when someone is proved to have misrepresented the facts intentionally. How much farther do you think this can go on - and we can still have the respect for our country that it deserves? Watch Tucker Carlson for one night and tell me why the network supports this as news.

[mvpeach10]

THERE IS NO MISTAKING THAT THE MEDIA IS BIASED IN FAVOR OF OBAMA AND AGAINST HILLARY. Any fool can recognize that he is teflon and has not been scrutinized. It's no favor to him or to the Democratic party. We should be informed not railroaded. But that seems to have worked before. That's how we got George W. Bush. Think about that.

[hillarysupporter]

Amen! When is America going to learn from
their mistakes? That's what the rest of the
world is wondering. I just came back from a
business trip to England, and nobody there knew
who Obama was. It was difficult, at best, to explain what the fascination with him is all about... Europeans seem to expect more "substance" from their leaders.

[Diquea]

I'm glad he was suspended. I want him to be fired. I don't even care if he is sexist. He shouldn't be a freaking reporter, that's for sure. He is so not fair, Bill. You're on enough shows to know this is true. Ugh, I can't stand to look at his ugly little face. He's got that smirk on his face all the time, because he knows that he is getting away with unbelievable bias, while employed as an objective reporter at an "objective" news corporation.

Get him off the air. Shuster and Matthews both.

[Diquea]

I really don't care what he said about Chelsea. I hate the Clintons as much as the next Libertarian. But... Come on Mr. Press! David Shuster is ANYTHING but fair. He is completely unobjective, completely unbalanced in reporting. He should not be a reporter. Commentator? Sure, why not. I don't care. But the guy is such an a-hole, not a fair-minded reporter.

I swear you can see his bias written all over his smugly little face.

[realistic2008]

Nice words for Valentine's Day Chicago's mafia style.

[Richard Luckette]

Well done, Bill. I saw you on MSNBC with Shuster.

[alexa07]

MSNBC has been a BIG disappointment lately. Much to my surprise FOX is doing a much better job with the Democratic candidates such as the Chris Wallace interview of Hillary vs. the Chris Matthews/Keith O. interview after the State of the Union. Even better than Russert's the following weekend! I NEVER would have expected this. Consequently, I have begun to watch more CNN (even Larry King has been fair to Hillary) as well as the nemesis FOX (I am NOT usually one of their fans). In my opinion Pat Buchanan is one of the few remaining pundits at MSNBC worth listening to. Another caveat, my family voted neither for Hillary or Obama. We went for Edwards, voted by mail. Since I now have to decide whether to support Obama or Hillary, I want to know about their positions on the important issues, not this junior-high bashing of Hillary. I would feel the same if the immature comments were directed at Obama also.

[Lolasmom]

Not for this person. It is the ONLY station that deals in truth. And outside Tucker no one made a stink about Bill's $32 Mil. PLUS the $100 Mil. still to come for fixing the deal for his Canadian friend in Kazachstan.
Another Clinton scandal swept under the rug.
THANK YOU MSNBC for trying to get out the truth, even if most Clinton fanatics refuse to face.

AMERICA is sick of the CLINTONS.
GO HOME

[realistic2008]

You meant the Bushies, did you not?

[leftbehind2000]

Chelsea Clinton shouldn't be made into a target. She is not running for public office. She is not auditioning to be our leader in 2008. Her only crime, such as it were, is to be the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton. While I believe that it was more an unfortunate comment than it was an attempt at slander, Shuster's word choice still rankled me - even more so when he failed to issue a convincing mea culpa after confronted.

The media has become so impolite - this comment strikes me about as badly as did Imus' "nappy headed hoes" incident. In both cases, individuals who did nothing wrong were insulted by a careless and cynical person who proved undeserving of a microphone in polite society.

[leftbehind2000]

Once again, the straight scoop from Mr. Press.

So rarely does one get a straight answer from the media these days - very sad when one considers that the media is supposed to be there specifically to dig out the truth. They are there to report the story, not be a part of it.

Thank you Mr. Press, for being true to your calling.

[plarson]

The media has been very biased towards the Clintons. Obama is treated as if he will create Camelot II. The press and Chris Matthews has been very hard, and at times, very unfair to Hilliary. She is too aggressive, too weepy and the comments on her pants suits are very wearing. We say that we don't have gender bias - that's certainly not the case. She has far more substance to offer the nation than does Obama at this point. He has the youth vote - cult following at this point. They hear "hope" but little elase. The media is partly responsible for this. As to Shuster, I like him, but what in heaven's sake was he thinking? Yet Matthews continues to rail against Hillary.

[ErinG]

Thanks to your faux outrage, CNN has solidified its role as the Best Hillary Team and MSNBC has become the Place for Hillary.

[jrdenn]

Thank you Bill Press,

An honorable man who was caught in the middle.

[Suprshrink]

It is so good to hear someone speak sensibly. I could not agree more with Bill Press. The media is slanted against Hillary and promotes Obama as the "darling." It cannot be explained any other way that to attribute this horrible journalism to sexism. As a woman I am offended and as a democrat I will not vote for Obama even if he gets the nomination because he has gladly accepted the benefit of this kind of coverage and he even stoked some of the negative reporting. I am so sad.

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

that is absolutely ridiculous!

[Irish1139]

but true

[bgberger]

shuster just following the sleaze and sexism of chris mathews

mathews all but wets his pants over young reporters from cnbc - almost always making comments about looks.

mathews is a p&&&y - cries on the daily show over his feeble book - then on his show he has his wife interview him - talk about pimping.

today on morning joe - huckabee pulled a good ol boy comment to mika bryz... - telling her to keep her pomp poms up she missed the first reference - and was obviously taken aback when he repeated the comment at his sign off.