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

[gemstone1000]

Indeed. Even a lot of people who should know better continue to criticize the Clintons for no discernible reason. It's time to knock it off. Stick to the facts. Stick to the issues.

[Barrack69]

YEAH RIGHT ! Total BS. Dr. Ron Paul has gotten nothing but negative spin from Big Corporate Media. They labeled him AND his supporters as Paultards, Looney's, ect ect ect. Talk about a double standard. I didnt hear Hillary complaining then.

[Swift2]

I don't hear you objecting to the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters, either, but you sure get hot about the 50,000 or so ballots in L.A. County. I say, count them and count the Michigan and Florida ballots too.

[obstreperous1]

This is a nice sentiment, but a tad late, thank you very much.

[justfacefacts]

Those of us familiar with and not comatose during the Nafta legislation recall clearly the goal was to send jobs to Mexico, to keep their citizens there, earning a living wage. We had to 'give up' some jobs to level the playing field.

Contrary to some previous comments were made, I think we can agree that what has been done over the previous 4 administrations is a rousing success.

And you will think so as well, when your job is rendered useless and outsourced like engineers and IT people, customer service, and millions of other jobs done by folks who were the bedrock of this nation, working with their hands, making this country flourish.

Those jobs were not insignificant. They were the foundations of towns and communities. Innovation came from manufacturing. It's what led the world and made us a strong economic power.

Dire warnings spoken to us by those WWII era men stressed that WE SHOULD NEVER AGAIN put this nation in jeopardy as we had done in the 1940's when we lost our ability to manufacture things and our ability to react quickly. To use precise historical terms, we nearly had our ass handed to us.

It would be interesting to hear what else people think this country 'should give up'. Tell it to the greatest generation who lived through unfathomable sacrifice and heroic effort to save us. Or, as they say, history repeats.

[Janelynne]

David Schuster and others at NBC obviously have wide latitude to say whatever they want, to denigrate the right person. That right person, in this case, is one of the Clintons. Schuster, Matthews, Russert et all, would not get the same blessing were they to smear one of the wrong person. Never fear.

While Schuster gets "suspended", I am sure after a little time in Sicily, or maybe just New Jersey, his return will be hailed as someone who has done the company business with honor.

NBC, and the rest of the msm has put itself in charge of shaping the zeitgeist. The seats of corporate/­military/p­oliical power are very used to successfully telling millions of Americans what to think. They have had more than 8 years perfecting it. We go to war, we spend money, we cede our rights. The next four years are creatively shaped, until they return later, regrouped.

Nobody can stop them. Who would dare. They play to our fears, our hopes, our biases, our denial. We get reinforced like lab rats: The GOP gets its fix of raw power. The mysogynists get fed a diet rich of sexism. The young are annointed as savants, while the over 40 crowd become the aged voters of Florida with hanging chads, and crooked bifocals. Ad hominum attacks are de riguerer, while free debate and the Constitution turned into a quaint anachronism representing the old days, before the internet, before USB cables.

"I don't want to go to rehab" is on everyone's lips: the 60's get revisited but upgraded into injectables. Everyone reinforces everyone else, and the parade of conformity materializes. So many interests get served at once, it feels just like a Denny's grand slam.

Who can stop them? Who would stop them? The frog in the pan doesn't feel the gradual heat.
Ribbit.

[Ironfox]

"The frog in the pan doesn't feel the gradual heat"
Actually that is a myth. The frog in the pot will feel the heat and invariably jump out.
Excepting the extreme ideologues the somnolance, cognitive dissonance, and denial of the mass of the American people can be overcome.
There is a tipping-point that will inevitably be reached. The question is; will it be too late?

[jhink465]

great writing.

[ErieCanaller]

Bill Press's comments do not absolve him of responsibility. Why didn't he protest at the time? Why didn't he say "David Shuster, that is an outrageous thing to say about a young woman"?

[splashy]

They have been attacking Clinton for a long time. The owners (all right wingers) just can't STAND an uppity woman actually thinking SHE can run things.

It's so obviously biased.

[mimiow]

Longer version to MSNBC. ...=Abridg­ed

...Schuste­r...classi­c case, man wanting to please superiors.­..instead.­..punished for their sins,...de­cent person, good anchor ...seduced by culture of hate/bias growing at MSNBC.

Matthews..­.vitriol/h­ate/bias leader...m­outh fairly foams re Clintons. ...never apologizes­...rage/ha­tred...dee­ply imbedded, obvious...­cannot go 15 mins. w/out spiteful,offensive comments reHillary. ... respect,..­.support accorded MSNBC attack dogs leads to one conclusion: deliberate corp. bias/malev­olence... Scarboroug­h,neutral? ...no better than Fox right/left duo. Joe...righ­t-wing bluster-bus, ...she pretends to leveling force she is never allowed to be. ...no respect for Russert/Mi­tchell... years ago.

...Olberma­n/DAbrams…­bright,san­e,lucid part of schedule. ...poisoni­ng their minds too?...Kei­th shows over-abundance Obama- passion ...a view encouraged by neocons, corporate usa...thei­r bet...Bara­k Hussein Obama...ea­sier to swift-boat, trash than Hillary, whose every breath has... repeatedly, viciously vetted by scum that gave us most shameful years in our history. ...cardboa­rd Laura?...o­nly admiration­...except she “accidentally” killed boyfriend after he dumped her... imagine frenzied, malicious-­reporting/­nonstop-in­vestigatin­g...would have ensued w/such a Hillary revelation­?...still.­..how boring grade-scho­ol-librari­an from, at best, middleclass, managed to move in heady, booze, drug-filled circles of ne’er-do-well rich men’s sons?

...suggest­ions to MSNBC/NBC…be only non-total-neocon 24-hour news channel on air: dump pitbull Mathews, give backbone to Joe’s co-host, dispatch Andrea forever...­for more cosmetic surgery? ...Russert­...to FOX,...Mat­hews to Fox too,...but bet FOX over-stocked w/smooth-brained hate-mongers. ...keep Olbermann and Abrams (and the rightwing commentato­rs...who aren’t vitriolic smirkers, screamers). Who wants to hear smirking, cackling screamers who never discuss issues?...­if people want hatred, insanity, FOX/CNN (little fox) do it better. ...simply not enough neanderthal neocons to support three enraged neocon-cable channels.

...Shuster uttered offensive remark...i­t’s clear MSNBCcorporate, most of his associates, created, consistently modeled behavior and attitude that ensnared him. ...any of you...cons­cientious, ...bring Schuster back, publicly accept blame for disgusting culture you created that lured Schuster into behaving in ways he thought would please his superiors.

[Janelynne]

You have some very interesting commentary. Of course, we aren't going to hold our breaths that NBC, GE, is interested in change. Change will only come if GE gets the hurt from customers who stop buying. Their stock is $30 a share. I wouldn't buy it at a garage sale.

[jrmcgraw]

Unfortunately we all have too much time on our hand to watch the self described experts and moderators of the cable shows. They are realy all about entertainment and less about objective journalistic reporting. It would seem that the media likes an underdog and reflects a certain bias in favor of such a candidate. The obvious disdain that MSNBC have for the Clintons has been evident in the coverage of the entire process. The recent dust up over the Shuster statement must be in response to the over-all coverage and he is used as a scapegoat. The coverage demonstrated by the unfair analysis of the Clintons and the exaggerated praise of Obama does a diservice to our democratic process and to our Country at large.
An interview was done with Michelle Obama and asked if she would support the nominee if it was not her husband, and she stated she was not sure. It was mentioned but briefly by the press. Had anyone related to the Clintons made the statement there would have been full coverage. The almost certain outcome will be a seriously depressed vote of Democrats which either candidate gets the nomination. I must admit if Hillary does not get the nomination, I will not vote in the general election, as a significant number of Democrats will do. I do feel commentary like Matthews, Scarborough, and Carlson are not helpful and promote divisiveness. The suspensions should have began with them. I can only hope the ratings for MSNBC continue to decline

[veracal]

As someone has already pointed out on another thread, Michelle Obama was not asked if she would support Hillary. She was asked if she would "work hard" on behalf of Hillary. IMO, your decision to withold your vote if Hillary is not the nominee is a potentially dangerous one.

[mimiow]

Nominating Obama is like giving McCain the presidency. Wouldn't that be a terrible result of democratic wool-gathering. (Building castles in the air.) He is simply NOT going to win a national election. And I regret it as much as many of you do but I have learned to be realistic in this neocon-evangelicon polluted world.

[ErinG]

Here is another Hillary cheerleader masquerading as an objective critic.

[rantsrus]

And what if Shuster had used the word "pimping" as a description of an Obama activity like sending his wife out to spread...t­he word? Oh my, the firestorm of reaction even more heated than that from the Clinton headquarters. Damn, when will Obama Democrats stop being shills for the Republican Party? And when will we get a media a democracy deserves?

[ErinG]

Guess who's the victim again?

[lexicoscott]

"Here is another Obama cheerleader masquerading as an objective voter."

[Independent voter]

Exactly !

And right on cue - on the eve of the weekend primaries in which hillary went 0 for 5.

Next public crying jag coming your way rather soon.

[Tulka2]

So unfortunate to lose Schuster right now too. Damn. I have often felt a surge of relief when Shuster's face comes on the screen, because, as you say, he is such a danm fine journalist. A real, old-time journalist. But he certainly had a brain hic-up on this one. If it was a dream he had...? A stream of consciousness mess-up...­? I would guess he was surprised to see that Chelsey could speak and public and (put the following in mental italics) he found her attractive. Men have such a hard time. Snuck.

[Gileo30]

It really is unfortunate to lose David Shuster. He really is the best at what he does. I find myself unable to believe what he said was so terrible. Does David know something that precipitated the words he spoke? I can't stand Tucker, so I missed the interactions.
I hope that David Shuster will return.

[Capaneus]

If I can "pimp up" my car, I don't see why the Clintons can't "pimp out" their daughter. The PC police are so, so yesterday.

[jukesgrrl]

I really do believe this controversy has a generation­al/linguis­tic aspect to it. I don't think this term "pimp" has quite the same meaning to someone of Shuster's age/sex as it does to someone of Sen. Clinton's age/sex. While I agree that if any Clinton supporter had used the term about any Obama (or even Oprah, for that matter) Shuster would be fired, not suspended, I wish people would give Shuster a break. He IS one of the few talking heads on MSNBC who actually attempts to REPORT rather than merely bloviate. The fact that he's off the air and Matthews is still on should offend even Hillary Clinton.

[Donald Wolberg]

One can only wonder at the loss of the freedom to say one's mind no matter how absurd. I do not admire Mr. Shuster as a journalist, but he should be allowed to utter a word in passing that is used every day in a thousand of other public situations from "music" to interviews, etc. "Correct" speec is meaningless speech and to disallow any speech is contrary to freedom. The freedom o say the banal, the silly, and even the offensive, allows the brilliant and insightful and meaningful an opportunity as well.

[realpolitic]

Is Mark your brother?

[NABNYC]

Why does it merit suspension? I don't understand the point. Is the word "pimp" suddenly on the no-say list, like the n word, the b word and the c word? And if so, why?

You can't call someone a pimp? Technically it derives from a term for a small boy or a collection of small sticks. So why can't you call someone a pimp?

What about the word "hustle?" Is it okay to say that? Could he say that the Clintons have their daughter out "hustling" for her mother?

Is it the fact that they mentioned the kid at all? Is that the problem?

This is what I think. The Clintons throw a pity party every time Hillary's getting ready to lose another convention. This week it's the pimp thing, a few weeks ago it was poor Hillary had to loan herself $5.0 million. They're playing you.

As far as the media and the Clintons, the Clintons can't help themselves from wallowing in corruption and smarmy associates. Bill Clinton hanging out with central asia dictators, getting $100 million to grease a deal for some westerner to steal resources. The Clintons could have chosen to spend their lives doing something worthwhile. But they're just like the Bush family -- all money all the time.

Even the kid. Is it okay to say she's a pimp for some hedge fund and the wall street boys?

For heaven's sake. Hillary has the blood of 1 million dead Iraqis on her hands. Does anyone really she's sensitive about something as silly as the word pimp?

[forurby]

Just so I get this straight,If it's not ok for Chelsea to pimp for her mother, then all the women associated with their candidates are pimping for them.Every women,Yes every women.

[timinhi]

Gee--you Obama people just don't get it do you? As long as it's against the Clintons, it perfectly okay to pile on, right? As long as no one says anything remotely negative about Saint Barack, who cares? Well then, I guess you need a taste of your own medicine so you can get the point:

Wow--that Michelle Obama sure is a WHORE for attention the way she's always gushing in public about her husband (How dare she?)! Isn't it shocking the way the Obamas are PROSTITUTING their daughters out, the way they pose them for schmaltzy family photos to garner public approval? Jiminy Cricket! That Obama is like a CANABALISTIC SERIAL KILLER the way he keeps voting for funds to bomb, maim and murder poor Iraqi civilians--Imagine! What a corporate whore HE is! What's a little overzealous hyperbole among friends?

I'm sure you think these statements are so unfair. Typical Obamite hypocricy. The fact is that the type of Comment Schuster made is inappropriate in civil political discourse. Such attacks on candidates' spouses and children should not be tolerated except in certain special cases. Bill Clinton, for example, can't complain because he chose to run for office many years ago, and he's better equipped to defend himself and his record. Sexist and racist stuff should not be tolerated at all, no matter at who or which party it is directed.

[lexicoscott]

you mean like "nappy headed ho's"??

[Mysticalsister]

I guess Hillary was the puppet master behind Bush, Cheney, Rummy, a majority of the senate and the house, the intelligence community and several countries. With power like that, it's a wonder she would stoop to the presidency. When are you Hillaryhaters gonna get new material? Oh right -- there's a writers strike on.

[monique]

Just like Krugman's piece in the New York Times today, it is so nice to hear someone speaking the truth, and saying enough is enough. We went through years of watching out-of-control right-wingers go after the Clintons and try to destroy Bill's presidency at the expense of our nation. Is the media going to pick up where they left off?

You say David Schuster is religiously fair. I just don't know that I can say that. I have been, for quite some time, completely confident as to who he wanted for President--Obama. And it shouldn't be that way. When Chris Matthews got in trouble, Schuster was like a big pouting baby taking up for Chris, railing against all the groups that railed against Chris Matthews' inappropriate and biased remarks.

MSNBC has been out of control for a while--and this is coming from someone who loves the network and watches it religiously. But they infuriate me. Other than Norah O'Donnell and Dan Abrams, I know who everyone on MSNBC is rooting for--Obama.

If Clinton wins, it will be despite an enormous bias against her from everyone from Huffington Post to MSNBC to the right-wing talk show hosts. It is ridiculously unfair the way they go after her and attack anything that she or her husband says as unfair. It is laughable.

The day before Schuster said those things to you re Chelsea, he was making the same absurd remarks to Gray Davis--that it was inappropriate of the Clintons to use their daughter in the campaign--and Gray laughed, saying this is the U.S. and anyone can campaign for whoever they choose.

Chelsea is a grown woman. The media needs to start acting like grown-ups too, and quit trying to decide who our next President is--that is our job. They need to do theirs.

[Bozwellian]

Uh, do you by chance remember that SINCE at the very least, 2004, Hillary was DECLARED the INEVITIBLE candidate and non stoppable and given a VAST FREE RIDE IN THE MSM, by MSNBC and CNN and OTHERS as well...LOL­, even the "Vast right winger" yakkers BOOSTED her INEVITIBILITY, even Bush and ROVE and LYNN CHENEY stumped to have Hillary THE INEVITIBLE ONE....and many of us who had to sit thru all that , decrying and moaning HUH, HOW COME and etc and listening to the EVER CONSTANT DERISIVE comments aimed toward someone as qualified , as say GORE, well , get a reality check puh-leeze !!! Biden was a better choice , Dodd and Richardson and even Edwards should have gotten HALF the special consideration and SUPPORT that the CLintons have received from MSM and others in the rush to gush of their pre-ordainment PERCEPTION being mainlined to us all as if the ONLY given to consider !!! THe DEAL was DONE, so there, ...and NONE took Obama as a serious contender until some DID start to notice, the PUBLIC was embracing his"notions" !!!!

[mimiow]

Bozwellian - If there is a shred of truth to your assertions, it is only because Cheney, Bush and Rove have discovered a far more defeatable candidate, yes, Barack Hussein Obama. I cannot imagine any true Democrat/P­rogressive is willing to chance another neocon administration by heralding the unknown, unvetted, inexperienced Obama, whose swift-boating will make Kerry's pale in comparison.
ps - the rabid right have already removed John Edwards, our, by far, most winnable candidate. And Obama is the weakest of the remainders.

[shnopsie18]

You are so right, with the exception of Norah O'Donnell. She also belongs on the "bash Clinton" list. I have written to MSNBC regarding Chris, Tucker, Keith, and the rest, with the exception (so far,anyway) of Dan Abrams. Chris and Tucker have even had guests such as Ed Schultz calling Bill Clinton a liar right on air. I have heard Ed Schultz on the radio saying he is entitled to his opinion. I am so offended by this pattern that MSNBC is totally off limits for my friends, family, and myself, except for Dan Abrams. The Chelsea bashing is the last straw with me. Even the women on the view were making fun of Chelsea last week. This network has become like Fox News Network, or at least what I've heard about it. The media has given George W a free ride for over 7 years and I don't have a clue why. People have cried for impeachment hearings to begin and the petitions are ignored with the likes of Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and many others. I don't understand what has been going on. Can someone explain it to me? I am a registered Democrat and ashamed of the leadership in the House of Representatives and definitely the media. Hopefully we will get some new blood in the House and the Senate and get some things done. Barack Obama's time is not 2008.

[democraticjack]

MSNBC's regulars have been so transparent in their hate Hillary bias. It's not just outright slurs like Shuster's and Matthews, it's the little snide asides, the rolling of eyes, the use of adverbs and adjectives, the giggling and the overall glee they take when there is anything negative to report. It is disgusting and anti-democratic (small c). I don't even watch except for Dan Abrams.
Ed Schultz is a hack and a reformed Repug and just pissed because Hillary will not come on his show at his beck and call.

[Independent voter]

bill clinton destroyed the nation for the sake of his failed presidency.

[Mysticalsister]

. . . by leaving us with a healthy economy/job growth rate. At least until the repugnicans got their slimy hands on it. Oh, you mean it was the BLOW JOB that "distroyed" our nation. Yeah, THAT was the end of the world.

Everything that's happened since has been just fabulous.