Pimp My Riot: In Defense of David Shuster

Go ahead and pick up those rocks and get into pitching stance, because I'm about to suggest something unthinkable.

As you must know by now, MSNBC's David Shuster has revealed himself to be the Anti-Christ by suggesting on-air that Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign smacks of opportunism on the part of Camp Clinton; his exact words were that the once-and-possibly-future First Daughter was being "pimped out" by Mom and Dad. Since most folks assumed Shuster wasn't alluding to the MTV brand of pimping out, which I imagine would've involved jacking Chelsea up on 24" rims, the wave of thoroughly bullshit outrage in response to his admittedly ill-advised comment began pushing across the land almost immediately. Over the past few days, Shuster's been excoriated in the press and the blogging media, suspended by NBC, and targeted for as public a shaming as possible by Hillary Clinton herself.

Most of those now engaging in the obligatory and all-too-gratifying pile-on claim Shuster's offense to be two-fold: He insulted the child of a particular presidential contender for behavior most politicians' kids engage in -- the cynical would say that all candidates pimp their children in one manner or another -- while cavalierly flaunting the depth of anti-Clinton group-think that supposedly permeates MSNBC.

Hillary, though, has taken the argument one step further.

Her campaign is insinuating that Shuster's comment is a slight against all women, more proof that MSNBC -- the special-needs child of the NBC News family -- is essentially one big frat house. They cite a 12-month period that's seen the dismissal of Don Imus for making a crude but, let's face it, somewhat innocuous joke about the Rutgers womens' basketball team, an on-air mea culpa from Chris Matthews -- not to mention his inability to talk to Erin Burnett without little hearts dancing over his head -- and now Shuster's indiscretion.

In other words, the Clinton camp seems to be recasting this in exactly the kind of terms that are likely to motivate women voters; the fact that the Clintons are so adept at this sort of misdirection is precisely the reason their critics consider them little more than political profiteers who will say or do anything to make points at the polls.

This is why it's become second nature to question their motives, no matter how genuine or innocent those motives might seem at first glance. While there's no doubt that Chelsea Clinton simply wants to see her mother elected president, the campaign's own "handling" of her makes Chelsea look like just another weapon in the Clinton arsenal, and Hillary's indignation reek of calculated insincerity.

Understand something, I'm certainly not claiming that what David Shuster said wasn't incredibly stupid and somewhat unfair, nor am I saying that Hillary Clinton wouldn't make a decent president. However, it's not as if a journalist's decision to question the motivations of the Clintons is happening in a vacuum; the press has seen the Hillary and Bill PR machine in action for quite some time now, and maybe for that reason is apt to regard the Clintons' actions with slightly more suspicion than it otherwise might. I'll be the first one to say that this is unfortunate.

Did David Shuster deserve to be disciplined?

Yes, but not for the reason his detractors might think and not by the one charged with doling out the punishment.

Shuster raised a relevant point in an unquestionably crass and injudicious manner, and there's no doubt that he wouldn't challenge, say, Michelle Obama, in the same way -- lest he risk having Al Sharpton amass a torch-wielding mob at NBC's front door before the opening credits of the 5 O'clock news even hit the air. Now though, a different group is demanding satisfaction for what it feels is a personal slight, and, for starters, it wants that one ineffectual gesture aggrieved parties invariably want in times like this: a public apology. I'll never understand why an obviously insincere show of genuflection acts as some kind of panacea to the perpetually pissed-off, but a good rule of thumb is this: If someone's apology has to be demanded, he or she probably doesn't really mean it. When you look at it like this, suspending Shuster is probably justified since he knows exactly what he said and meant every word of it -- making any apology an act of ass-kissing theater. Still, factor in the comical twist that Shuster's official reprimand is being self-righteously administered by NBC News President Steve Capus -- the same man who turned ethical somersaults on national television last year to justify his network's shameful decision to air the manifesto of Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho -- and you have to wonder what's really wrong over there at 30 Rock.

Maybe Shuster got off easy.

He gets to spend some time away from the Clintons and the peacock for awhile.

Comments

[Madampotential]

Chez,

Nice to know theere is no anti-clinton bias over there at CNN. Sorry you lost your job for revealing how biased CNN is against democrats.

[GeneTouchet]

When Mitt pimps Tagg, call me.

[YellowPanties]

Schuster is a fine reporter and a funny guy. If you've ever seen him before, he is jocular and witty, just like Olbermann. They often make double-entendres and say things that are a bit risque, but this is not your mama's newscast.

Schuster's comment was not that bad and the fact is, he was right. If Chelsea is going to make those calls, she should be available for interviews like every other political operative.

And I like Chelsea. I think she's turned out to be a wonderful young lady. Sometimes the truth hurts, and if Chelsea and her family don't like someone saying she's being pimped, maybe they should stop pimping her.

[janmB]

CHEZ -- MEN IN THE MEDIA AND BLOGGERS HAVE BEEN PIMPING OBAMA FOR MONTHS.
I DON'T KNOW WHY SINCE HE'S A MEMBER OF Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.

[kristin]

Chelsea : " wants some modicum of privacy " while she makes telephone calls that may affect who is the next president of the US. Can't have it both ways. I believe what the reporter was complaining about--not specifically in the comment with the ill-chosen word, but in the overall conversation -- was that Chelsea does not want to answer any questions from the press about her activities, yet she has taken on the very public activity in the campaign of calling the super delegates asking them to support her Mom for president of the United States. She wants to claim the right to lead a private life yet her actions involve who may be our president for the next 4 to 8 years.

[Ashall]

I've got a great solution to the Clinton/Shuster problem. Since she hates the media anyway, quit mentioning her name on ANY news shows except for election results. Leave her out of magazines, out of newspapers, and let her see how far she gets without them. When she asks why, say you just can't please her and it's not worth having to fire one of your best reporters over. Don't they say that what comes around, goes around?

[eclecticbf]

Have not these same stations run series with mames such as " Pimps in the pulpit" and the first time I heard the term " poverty pimp" was in Arkansas.

I don't remember Sen.Clinton experssing outrage and standing tall for very young women being exploited by powerful old men when the younger than daughter, Monica was assenting to her husbands desires in our Oval Office.


Absolute hypocrisy.

[user168]

Here's for Hillary-the-dirty-trick: Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. What goes around comes around.

Why would Hillary constantly want to remind us that she and us women are women? Does she really think all women are two-year-old-don"t-knows? Does she think all women are unhappy souls (like her) that they have to fight (for her)? What are you fighting for? What is not enough of you? One vote for the Iraq War isn't enough? Why create more fight and war? Go ask God to make you a man next life. As a woman, I understand that there are men looking for the lowest wage jobs and there are more men in the state prisons than woman professors (In support of Summers - why Harvard professors don't fight for more state prison woman inmates?). I see more men die in "Hell is this thing called War" for their country than women. (Thanks to Hillary"s "no-tear" vote, women and children are being killed too.) Honestly, to me, Hillary is so confused (or calculating) that on one hand she wants all the women sympathy-votes, but on the other hand she is a real women hater who wants to destroy women by destroying their mind, heart, and soul.

God help those who help themselves. Demand (respect) not from others but from yourself. Hillary, be truthful! When there are not thousands, but hundreds of thousands that "hate" you, there must be a reason.

I have never come across one with wisdom, kindness, and courage being "hated", not to say by so many.

[gemstone1000]

Excuse me, but what do you think the reaction would have been had someone accused the Bushes of "pimping out" Jenna and Barbara.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

The Bush girls didn't take the kind of role that Chelsea has in this election cycle. They weren't calling super delegates privately trying to solicit their votes for their father. They weren't calling television personalities who have a female audience, trying to convince those women to vote for their father.

Because the Bush twins did not have an extensive or active role in promoting their father in his election bids, your point is moot. Additionally, unlike Chelsea Hedge Fund Clinton, one of George W's daughters, seems altruistic, having written a book

http://www.amazon.com/Anas-Story-Journey-Jenna-Bush/dp/0061379107

based on her charity work for UNICEF in Central and South America. Also Jenna's sister Barbara, did some charity work in South Africa.

[Barrack69]

DUH! Ms. Hillary threatened to have her supporters boycott GE-(General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC) unless Mr. Shuster was reprimanded. Forget freedom of speech. Forget freedom of the press.
GE dose not want to alienate Ms. Hiilary's supporters. It's all about money.

[imjbb]

"while cavalierly flaunting the depth of anti-Clinton group-think that supposedly permeates MSNBC." Actually, you can drop the word 'supposedly' and it would be accurate. Just listen to Matthews (HA!), Olbermann, Finemann, etc. to hear their 'fair & balanced' disdain for both Clintons - and arousal over Obama. Haven't they already decreed the Obama coronation? Sure seems like it.

[BaselessOp]

Oh, the outrage! I find it funny (not funny ha-ha-but funny Ridiculous) that people lose their jobs over stupid comments and that the masses have fake outrage coniptions over this kind of crap. One good thing-Hillary can use this as an opportunity and save the gliserin drops for the next time she's slipping in the polls.

[Citizenchick]

How long is his suspension? Or is it one of those, we'll just wait until he gets off everybody's mind and gets a job delivering pizzas?

There's nothing wrong with what he said. It's cable.

[nads2985]

The criticism isn't that he shouldn't have been allowed to say it on the public airwaves. Its not like the FCC is cracking down and fining MSNBC for it. It's that what he said was wrong and reprehensible. The fact that it was on cable doesn't change anything.

[nads2985]

You write that "Shuster raised a relevant point in an unquestionably crass and injudicious manner," so what exactly is the relevant point he was making?

He deserved to be fired or suspended precisely because his comments did not bring up any relevant point - as you note earlier in your piece, most campaigns with adult children have their kids out campaigning for them (see: the romney brothers, meghan mccain, etc.) There was nothing unique about what Chelsea was doing, but Schuster decried that there was something "unseemly" about it, providing a great example of the overhwelmingly anti-Clinton bias that pervades throughout MSNBC.

It has nothing to do with being a slight against all women, its the fact that he was singling out the Clintons and attacking them as morally reprehensible for doing something entirely commonplace.

[MEED1]

The Clintons ARE morally reprehensible, for many, many reasons. Whitehouse antiques taken when they moved out, gifts to the nation in an Arkansas warehouse, Whitewater, Vince Foster, "I can't recall",shenanigans under the Presidential desk, documents found on table in Whitehouse day after statute of limitations ran out on charging Hilarious Clintoon with crimes,,,,need I go on?????

[edwardteller02]

What it actually shows is how long after we have blended together and race is meaningless, gender will still be there. Think there is more racial than gender prejudice? Imagine the famous comment made by a woman and televised about how are we going to beat the b*tch. McCain"s response, "but that"s a good question." Now imagine a black man standing up and saying about Obama how are we going to beat the "N-word" If McCain made the same response his campaign would be over. Wait, you say, those aren"t the same kind of words. True. Imagine someone standing up and saying of John Edwards, "how are we going to beat that southern son of a b*tch? All of those would have been damaging if McCain had answered the same. What it all means is that women are fair game and they better keep their mouths shut about. Pimp my ride¦uh huh.