- BIG NEWS:
- Glenn Beck
- |
- ABC
- |
- NBC
- |
- CNN
- |
Pimp My Riot: In Defense of David Shuster
Read More:
David Shuster, David Shuster Chelsea Clinton, David Shuster MSNBC, David Shuster Pimp, David Shuster Suspended, Msnbc,
Media News
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.
Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza
Loading comments…
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What David Shuster ment was that Chelsea was pandering to potential voters on her moms behalf to win their support, he never implied that sexual favours were given for financial gain, to think so, is simply the product of a rather shabby imagination.
Hillary Clinton is making a big deal out of nothing, why can't Chelsea speak for herself, after all, she's a grown woman, not a minor!
if that's what he meant, why didn't he say that? Why use the word 'pimp'? Was he trying to prove he has 'street cred'? Is a professional journalist supposed to have 'street cred'?
If he had said what you did instead of using the crass language he did, it wouldn't have caused any trouble.
And, even if he did mean that, how is Chelsea any different than any other candidates child?
First, Chelsea is no child, she's a grown woman!
Second, the interpretation of David Shuster's words depends upon the mindset of the listener.
I took no crude meaning from what he said, simply that Chelsea was pandering to potential voters with mom and dads approval.
In short, I understand the language David Shuster used, others clearly did not, it's a sort of cultural thing, either you're up to speed with modern street linguistics or your not!
I would have thought a woman of Hillary's alledged experience would have had her finger on the pulse, but, it seems she's out of touch with the younger generation!
Shuster probably deserved the suspension for incredible stupidity. If you read the email chain between he and the Clinton campaign, it's clear he's arguing some point that really is irrelevant to the language he used. We all get it...the MSM doesn't like having to give her special treatment. But how does that equal the campaign pimping her out?
Me? I really like Shuster. I've actually emailed MSNBC when he's hosted Tucker as I usually change the channel when the 5PM Hardball is over. But I will watch Tucker when Shuster is hosting. (And yep, I loved Shuster during the Scooter trial.)
But I think his inability to realize his bone-head move is tied to something specific to the Clinton campaign. Reading his defence of Chris Matthews (after an equally offensive remark), it's clear there is some real issue there. I for one am not sure its misogyny..
What really must burn Shuster's butt, though, is that the Clinton campaign *will* leverage this. I mean, how they can defend choosing to debate on Fox but not MSNBC is a bit bizarre.
But Shuster brought this on. He really goofed. And he kept digging the hole when he could have gotten out. I hope he learns from this, as MSNBC needs him.
Then again, I kinda liked what looked like Ladies Night last night. Maybe keeping the male reporters in the dog house would be a good thing?
The issue here is freedom of the press and the slow, systematic destruction of the First Amendment.
First it was "how can we stop the bitch"?Now it is how can we stop the "pimp". And we accuse Bill of bringing up the race card.For God sake get real.
That does not count, as long is against the Clintons. The venenous histeria in some peoples mind is abhorrent
I just hate the lack of commonality in their ounishments. Imus was fired for his comments, Shuster was suspended for his and Olberman got nothing for saying that Bush was "pimping" Petraeus last September. I guess they only enforce their own standards when it best suits them. Way to go BSNBC.
Wasn't Peter Arnet fired from NBC for telling the truth about something important, too?
All politicians are whores, no matter what gender.
Using a cheap, demeaning comment that implies that Hillary Clinton is selling her own daughter for sexual acts in order to be elected is misogyny at its lowest.
It's time that penised persons who use this kind of language pay the price for their offense.
Off with their . . . jobs!
I love that expression PP.
I work for MTV Networks, and for millions and millions of people under 30, as well as this 40 year old woman, "pimp" has come into the vernacular as a way to say "sell out for profit or personal gain". It is used to refer to the actions of men and women alike.
And that is the drag about what happened to Shuster...
Shuster is a great reporter who made a big mistake and who has apologized and been suspended.
I agree whole heartedly with this column.
people under 30 use a lot of slang phrases that have no plave in the vocabulary of a professinal journalist.
what about "that's so gay" to describe something undesireable. Do you suppose journalists should start adding that phrase to their reports to build up their "street cred"?
Yeah, it is a generational thing. Hillary is 60 and out of touch. And FightForJustice is dead right.
Perhaps you are too old or out of touch to understand he did NOT mean PIMPED in the literal sence - or perhaps, like Hillary, you are hearing what you want to hear and using his poor choice of words as a marketing opportunity?
Too bad that's not what David was actually doing.
That is not at all the meaning of the term in todays' usage of the language. Yes, it was silly and a mistake, but have you ever called the rap "artists" on the same thing, which can be heard on MTV and recordings all over the place? Do so. Even Al Sharpton is complaining about it! Maybe if we all complain, some good will come from it.
AMEN and well put.
What Shuster did WAS indefensible, and he got what he deserved. He made a serious mistake on-air, and there was no delete key. Maybe he should stick to writing opinion pieces.
Shuster is a journalist. He doesn't write opinion pieces. Please review his body of work. I think you'll see that it is exceptional.
Oh . . . puh-leeze
I would suggest that news channels stop acting like bloggers and show some professionalism. Otherwise I don't need them I will just my news on the net.
He was the commentator on a talk show, not a news show.
He is considered a journalist, not a commentator. Rightfully so, he has excellent credentials. He needs to act like it.
Thank you for your perspective. I happened to be watching when Shuster asked Bill Press about Chelsea being "pimped out." It was curious that at the same moment silent video of Chelsea on a street (corner?) shaking hands with potential voters was shown. It made a "scripted" impression.
I agree that "forcing" an apology is indicative of denial. An apology benefits a "victim" by being honest. Also, "accountability" is a statement of what a person did that was wrong so that the person will not do it again. Shuster was clear before, during and after his "pimped out" statement of his admiration of Chelsea as a person and of her parents rearing her to be who she is.
What echoed in my thoughts, however, was Julie Nixon. Talk about being "pimped out" by her father in protesting his innocence during Watergate!
Chelsea Clinton is 28 years old this month. She's not the teenager so long ago "off-limits," needing to be protected by her parents. She's a woman. I would rather hear from CHELSEA how Shuster's words affected HER since SHE was the target. In her eloquent way, she could have clarified her purpose to support her mother and her mother's campaign. She could have said, "David Shuster, you are wrong. Don't ever refer to me that way again."
David Shuster is a journalist who chose colloquial words (pimped out) to be "clever," even "funny." He and all other journalists would benefit from employing expressions that are precise.
There's not much hope of that, however. The MSM continues to call the military invasion and occupation of Iraq a "war" when no "war" (wait, aren't we the guests of a sovereign country ~ one that we liberated?)has ever been declared. PRECISE LANGUAGE (thank you, Keith Olberman) ILLUMINATES OUR DIALOGUE. Journalists elevate the conversation when they INSIST on precise language and accept nothing less. We, as the purchasing public with power to change the channel or learn elsewhere, must INSIST on PRECISE language also.
Between the prolific amounts of "" marks and overused CAPS, I gave up on this post about 1/4 of the way through. Please, those are useful when used judiciously, but completely distracting and destructive to your point when peppered all over your writing.
First let me say that I also believe there was never any reason for Schuster to question Chelsea campaigning for her mother. As you say, all candidates children do it. But, if he was legitimately trying to question why Chelsea doesn't talk to the press, well OK. But, when will you get it. It was using the word "pimp" that caused the problem. He could have expressed what he was trying to say by simply saying it seemed as though Chelsea was being "used" by her mother's campaign. Why use the word "pimp"? Was he trying to be one of the "cool" kids? Schuster is a serious journalist, not a "cool" kid and not a blogger. He should be used to using serious, accurate language.
Just because the word "pimp" is used in the general population doesn't mean it belongs on a news program anymore than any "four-letter" word does.
It is popular among teens today when describing something that is less than desireable to use the phrase "that's so gay!". Would you be happy if David Schuster started to use that phrase as well?
I'm an old white man with middle aged kids, one male, one female, and both work in corporate management. Pimpin' is a part of their everyday vernacular. They both expressed dismay at the uproar over Shuster's remarks and said flat out that even if Hillary didn't understand, it was inconceivable that Chelsea didn't and that she should have spoken up if she wants to court young voters.
With the trash that right-wing radio and faux news injects into the airways, this is where the Clinton's want to draw the line?
When Hillary personally condemns John McCain for his Chelsea joke, I'll take her indignation for what it is, a political ploy to gain older female supporters.
Shuster was using slang in a professional setting, but he shouldn't be vilified for it.
Btw, I live in rural Arkansas and if someone had said that about my daughter I wouldn't have been offended in the least.
The cosmopolitan Senator from New York knew better as well.
Flame away.
Great post. My thoughts exactly.
But - do your hear that beeping sound?? That is the mountain sized HRC bandwagon dump truck backing up to this post. It will commence dumping mounds of invective at any moment. Get out your umbrella..
Forget an umbrella - we're going to need a bomb shelter once the Hillary-bots unload on this post.
Agreed.
Oh my gosh ATLiberal, you have me sitting here laughing my tail off with your comment. SOOO True!!
This is my mom's link so I will have her comment as well. She's cool, she supports OBAMA!
Haha! Love it!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
