Politics DailyPolitics Daily

  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • COLUMNISTS
  • TOPICS
  • THE CAPITOLIST
  • WOMAN UP
  • DAILY FLOTUS
  • JUST IN
  • THE CRAM
  • CONTACT

    Stay in Touch

    • Inside Politics Daily

    tommy-christopher

    Tommy Christopher

    Contributor

    Shuster Returns, Clinton 'Relents' on Debate

    Posted:
    02/16/08
    Filed Under:Hillary Clinton, Media
    198 Comments  + 
    Join the discussion »
    Broadcasting and Cable Magazine reports that David Shuster will return to MSNBC on February 22, shortly before the Democratic debate in Ohio. Shuster was suspended following a remark that he made, about Chelsea Clinton, as guest host on the Feb. 7 edition of "Tucker."

    The remark touched off a firestorm that included surprising, and disappointing, reactions from MSNBC, Countdown host Keith Olbermann, and Senator Hillary Clinton. MSNBC suspended Shuster, Olbermann gravely announcing the disciplinary action and calling the remark "indefensible", and Senator Clinton threatening to pull out of a debate on MSNBC and demanding harsher action against Shuster, presumably his firing. Since then, Clinton has agreed to appear on MSNBC's debate.

    While each of them had a point, their respective reactions were cowardly and hypocritical. MSNBC had already proven itself craven in the face of the Don Imus apocalypse, but I expected much more from Olbermann and Senator Clinton. Here, again, are Shuster's remark and subsequent apology, followed by my analysis. It is important to bear in mind that I am an admirer of both Keith Olbermann and Hillary Clinton. It is precisely that admiration that is the cause of my profound disappointment. I have also come to admire and respect Shuster's work, mainly due to his coverage of the Scooter Libby trial and this bright, shining moment:



    When this flap first occurred, I lit into Keith Olbermann pretty good, but hadn't yet heard Senator Clinton's reaction. Olbermann was right to say that Shuster's remark was inappropriate. It was in describing the remark as "indefensible" that he went wrong, taking his condemnation of Shuster way over the top. I framed my criticism as a "Unique Utterance", a nod to Olbermann's own "Special Comment" segments. Here are some of the key points:

    Shuster's remark was innappropriate, for sure, but far from indefensible or worthy of suspension. In context, the remark was meant to convey a cynical use of a personal relationship for political purposes. He was clearly not calling Chelsea a prostitute, or implying that she is equipped with spinning chrome rims and a plasma TV in her headrest. For a guy who prizes nuance, you seem to have taken a narrow view of Shuster's unfortunate word choice.

    Should he have been suspended? I don't think so. A profuse and unqualified apology would, I think, have sufficed. Chelsea Clinton seems like a good sport, if this clip is any indication. Of course, that would have allowed critics of MSNBC, such as your nemesis, Bill O'Reilly, to make hay out of your firing of Don Imus, as if they were the same thing. So, you sacrificed your friend in exchange for retention of your high horse.

    And what of the Imus firing? Again, his remark was far more offensive in its content and its intent, but as mild as baby shampoo compared to the bile that is SOP from other hosts and pundits. Then, there's your colleague, Chris Matthews, who was cited in detail by Media Matters for a steady stream of misogynist, anti-Hillary commentary for which he, to his slight credit, issued an apology before continuing it unabated. You tolerate misogynistic substance from Matthews, yet condemn Shuster for the distorted appearance of misogyny where there is none.
    Then came Hillary Clinton's reaction.

    I do think that Hillary has a point in threatening to refuse a debate on MSNBC based on the totality of their coverage, particularly Chris Matthews, but then to accept a debate on Fox News? That dog, as they say, don't hunt. In her letter to MSNBC, it is clear that she is demanding that they change their ways in the macro, but there also seems to be a call for Shuster to be fired. MSNBC needs to stand up for their reporter.
    The Clinton campaign kept up the pressure on MSNBC, but pressed the issue with Shuster rather than focusing on the far more pervasive and substantive problems with MSNBC's other hosts. As one of my readers astutely, and perhaps cynically, pointed out, Senator Clinton's "outrage" made headlines that supplanted coverage of her sweeping defeat by Barack Obama in the "Significant Saturday" primaries.

    Now that she is trying, legitimately, to pressure her opponent into more debates, her outrage seems to have dimmed. If Senator Clinton had truly mistaken the character of Shuster's remark, it would seem impossible that she would later agree to appear on MSNBC.

    Knowing what I do about Hillary Clinton, I suspect that a lot of this is due to bad advice from her senior staff. The campaign seems to be adept at parrying irrational or frivolous attacks, but less inclined to welcome challenges on the substance. That is a shame, because Hillary is very strong there. Instead of demanding Shuster's firing, they could have accepted his apology, addressed the legitimate, if poorly phrased, point he was raising, and used the contrast to highlight the more serious wrongs of Chris Matthews, et al.

    What we have, instead, is another attempt by a candidate to chill the press and make it easier for them to manipulate the message, and MSNBC went right along with it. It would have been difficult for them to have stood by Shuster without punishing Matthews, whereas offering up Shuster seems to have spared them the need to make any other change at all.

    America has had seven long years of White House press relations that have consisted of "straw man" arguments and manipulations by a string of press secretaries. I'm sure that the public is ready for that to change, but this kerfuffle does not bode well.

    Reporters should not have to worry about losing access to political figures because they ask challenging questions, or worry about being hung out to dry by their employers if they make a poor word choice. Journalism used to be a heroic profession, but now, it seems to be run by cowards and pushed around by bullies. For shame.

    Update: This AP video report mentions the Shuster episode, but also provides support for the argument he was trying to make, and takes its own shots at Chelsea. I guess as long as you don't use the wrong colorful idiom, it's "game-on."


    Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter
    198 comments
    + add your own

    Tommy Christopher

    Tommy Christopher is a freelance writer, blogger, and online journalist based out of New Jersey and Washington, DC...more

    Contact Tommy Christopher

    subscribe to: RSS email: Tommy Christopher

    Comments (198)

    - TURN COMMENTS OFF
    ADD A COMMENT

    Add your comments

    Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

    When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

    To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.

    Avoid hate speech, foul language or a disrespectful tone in your comments. Unwanted comments will be deleted at the discretion of the moderator.

    • Happening Right Now

       
      Powered by Relegence Over 25,000 Sources
    Politics Daily on Facebook

    Now Commenting


    Other News

    Politics Daily More Links

     
    News Logo
    Terms of Use Privacy Policy Trademarks AOL A-Z HELP
    © 2009 All Rights Reserved AOL News.   © 2009 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.