Is Shuster paying for Tweedy's sins?

[sfam]

I think so, yes. Absolutely Shuster's comments were horrible and well out of bounds. Absolutely he should apologize both on-air and in person (or by phone if they prefer) to both Hillary and Chelsea. And truly, the point he was trying to make (that Chelsea shouldn't be calling Superdelegates) makes no sense - why shouldn't she be calling these folks?

But calls for his firing I think are way overdone, as are the comparisons of Shuster to Imus of all people. Please - Imus has been uttering racist-laden rants for decades. Shuster is a very high calibur, well thought out, and usually articulate reporter. He has no history of making comments like this - at all.

Now Tweedy on the other hand - he DOES have a history of truly odd and derogatory women-hating remarks. There is already anger among Clinton supporters for all things MSNBC (unfounded or not). Is Shuster your scape-goat?

Said another way, if you could fire (or suspend) the most deserving of firing, would you really pick Shuster over Tweedy?

EDIT: And if anyone cares to know, I support Obama...

[murielm99]

1. It doesn't matter whom you support.

I think your post was well thought out.

Maybe the calls for firing are just one way to call attention to what he said. It was over the top. I don't think he will be fired.

I don't doubt that all the superdelegates are getting a lot of pressure. Everyone wants to talk with them and have lunch with them right about now.

I think it would be interesting to find out how many of them are getting comments from interested republicans, too. It might show which way the wind is blowing. Remember, they are all very visible political people who have contacts in both parties.

[sfam]

2. Thanks! so...would you suspend Tweedy over Shuster if you had the chance?

Understanding of course that for whatever reason, Tweedy is untouchable in MSNBC's eyes.

[murielm99]

18. I keep hoping that Tweety will step so far over the line

that they will have no choice but to suspend him. He kills his own credibility a little more every day.

I don't know how to answer that question. Maybe his own mouth is the only thing that will get him in trouble. He will say something so awful that they will have no choice but to act.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

3. I agree that he should not be fired over this...

I don't like what he said, and I don't like MSNBC's very evident bias against Senator Clinton ... but give the guy a break.

I HAVE noticed that he was fairer before he was given a more significant role on the network ... maybe he's trying too hard to fit the mold. He was getting snarky and over-confident so maybe this will allow him to reconsider what kind of a journalist he wants to be.

[sfam]

4. Honestly, I think the problem is that anyone who covers this contentious...

a campaign for that many hours a day, spread out from 6:00 in the morning to 10:00, just can't possibly be thinking clearly. Shuster's hours are just bizarre. It doesn't surprise me at all in retrospect that he flat out loses consciousness for a few minutes when uttering this line.

I don't for a second believe that he really thinks literally about what he actually said.

[Crooked Moon]

5. it's a culmination, i believe...

msnbc has carved out a bit of the progressive market among mainstream networks and, after the matthews incident, this just threw another log on a fire that's not yet been fully extinguished. with the campaign for the dem nomination still with a ways to go, surely they have to look at the big picture and understand that they can't risk alienating their viewers with continued offensive comments about either candidate.

[sfam]

6. I take this as a "yes, he is" then. If there was not Tweedy outbursts, then...

you would agree that Shuster wouldn't be suspended right now? I definitely think MSNBC is worried about an ongoing perception problem here, which led to the suspension.

[Crooked Moon]

8. it would be sheer speculation

but i would say that if this were the first (and an isolated) incident, there might be an apology, but not a suspension. i also suspect that this is being viewed as "bad for business" because of the clinton camp's threat to pull out of debates.

primary debates this season have been huge ratings boons, especially with the writers' strike.

cynical, i know, but i find that "follow the money" usually applies.

[K Gardner]

7. Nice post. Shuster has apologized directly (phone) and twice on TV. So three times and he was

suspended. So I wonder how long the discourse will continue. Usually, a good leader will pick his/her fights and, when an objective is achieved (such as an apology or three) will let it drop. One wonders how Hillary will deal with negotiating when leaders of actual COUNTRIES piss her off. One wonders.

[thepurpose]

9. Why are the Clintons held to a different standard than everyone else?

Shuster is most certainly not as bad as Beck, Rush, Gibson, Hanity and Hew who say worst things every single day and are rewarded for it. Shuster's not even as bad as Tweety or Scarbrough who treats Mika like she's his bitch on a daily basis. However, the hate directed by the MSM at Bill, Hillary and Chelsea is un friggin real. Any legit move by them is turn into something unseemly while worst sins by others are almost ignored in comparsion.

[sfam]

12. 'Cause Hillary supporters can stop watching MSNBC and...

Tweety or Scarbrough are sort of untouchable, whereas Shuster is just a reporter-turned-talking head. He can be slapped around a bit, or even dumped down the shitter if need be without too much of a ratings hit.

[no name no slogan]

10. What does Tweedy have to do with anything?

Tweedy's an Obama supporter. And Wilco is a fantastic band (but Uncle Tupelo was better).

[sfam]

13. Sorry, I'm a bad speller...nt

[Captain Hilts]

11. YES. nt

[Berry Cool]

14. I agree with you. K&R.

When it comes to someone saying something bad on radio or TV, history and reputation matter.

It's not whether or not the content of what Shuster said was offensive. It was. He shouldn't have said it. Was his apology not as good as it could have been? Sounds like it.

But, did he mean it the way it came out? I don't think so. Why? Because Shuster doesn't have a reputation for speaking thoughtlessly or characterizing (or mischaracterizing) people according to race, gender or for any other reason.

I found MYSELF using "pimped so-and-so out" that way in front of my nieces once, to describe the behavior of a third party, I can't remember who now. And I remember thinking, right after it popped out of my mouth, "Is it right that I should use the language of prostitution in front of my young nieces so casually? And sadder still is the fact that they probably KNOW what I mean when I say it. When I was their age, I wouldn't have known."

But...did I say it because I was trying to insult the people I said it about? No. Not really. It was just a poorly chosen synonym.

I think that's most likely the case with David Shuster. He's been suspended. Fine. I don't doubt he'll avoid making this kind of mistake from now on.

Should he be fired? No. No more than should an otherwise decent employee the first time he utters a stupid, thoughtless statement* at work that upsets a VIP in the company who hears it.

And if he were to be fired because anyone was using this stupid mistake as an opportunity to make political hay, it would be a sad situation indeed.

*I deliberately used the term "stupid, thoughtless statement" above, rather than the word "boner," for reasons that should be obvious.

[Yossariant]

15. Tweety and his man-crushes and gushes -- looking for a mandate.

MEDIA BOOST OBAMA, BASH “BILLARY”

NBC Is Toughest on Hillary; FOX Has Heaviest Coverage

Since mid-December, when the presidential candidates turned their full attention to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton.

The gap in good press has widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47% positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83% positive. NBC’s coverage has been the most critical of Clinton – nearly 2 to 1 negative (36% positive and to 64% negative) Conversely, ABC’s coverage was most supportive -- nearly 2 to 1 positive (63% v. 37%). CBS and FOX were more balanced – 50% positive comments on FOX and 56% positive on CBS.
http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm

Hillary is smart, as usual, to go after MSNBC for its smarm.

[Gold Metal Flake]

16. Josh Marshall agrees with you.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/177683.php

"What Shuster said was tasteless and crude. And even the logic behind it, let alone the way he said it, didn't really make sense to me. I don't come close to defending it. And he should apologize for saying it, which he did -- though perhaps he might have done so more fulsomely. I do not think the comment played to specific stereotypes about women in general or about Hillary in particular as it would if you refer to a black man as "lazy" or "shiftless" or a woman as "shrill" or a "shrew." Nor am I aware that Shuster has any history of such comments -- unlike some other MSNBC TV personalities.

Unlike pretty much everyone else on the chat shows he's a reporter who consistently does pretty solid investigative pieces. But regardless of that, who can name me the last political chat show host or reporter who was suspended over anything? To say that he's being held to a different standard than TV chatters normally are is probably a farcical statement in itself since I'm not clear that there are any standards.

Does anyone watch Fox News?

On the other hand, many have rightly criticized Chris Matthews for his repeatedly degrading, often sexist and consistently clownish comments about Hillary Clinton. The most logical way for me to understand this development is that MSNBC is under a lot of fire for Matthews -- but Matthews is untouchable -- and Shuster's easier to can or suspend."

[Berry Cool]

17. Agreed completely.

Tweety can get away with five minutes of apology and then bending over backwards not to say ANYTHING about Hillary that might be construed as negative ever again...or at least trying to.

For Shuster, no such wiggle room. When he says something insensitive and stupid, even if he's never done so before, the boom comes down.

It's as if two kids were picked up for drunk driving within weeks of each other. One has done it more than once, but he's the mayor's son, so the cops let him go with a warning, or maybe throw him in the clink for a night before Dad comes to bail him out, then let him go. The other suffers the full brunt of the penalties mandated for the first-time offender in his jurisdiction. In jail for a night, license suspended, car impounded, driving privileges reinstated slowly, choice of more jail time or mandatory substance abuse education, whatever.

Did both of them do wrong? You bet. Did both deserve punishment? Yep. But the repeat offender got off lightly because of who he is. The first-timer got the book thrown at him because of who he isn't.