Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Shuster initially defended his comment.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
catagory5 Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 02:59 AM
Original message
Shuster initially defended his comment.
Not to add more gasoline to the fire but I thought the Info was "relevant"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8408.html


Reporter initially defended Chelsea comment
By: Michael Calderone
Feb 8, 2008 10:06 PM EST



Before MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended by the network Friday for on-air comments he made about Chelsea Clinton, the television reporter engaged in a heated correspondence with a spokesman for Hillary Clinton in which he defended his appearance and refused demands to apologize.

A copy of the e-mail exchange between Shuster and Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton aide, was obtained by Politico and is reprinted here.

On Thursday, Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, "Tucker," and in referring to Chelsea Clinton's role in calling superdelegates on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, he asked if she was "sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Later that night, he heard from an outraged Reines, who called the remarks "absurdly offensive."

Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it.

He was more contrite the next morning, apologizing on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC show, "Morning Joe."
But that didn't satisfy the Clinton campaign. Communications director Howard Wolfson told reporters in a conference call that Shuster's comment was "beneath contempt."

Wolfson also raised the possibility that Clinton would no longer participate in an MSNBC debate, scheduled for February 26.

In a statement before Shuster's second apology, on Friday evening's "Tucker," the network said that Shuster had "extended an apology to the Clinton family."

"NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks," continued the statement.

Behind the scenes, Phil Griffin, senior vice president at MSNBC, took the criticism over Shuster's remarks from the Clinton camp especially seriously, and Tim Russert helped mediate the situation, according to sources.

But one high-level NBC source told Politico that apologizing was an act of cowardice on behalf of the network.

"This is at least the second time they've caved to the Hillary Clinton campaign," a source told Politico, referring to Chris Matthews' recent apology over remarks he recently made about Clinton that were widely denounced as sexist. "What does this do to journalism?"

Reines, reached by Politico, declined to comment. Shuster did not respond Friday night to an e-mail interview request.

In the Reines-Shuster corresondence which follows on page two, the e-mail addresses have been removed, as have the names of NBC and Clinton campaign officials who were copied on the exchange.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jlake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes and that is why he must be fired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. it is was really wrong of him to say...
he has the right, but most would agree, that nbc has the right to say, 'we don't do that on our network' or something and suspend him or whatever. unfortunate that it even happened, he really should have bit his lip because it's very derogatory to Chelsea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsrobert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 03:07 AM
Response to Original message
3. Get over it. The story is over.
Stop playing the victim card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. "What does this do to journalism?"
The question they should be asking is "What have we done to journalism?"


"Tim Russert helped mediate the situation, according to sources."

Translation, he brought sandwiches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
busymom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. Honestly...
my fellow Clinton supporters are going to disagree with me...but...I just didn't think it was a big deal.

He wasn't literally suggesting that she was "pimping herself out". I listened to the clip. It wasn't intended in that way...it seems like a bit of an overreaction to me....

That being said..the MSM deserves a smackdown, so...I suppose I can get behind that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Thank you!
I seriously don't understand it either. If everyone watched the entire segment as I did it would have been a non-issue. He was filling in for Tucker. He wasn't calling her a whore when he said it - he used it as a slang term - implying that she is being pushed onto Superdelegates and members of the media, urging them to support her mother. In the full segment it showed the women of the View mocking Chelsea on their show for calling them, one after another, to ask for their support. David's reaction to that was the source of the pimping out remark. Which is an accurate statement, even if it was crass.

I can imagine older folks taking it the wrong way, because they don't hear it used that way often... but damn. I hear it used that way all the time. It's like someone calling the MTV Show "Pimp My Ride" a show about cars made for whores. It just doesn't make sense in context.

In a round about way he was even defending her and he even said nice things about her before and after that remark. The sub context of the whole segment was basically, "Aren't they kinda misusing Chelsea for political gain, and if they are going to put her out there like that, shouldn't reporters have the right to interview her?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. what does this do to journalism?.....
since when is what they are doing called journalism?

"This is at least the second time they've caved to the Hillary Clinton campaign," a source told Politico, referring to Chris Matthews' recent apology over remarks he recently made about Clinton that were widely denounced as sexist. "What does this do to journalism?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
7. Hillary is so protective on Chelsea's behalf it makes you wonder
why she stuck her in the middle of the lion's den.

It doesn't feel right to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Any mother would have the same reaction. With your logic
women should not campaign at all or it's their own fault if they're called "whores."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. No, I am just saying that Hillary knows Chelsea isn't into campaigning
but she feels Chelsea is useful so she will throw her into this awfulness anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. No ...
that is a false choice and a totally unrelated bit of hyperbole ...

There is a good bit of wanting it both ways in relation to Chelsea ... You see her in nearly every major speech Hill has given in the background, she is being put to work VERY actively in recruiting delegates and other activities ... But, they have a complete media lockout on her ...

If she is in the game, she is in the game ...

Can't just put a red jersey on her and say she can't be tackled ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 04:01 AM
Response to Original message
8. How could Obama do this?
(I know he had no part in it, but guilt-by-association is so popular among the anti-Clinton crowd, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.)

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Splinter Cell Donating Member (498 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
11. For pity sake
This whole thing is insane. I don't think the comment was the least bit offensive, and the Clinton campaign is just trying to stir up more sympathy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 05:16 AM
Response to Original message
12. And he shouldn't have apologized at all. He didn't do anything wrong.
What he said is STANDARD POLITICS. DEAL WITH IT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
13. As much as I like David, he was way out of line on this one. As a mother,
had he said this about one of my kids I would be livid. MSNBC is no friend to the Clinton campaign and I for one, am glad they raised hell over this. If anyone dared to say that Michelle Obama, or Caroline Kennedy were out "pimping" you can bet all hell would break loose. Time for MSNBC to rein themselves in and at least make an attempt at some sort of journalism. Matthews needs to be put on a tight leash also. If they personally don't like Hillary, fine, but they have no right for their personal feelings to be used on a platform you and I don't have..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. That's the issue for this board
You hit it on the head. If he had said it about any of the women in Senator Obama camp (Michelle, Caroline, Oprah) - this place would have crashed - thousands of emails generated. I thought his second apology was sufficient (if someone is going to apologize, then apologize. his first one was a weasly, word parsing mess). After seeing what this place did to Imus, I'm stunned a the lack of outrage (on one level, on another, I'm not surprised at all) about this. I don't think he should be fired but have no problem with a 2 week time out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
17. Disgusting. Apology accepted. keep him, can Tweety.
Also, the reaction on DU - another proof of levels of sexism in a so called progressive forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
18. So Clinton is threatening to withdraw from the debate because of it?
Not impressed by that attitude or Schuster's comment either one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC