No Politician Should Be Able To Get A Journalist Fired For Comments They Don't Like

[THUNDER HANDS]

This is different from the public demanding someone like Imus resign, or be fired, or putting pressure on advertisers.

But for a politician to call for the firing of journalist - even one who makes reprehensible statements - and that journalist's employer to comply - sets a horrible precedent for the future.

I say that as a former print journalist. It scared that crap out of me that any media outlet would bow to pressure, not from the public, but from a public figure.

[ursi]

1. I totally agree.

[tishaLA]

2. I agree. And I think what he said was deplorable

[DesertFlower]

3. i guess we're talking about

david shuster?

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. yes, and the fact that she would even demand he be fired

speaks more about her than it does about Schuster. It speaks volumes to her repsect for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

[DesertFlower]

12. i agree.

what he said wasn't that "terrible".

[NashVegas]

17. What FACT?

Where is it published she'd demanded he be fired?

[spooky3]

71. she DIDN'T demand that he be fired.

Please see this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4505501

[K Gardner]

4. Totally freakin agree !

[Edgeoforever]

5. true. But then CNN - Carville & Begala - should be reinstated too.

[UALRBSofL]

9. Edgeoforever, they were fired per the request of Obama

So they wont be back.

[madfloridian]

15. That is not true at all. They are Hillary's informal advisors.

They had the airtime to attack others and push her.

Carville is still in on strategy calls apparently, not sure about Begala.

Some of you here make stuff up and hope it sticks.

[UALRBSofL]

33. I guess you missed the other post that had a link to them being fired

But that's OK we know the truth.

[madfloridian]

55. They were both on post debate. They were not fired.

They said they were suspending them, but they are back.

And I believe it was the blogosphere who pressured CNN.

[Big Blue Marble]

60. Strange then that Begala was on CNN Tuesday night.

Were you watching?

[Cha]

69. Quit lying or check your

facts better..either, way you're wrong.

[ZinZen]

79. They were not fired they were banned

until after the primaries. Both being full on Hillary supporters it doesn't give CNN credibility by allowing long-time Clinton cronies to be so called objective pundits. Good for CNN.

[pdxmom]

50. They were not fired. They are not doing analysis during the primaries. They

can appear as official campaign surrogates, which they were and are doing, but not as analysts, for example, during the primaries. After the primaries, they can again work as analysts.

[otohara]

57. They Will Be, After The Primary

They are paid analysts for CNN and paid surrogates for Clinton campaign.

Sam Feist, CNN's political director, also confirmed the decision to me. "As we got closer to the voting, we made a decision to make sure that all the analysts that are on are non-aligned," Feist said, adding that the decision had been made around the start of December. "Carville and Begala are two of the best analysts around and we look forward to seeing them on CNN plenty of times in the future, once the nominating process has ended." http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/cnn_says_no_mor.php

[Lucinda]

7. Who asked for anyone to be fired?

[LostinVA]

20. No one did

[bbinacan]

21. Hillary did

"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."

[spooky3]

47. There is nothing in what you quoted about firing.

An alternative is that MSNBC should immediately implement a no tolerance policy for sexist and racist behavior, train their staff (on air or not) about behavior, and then follow through. This is what ANY big employer that is serious about their responsibilities does.

And while they are at it MSNBC needs to commit to a policy of even-handedness in election coverage. That means that journalists should report the facts and portray reality accurately. It means also that if pundits/commenters (vs. journalists) are going to do McCain cheerleading, for example, then there should be equal cheerleading for all Dem. candidates. I am an Edwards supporter, so don't have a dog in this hunt now. Based on my own observations and reading MediaMatters.org, I believe that most MSNBC anchors and talking heads clearly prefer McCain and Obama (with the possible exception of Dan Abrams and Craig Crawford), and this colors their coverage. It's like watching a bunch of fan boys (and a couple of fan girls who also like one of these two).

[Donnachaidh]

8. I'm sure Don Imus agrees with you. n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. Look. You and I know this is not about a free press. This is about

propaganda spewed as pretend journalism. Schuster admitted that he was pissed cause she would not talk to the press, so he attacked her and her mother. That is not a journalist. That is not the same thing as a "politican getting a journalist fired."

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. there's more than one type of journalist

journalism encompasses both reporting and opinion.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. NEWSFLASH! Shuster wasn't fired. He was SUSPENDED. There is a diference. n/t

[THUNDER HANDS]

i know he wasn't fired

but if he is because of this...

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. He won't be. He'll be back on the air soon. I don't know how long he was suspended, but

he'll be back.

[rodeodance]

16. bingo----and that was cause this was his SECOND offense!

[Little Star]

19. Reality again from you! Stop that! Did she even ask that

he be suspended or did MSNBC do that on their own?

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. MSNBC did it on their own. They needed to send a message to the other misogynists

they employ.:)

[bbinacan]

24. She asked that he be fired

"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. When did she say that? I missed that. Where is that quote from? n/t

[bbinacan]

40. Link

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8412.html

[NashVegas]

28. That's Not Asking or Demanding For Someone To Be Fired

That's asking MSNBC to come up with some goods. What those goods are is MSNBC's choice to offer.

[bbinacan]

39. Sure sounds like it to me. n/t

edit for spelling

[Little Star]

32. I missed that. Got a link?

[bbinacan]

41. Yes

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8412.html

[bettyellen]

52. that's not in the quote at all. but you have a very forgiving tude toward what's reporting

and what's bullshit, that i guess that you apply to yourself just as generously.
but it's bullshit. she did not ask for him to be fired. an anti sexist policy that is administered fairly is in order, and she is right to push them on this.
you are wrong however, to put words in her mouth.

[bbinacan]

54. So what did that quote mean?

For your convenience I'll repost the quote.

"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."

And you are wrong to put words into her mouth as well.

BTW, is your shift key broken?

[bettyellen]

64. i didn't say she asked for a specifc action. can't you comprehend the written word?

that was a non aplogy apology. schuster didn;t admit that what he said was sexist bullshit. perhaps his network needs to offer him and other journalists guidelines. aside from that, there are plenty of things Hil could have meant. but what she said, that the "apology" wasn;t enough, is dead on. and she didn;t ask for anyone to be fired. so stop spreading BULLSHIT.

[bbinacan]

65. She ALSO said that a suspension

was not enough. So, let's say it wasn't about his job. Maybe she was using a little extortion. Many on DU seem to think so. See links below. You sure like the word BULLSHIT. Maybe you should chill before you blow a gasket.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4507812
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2840717
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4507728

[bettyellen]

67. yes. she said their actions were not enough. but she DID NOT ASK TO SHITCAN HIM

how the fuck do you not see that? perhaps you prefer to hope she said it.
it is what it is.... you make shit up, you get called on it....hence the word bullshit.

[bbinacan]

74. You sure as shit need to

fucking relax. Everything that woman does is calculated. Playing the victim, crying on cue, cackling on cue. I don't trust her. I will however vote for the party nominee.

[bettyellen]

75. everything the reporter says is calculated too. this kind of sexist bullshit cannot continue

it's a step away from calling any woman who's out there working a ho. the reporter is not stupid, this is not about pimping out cars, it's about treating women like second class citizens, about denigrating their contributions on a regular basis.... it's pervasive, and the station should be called on it, whoever the reporter is.
i'm not even a hil supporter, but the way obama's peeps are letting this slide totally disgusts me. is it okay to say obama's wife and kids are whoring for him? it seems his supporters think it's not a big deal.

[spooky3]

70. Why didn't you provide the REST of the quote, which answers your q?

"I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.

There's a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4505501

It's clear that Clinton's concern is not with singling out Schuster but that there is a culture of bad behavior at MSNBC.

See my post above for an elaboration.

[bbinacan]

73. It was a two for one. n/t

[bbinacan]

58. And another thing

HRC needs to grow a thicker skin if she wants to be POTUS. I'm sick of her playing the victim and crying all the damned time.

[NashVegas]

13. What Makes You So Sure She Was Trying To?

The letter makes no demand that anyone be fired. It leaves it up to MSNBC to decide what they'd like to do for a make good.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. Suspension maybe, firing no.

It really was a deplorable remark, and David Shuster, being a seasoned journalist with a lot of TV experience, should have known better. That said, I don't think he should be fired. That's too extreme considering what Rush, Glenn Beck, etc. get away with.

[ShortnFiery]

26. But Hillary will soon be anointed "Queen" and Adult Children of "royalty" - pure as the driven snow.

Talk trash all you want about about those low-class whores, Monica and Gennifer, who TEMPTED her "noble" and "aristocratic" husband!

Thou peons within the M$M shall say nothing negative about any of "Queen Hillary's Family" or

shell say figuratively "OFF WITH THEIR JOURNALISTIC HEADS!" :crazy:

If you think *The Clintons* can influence the ENTIRE M$M now, just wait until they are made MONARCHS?!? :scared:

[TexasObserver]

27. No Politician Should Be Able To Get A Journalist Fired For Comments They Don't Like

[DesertFlower]

29. what about the women on "the view".

whoopi, joy and elisabeth all got calls from chelsea. they imitated her voice -- nothing mean. apparently she sounds shy on the phone.

should they be suspended?

[Little Star]

34. They did not say she was pimped out. Pimped out=Ho & it

is a sexist remark as well.

[DesertFlower]

35. i don't think he meant it that way. nt

[robbedvoter]

44. Do you think he meant " boasted about her?" because the e-mails exchanged belie that

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

[Avalux]

30. I agree completely. Much like how Bush has strong-armed the media for years.

Shuster's comment was not good but it certainly was not aimed directly at Chelsea. The outrage expressed by the Clinton campaign is over the top and downright dangerous to free speech.

[H2O Man]

31. Cheney & Libby

lobbied strongly against Chris Matthews and David Shuster for their reporting on the Plame scandal. I do not like that type of thing.

[DesertFlower]

36. what about this joke McCain made?

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html


seems like the clintons completely ignored it.

[hayu_lol]

45. Some here don't quite understand what the offense really was...

or what Hillary's well-reasoned letter really said.

I guess what Hillary and Bill should have done is go to the studio and beat the crap out of the guy. Would play well in some circles around the country.

This society is certainly regressing.

[DesertFlower]

49. i was talking about McCain's joke,

not schuster.

[Bluerthanblue]

37. you make a good point- we don't have an unbiased press but to muzzle

the press with fear of the govt- firing them for comments that offend-.... that would not be good.

It would be something I'd have expected from bush, not a Dem.


peace~

[Yossariant]

38. No network should be able to broadcast smarm under the guise of journalism.

[libertee]

42. Absolutely agree with you!!!! n/t

[Hoof Hearted]

46. amen.

[Hoof Hearted]

43. Schuster got Schuster fired, just like Imus got Imus fired. Period.

[jasmine621]

48. He wasn't fired! Stop with the lies about Hillary. nt

[otohara]

61. Come Monday, I Bet

after they've received hundreds of demanding letters from every woman's organization in the country, he will not be coming back. Schuster is expendable unlike Timmy, Tweety, Tucker, all who have said worse things about Sen. Clinton over the years.

[Hoof Hearted]

62. He should be fired, but it's not about Hillary for God's sake, any more than it was about the

basketball team when Imus got canned.

This is about SCHUSTER'S bad behavior, and he should be canned for it.

[Bread and Circus]

51. I made a thread w/ similar sentiments...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4497984

First, I think the words and meaning by David Schuster were wrong. We all say really aweful things from time to time but if it was an intentional vent of animosity, then it's entirely unacceptable. "Suspending" him may be appropriate, even though it's just ritual sacrifice. It gives him "punishment" and time for atonement. It's a symbolic act that implies MSNBC treats journalistic integrity as "serious business" (whether that's true or not, who knows). I don't mind Clinton for making political hay out of this. Can you really blame her for playing the victim? Every time she does, it garners votes.

But I wonder if the Clinton Camp stance of "shunning" MSNBC will eventually blowback in their faces or worse, harm this country.

First, it's a bit disingenuous because there is no source of media out there that is more destructive to the Clintons (assuming they are real Democrats in search of truth) than Fox news and I've never heard them respond so strongly to them. It was just the other day the Clinton Camp was clamoring to debate on Fox News.

More importantly though, this "outrage" and "shunning" smacks of Bushism. The press is to be respected as its own independent body, and the 1st Amendmet protects it as sacred. Bush has used "access" as a bludgeon to the press during his whole Presidency, with distrastrous results for the rest of the country. Even, if the Clintons are "posturing", the very threat that they would forgo a debate on a certain network because of this is beyond the pale.

Now, many here complain there is a "pattern" of sexism on MSNBC. I find that very, very hard to believe considering that this claim has never been so oft floated until very recently, when for the very first time Clinton's candidacy has been so threatened. If for years, devoid of anyone having a dog in the fight, the claim of rampant sexism was made then it would be believable. However, that is just not the case, especially around here. If anything, MSNBC has been credited with being one of the better news sources. It also had a healthy showing in a recent poll on DU for the "source" most of us watch. It just doesn't jive with logic that it's the most popular news source and has been lauded on DU for it all of a sudden to be a vile bastion of sexism. It seems the only real explanation is that people aren't hearing what they want to hear about their candidate and so they are grasping for something that can be used as a blunt weapon and is very hard to disprove. Further, this didn't originate here on DU alone. Part of this has been orchestrated by women's advocacy groups in massive "call ins" to MSNBC. These leadership of these advocacy groups are partial to Clinton. Make of that what you will but "brownshirting" comes to my mind.

I will admit that the media in general can act petty, vindictive, and juvenile. When Hillary Clinton was having trouble before New Hampshire, they smelled blood and the zeitgeist at the time was to "go in for the kill". But this is not a sexist act and nor was it exclusive to MSNBC. Clinton was being "Gored" (as in Al Gore, a male and one of the best leaders of our time). Such feeding frenzies are not reserved for women, they are reserved for those that are perceived as politically weak at any given moment. The kill is not for the kill itself anyway, it's for the theater of it. It's the human sacrifice that draws people to the public square, and in our modern age, to watch commercials.

The Clinton campaign has engaged Chelsea in a very political way. She has become an official "non-official" part of their campaign. It's good practice and they are right to do so. However, she is not a child. She is a grown adult. She also has a lot of genetic gifts, great experiences, and an outstanding education. Whatever withering comments she may have had lofted in her direction, they weren't at her. They were at her parents. But no matter what was said it wasn't personally threating, nor was it slander.

There's no basis for "shunning" MSNBC and even to hint at that is unacceptable if Clinton aims to be a good President. We don't need another 4 or 8 more years of a petulant President that offers access in exchange for compliance. We don't need another 4 or 8 more years of a President that calls out the "brown shirts" in order to achieve their political goals. We don't need another 4 or 8 more years of a "kowtowing" media.

* On edit: I want to make it abundantly clear that is "ok" for individuals to "shun" media outlets they don't like. It is NOT acceptable for politicians to do so in such a capricious way. The press is there to make the government answerable to us, the people. The thrust of my argument is that politicians should not trade "access" for "compliance". That's what George Bush does. That's what Clinton is doing.

[pdxmom]

53. I agree 100%. What Shuster said was wrong. He apologized and he has

been given a suspension. One mistake. And now a politician is trying to shape how a news outlet handles its news, or they will be punished for it. Shades of the Kremlin! Let the public make the decision on whether they watch or not. If the Clinton's don't want to grace MSNBC with their presence, that's fine, but don't threaten and create drama.

The First Amendment is the First for a reason.

[housewolf]

56. I agree - and I emailed NBC yesterday to tell them so

and I told them I hope they bring him back soon.

[splat]

59. Former journalist, you believed a bad headline; no firing called for

She wants MSNBC to clean up their act in general, to observe standards -- including Chris Matthews. She didn't call for firing, some dude at Talking Points Memo headlined his blog post that and people here swallowed it.

Is your head exploding yet?

[Canuckistanian]

63. What's scarier to me is that the demand got RESULTS

All of a sudden, it becomes clear WHO should be punished for WHAT circumtances.

[angie_love]

66. Where was this outrage when Cheney called her "the whitehouse dog"

Or McCain made a crack that she was "ugly"? Where was the outrage then??? This sounds so much like faux outrage and I would understand it if she made a huge deal about Cheney/McCain remarks but she didn't, and they said far worse than what Shuster said. It just so happens that the comment was made during election season so shes over dramatizing it to get the sympathy vote. Its pathetic really and so transparent.

[Cha]

68. This is but a taste of what to

expect if the clintons get back the whitehouse. Shades of rove & company..getting anyone who crossed them fucking Fired!

I think it was stupid what David Schuster said..why did he even have to go there for crap sake? But, the clintonistas should make their outrage known and then stay the fuck outta it. They have enough trouble or is this all a part of their sympathy strategy.

[bigtree]

72. Unless that politician is one you support.

not buying this faux concern for fairness, from such an accomplished flamethrower.

[ShortnFiery]

76. Kick to emphasize the FACT that "The Clintons" are NOT American Royalty.

:dem:

[foerschie]

77. I agree

The network should fire him before the politician even gets involved. How embarrassing for MSNBC and Shuster.

[bigtree]

78. OBAMA AND IMUS

Did Obama cross the line as a senator when he criticized the 'media', specifically, Imus?

here's the context of his remarks, from June 2007:

"Obama criticizes Imus but does not flat out say he should be fired. He told NBC's "Hardball" he would not employ Imus. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer "I believe that NBC should not be having hosts like Don Imus who are making derogatory statements toward women and minorities. I’ve got two young daughters who I hope will be athletes and the notion that somehow they would be degraded and insulted and that that would pass as humor and that NBC would be running that over the public airwaves, I think, is atrocious.''

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_obama_on_cn.html

post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4518678&mesg_id=4518678

[Evergreen Emerald]

80. Through the looking glass. Everyone should demand the TRUTH from reporters

This argument is akin to Bush claiming that we should not demand sources from reporters who are protecting crimes. Using the free press and the rules upside down and backwards.

Clinton demands the truth. A level playing field in this MSM propaganda machine. There was a time when we stood up to the right-wing propaganda machine. Today, because if favors your candidate you are all for lies and distortions.

When Obama demanded that certain reporters be barred from reporting, you were all for that--when Clinton asks for a level playing field, you suggest it is UnAmerican.

Clinton is not trying to HIDE the truth. Clinton is trying to EXPOSE the truth.