We all know by now about the contoversy surrounding MSNBC’s David Shuster and his allegation that Chelsea Clinton was being “pimped” by her family in order to drum up support for her mother. He’s apologized twice, been suspended, and along with that rec’d a strong rebuke from Senator Clinton herself.
Someone else who has apologized on behalf of MSNBC is none other than Shuster’s hero and Nutroots fave Keith Olbermann. johnny dollar over at Olbermann Watch has a special remix video of Olby’s apology, in which he first praises Shuster before issuing the apology. Mixed within the video are clips of Shuster which prove Olby’s praise is unfounded, as well as a clip towards the end of Olby himself accusing President Bush of “pimping” General David Petraeus - an accusation he made September 20, 2007.
Where’s the outrage?
More: Listen to John Gibson describe the context of Shuster’s remarks. Shuster actually had a point, one which was obliterated when he used terminology that would undeniably offend the Clintons.
Or were the more offended by the point he was trying to make, and using the “pimping” remarks as a smokescreen?
Cross-posted to Right Wing News, where I am helping guestblog for John Hawkins on Sundays.
The Clinton Machine “got” Imus and it now has another trophy in Schuster. Yeah, he should have been nicer to Chelsea. The familiy is usually off limits. What do you expect a kid to do? Not support the parent? every candidate “pimps out” their family. But you show respect to the family realizing that this is their role whether they like it or not.
But this suspension is a shot across the bow to the other MSNBC/MSM types to watch what they say about Hillary. Think about some of the things Mathews has said about Clinton in the past, now watch and see what he does in the future.
Comment by Jay In Md. @ 2/10/2008 - 12:00 pm
If Miss Clinton is supporting her mother only because she is her mother, the endorsement is useless and Mrs. Clinton is indeed pimping, pimping her daughter.
If Miss Clinton is her own free agent, and her endorsement were legitimate, she should be allowed to talk to the press. She is not. Miss Clinton does not appear to endorsed her mother for any reason aside from nepotism.
Comment by DavidL @ 2/10/2008 - 2:13 pm
What’s good for the goose(Shuster) is good for the gander.(Olbermann)
If MSNBC’S policy is to suspend employees for using the word pimp, then they should definitely also suspend Olbermann, or Shuster should be able to file some type of lawsuit against MSNBC for unfair business practices.
Just my 2 cents.
Comment by G-Monster @ 2/10/2008 - 5:34 pm
This week’s on air comment by MSNBC talking head, David Shuster about Hillary Clinton “pimping out” her daughter, Chelsea has stirred up outrage in the Clinton camp. Shuster has had to apologize and has been suspended. In the wake of the controversy, Hillary is weighing not participating in any future MSNBC debates. (Hey, Hillary, there is always Fox!) As usual, the incident and its reaction raises all kinds of thought-stimulating questions. For example, what would the reaction be if someone like Sean Hannity had made the remark? What if Shuster had made the remark about a Republican candidate “pimping out” his wife or daughter in the campaign? But we will never know, will we?
Seriously, Shuster’s remark was offensive and even more unprofessional. That is not the kind of language we should expect from a TV reporter on air. But, then again, standards have declined drastically in recent years.
The remark comes soon after Chris Matthews, also of MSNBC, made his comment to the effect that the only reason Mrs Clinton was a senator and presidential candidate was because her husband had “messed around”. (Matthews also had to apologize to Mrs Clinton.) When you couple Shuster and Matthews with MSNBC’s other off-the-wall commentator, Keith Olbermann, one has to conclude that this network is pretty unprofessional, to say the least. Maybe that explains why their ratings are in the toilet.
Some defenders of Shuster are bringing up the point that Chelsea is now an adult and participating in the political process; therefore, she is fair game for all kinds of commentary. I would only take that so far. Sure she is open to criticism when appropriate, but using the word pimp as a metaphor is not right. One should not use metaphors that allude to prostitution unless the people concerned are, in fact, pimps or prostitutes. (But then, in that case, it wouldn’t be a metaphor, would it?)
Regardless of one’s politics, I hope this latest episode is not lost on the public. NBC News has become the farthest to the left of the major networks, and the out and out partisanship of Olbermann and Matthews is obvious. Remember in 2006, when Matthews was caught in the background yelling, “yeaaa!” when another Democrat was declared the winner in some state? Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” show is nothing more than a nightly condemnation of George W Bush, Bill O’Reilly, and anyone Republican or deemed conservative. Now Mr. Shuster adds his name to MSNBC’s growing list of embarrassments.
posted by Gary Fouse @ 1:43 PM
fousesquawk
Comment by gary fouse @ 2/10/2008 - 10:30 pm
I just think the word “pimping” is unnecessary with wives or daughters, especially because of the sexual connotation. I’m less outraged because “pimped” seems to lose some of it’s sexual connotation when it applies to a man (and even more so for a general), but it still absurd and stupid for olbermann to make the comment.
When I teach chemistry, the first thing I tell my students is to use words with explicit meanings. Slang is interpreted literally, and your grade will be damaged. Journalists should be held to the same standard. When using a word like “pimping” or “nappy headed hos” they should be asked if that’s their professional journalistic opinion. If they don’t backtrack, they should be fired for not understanding what professional means.
Comment by alchemist @ 2/11/2008 - 2:50 pm
Alchemist,
Just like cuts means cuts and not decreases in the amount of increase equalling a 7% increase?
Yep. Journalists will dumb down the American public whether by agenda or incompetence and the result is people who believe the crisis mentality coming from the press.
Facts and figures be darned…
Comment by Baklava @ 2/11/2008 - 3:46 pm
Baklava: I think some references are obviously wrong (Nazis/pimps/political opposition = terrorists etc). I also think a large problem is political vernacular. Politicians use coded language (like cuts) to get across a jaded message that best appeals to the public. I really think that in the rush to get a story out first, journalists are not spending enough time decoding political jargon and making line-by-line evaluations of what is actually being proposed.
I understand that many here feel it’s a liberal bias thing. In my opinion, when journalists don’t routinely deactivate coded or subversive messages, it damages everyone sooner or later..
Comment by alchemist @ 2/11/2008 - 4:15 pm
Ohhhh Alchemist, it is a liberal bias thing. These individuals continue to be proven to be unprofessional, yet people still believe them. Even as readership is at all time lows due to that same bias they continue to prattle on and on with their agenda driven “news”.
Look at Dan Rather, there are still people who believe that those documents were real, and poor ole’ Dan was railroaded by this present administration. Too funny. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/11/2008 - 8:55 pm
Not concerned about the Dan Rather thing. He fronted information that was at best incomplete and at worst (most likely by someone) downright fraud. He deservedly got canned.
Will the liberal bias thing isn’t a complete misnomer, I think often the problem is in trying to look ‘unbiased’. CNN does this all the time. They quote the republican, then they quote the democrat, and then they never dissect what either politician actually said.
One example where this explicitly favors the right is the O’Reilly factor. I think Bill really means well. But deep down he’s got the same problems as the rest of the media: He takes quotes out of context; he uses political talking points that often misrepresent the crux of a story, and he often delivers his arguments by emphasizing political verbage.
Now, I have no problems with blogs doing this, they’re not accredited media services. However, journalists should have a responsibility to better explain what the #*&! is really going on.
Comment by alchemist @ 2/12/2008 - 9:51 am
Is that why he continues to get interviews, and, last I heard, was suing to get his job back at CBS???
Also, I like how you blow off a legitimate complaint about extreme bias, that is on going, and then go on to complain about someone who isn’t trying to say he is an unbiased journalist. Alchemist, the O’Rielly factor is not a news program it is a talk show, that would be like asking Jay Leno for serious news.
I don’t like O’Rielly because he is to combative, just like I don’t tend to like or watch Ann Coulter, but, unlike Dan Rather, they aren’t pretending to be “unbiased” News Journalists. Also, you don’t think that this law that these unbiased jounalists have proposed about regulating blogs isn’t due to the fact that Dan’s lies were uncovered by several blogs.
I don’t expect serious news from Bill Maher. Why would you from O’Rielly?? Come On Alchemist, I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/12/2008 - 10:16 am
Isn’t that where we started though? Olbermann worked a talk show as well, so does that mean he gets a free pass, since it’s no longer a “news program”?
Another note: If you have to sue to get your job back, the company really doesn’t want you there. Sure, he’s still going to get interviews, because he’s now more of a news ‘celebrity’ than an actual journalist. It’s the same way for Tom Brokaw & Larry king. There are alot of shows out there, and they need SOMEBODY to feel in, so these guys show up on occasion, but they’re not really working the field.
The bill Maher thing is pretty low class too, although Bill Maher has always been a low class guy. When he treads the line I think he’s funny, but he often doesn’t. I don’t have HBO, so I don’t watch him anyway.
Comment by alchemist @ 2/12/2008 - 10:45 am
alchemist wrote, “However, journalists should have a responsibility to better explain what the #*&! is really going on.”
They try. They actually believe the word cuts and say them and not just as a Democrat quote.
On every issue it’s a “crisis” including your beloved global warming issue.
The American people are NOT served by the press on any issue on any day. They are the worst profession almost because of their negligence and lack of credentials in any other field (like science, economics, etc) except being able to put words together.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/12/2008 - 12:05 pm
Alchemist, I have no clue about Obeldork. I have never watched him and don’t tend to watch anything on MSNBC as the bias is too much for me, and I tend to lose my breakfast when I listen to to much of it. Also, there is soooo much condesenion in their tones, and attitudes. I also don’t like to listen to people who are in sympathy with our enemies.
I do agree with you about Maher, he is a lowlife puke, and personally he should have been charged with sedition for his Vice President comment. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/12/2008 - 1:17 pm