Shuster responds to firestorm over his Chelsea Clinton comments
On the February 8 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, correspondent David Shuster addressed earlier comments he made about Chelsea Clinton, for which he was suspended by NBC.
From the February 8 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
NORAH O'DONNELL (guest host): But we begin with MSNBC's David Shuster, who has a comment about something he said on this show last night.
SHUSTER: Last night during the show, I spoke about Chelsea Clinton and noted the affection that so many of us have for her. I also spoke about phone calls she has made to super delegates to convince them to support her mom. In describing this effort, I used a phrase that was inappropriate, and I apologize to the Clinton family, the Clinton campaign, and all of you who were justifiably offended. As I said this morning on MSNBC, all Americans should be proud of Chelsea Clinton, and I am particularly sorry that my language diminished the regard and respect she has earned from all of us and the respect her parents have earned in how they raised her.
O'DONNELL: OK, David.
Comeuppance. Ain't it sweet?
Now the next step is to get that whole MSNBC crowd some therapy. They are a nasty bunch, especially early in the morning.
Suspended?
I like Shuster but what he said deserved an apology.
But a suspension? No way! Hell, if what Shuster said is the yardstick, Tweety, Tucker and others should've been drawn and quartered years ago.
With GE as their overlords, MSNBC will probably never have a lineup of Maddow, Olbermann and Shuster, but it would make for an evening of informative news programming.
As longs as they left out all the gossipy BS.
"But a suspension? No way! Hell, if what Shuster said is the yardstick, Tweety, Tucker and others should've been drawn and quartered years ago."
Would I be belaboring the obvious if I said "duh" to the above?
You're perfectly right: these vicious, lying, hypocritical swine should have been brought to account a very long time ago.
If Shuster deserves suspension, Olbermann deserves to be fired. He used the same expression that Shuster did...and he made racist comments against blacks and Hispanics..
...and he has a long history of misogynistic behavior and comments
Whoa.
What did Olbermann ever say that was this offensive? (calling President Bush a "jug-eared dry-drunk" does not count, because it's accurate).
What a weenie...
Not even man enough to use the phrase which landed him in hot water.
Corporate weenie.
Exactly ! What a freaking wuss he is !!!
We're lucky that so many people use the 'net these days. Even Drudge has the suspension on his web page, it's making the rounds and many are going to know the details even though Schuster would rathtr they not.
I don't want to see this 40 year old white boy from the midwest pretending like he's hip and urban.
LOL! You're too funny. So are you saying that 40-year-old white boys don't know anything about slang? C'mon, cut the cat some slack! ;)
He can KNOW it, he just shouldn't USE it ! :-) IMO.
(If I hear one more white person pronouncing 50 Cent "Fitty", I'm going to scream !)
Now THAT is an apology.
Seriously, all these idiots who shove their ankles down their larnyx on national television should be using this as an example of how to make an apology look sincere.
Shuster has gone after the Bushies very vigorously on MSNBC for some time now, so those of you eager to attack him probably haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with his work. He made a stupid comment, which didn't need to be repeated, and offered a sincere apology. "Justifiably offended," "particularly sorry that my language diminished the...respect she [and] her parents have earned"...Sounds as if the dude man upped on that one.
Let's back off the phony outrage here. Shuster is a great voice in the news, and it makes no sense to get all worked up over this as if he has somehow morphed into Michael Savage all of a sudden.
See, on one hand we get slammed for being partisan if we don't criticize people on the left who say outrageous things. Then on the other hand we're supposed to ignore what Schuster says because of his history.
It should be noted that now he's given an acceptable apology. His first one was not.
Too True Brab
His first apology was like the one Matthews gave the first time on Morning Joe. What a dumb a**! I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're willing to make the money pushing the envelope be prepared to pay the piper when you cross the line.
"Maybe he chose a less than desirable phrase, but I don't think anyone with a grain of common sense thought that he literally meant "pimping" her out."
I don't think anyone's made the argument that he meant she was literally put into prostitution.
"His apology was more than sufficient and people who harp on it and act like they were personally affected by it are being a little too dramatic."
His second apology was sufficient, after he was actually suspended. The first apology was not.
"This is getting a little too close to media censorship for me. This is a CABLE channel and there are far more offensive things on cable than a minor slip of the tongue from a journalist."
Basic cable censors profanity just like network television. This is not a pay station here, you know. There's a huge difference. There's also no comparison between news and commentary standards and those for other programming. It's not like they say an lot of awful things about people on E's TMZ, so we shouldn't care about something that happens on a news network.
"After all, he was not far off from the truth when he said after years and years of a hands-off policy towards Chelsea Clinton that her actions now cannot be off limits and without scrutiny."
I haven't seen anyone say otherwise. There's still a right and wrong way to criticize people. And I still don't see what is illegal, immoral or even questionable about a candidate getting help from their children. This is pretty standard, as far as I've seen.
"Like I said, he didn't chose the perfect phrasing, but at the end of the day no harm was done to her."
So if she wasn't scarred by it, then nobody should care? If it's over the line, then it's over the line.
he meant, in the same way that we know what John Kerry MEANT when he
botched his college/Iraq joke. Then we defended Kerry, now we're not applying the same logic to defend Shuster. If this was O'Reilly getting worked
up about something Olbermann said, we'd be (rightly) calling it manufactured outrage. Same thing here. A lot of folks want to nail Matthews, and they'll nail Shuster instead just because he's on the same network.
Perhaps the people who run MediaMatters are simply... well, too old to understand what David Shuster actually said. We under-40s could listen
to the tape a thousand times and not have the slightest clue what the outrage is about. With a gun to my head, I'd still say "Shuster asked if Hillary was making Chelsea shill for her - I don't get it!"
When I was growing up, the word "suck" was considered a dirty word that would get you detention in school if you said it. Fast forward twenty years, and it's mainstream, means "bad", and can be said on daytime tv and kids' cartoons. Were I to jump up and down and start saying that someone made a derogatory sexual comment about Hillary Clinton if they said she sucks, I'd be showing that I was living in a time warp. I'd never interpret "sucks" that way today unless I wanted to audition to be the next Andy Rooney.
This flap is as silly as if a fundamentalist Church banned the singing of "Deck the Halls" because it contains the line "Don we now our gay apparel". It would be taking a word both out of context and into another era and completely miscontruing its meaning.
This is one progressive, protesting, Michael Moore-loving, Hillary Clinton-respecting under-40 who stands firmly in David Shuster's corner. He didn't issue a weasily apology. He expressed his remorse that some people are both thin-skinned and out of touch with the times. This makes Media Matters (and all those who call out bad behavior) look foolish and weakens our ability to be taken seriously and call out real and serious offenses. It seems the organization is either beginning to see "code words" where none exist, or its let its recent successes go to its head. Mr. Brock, when you get Michael Savage off the air or Ann Coulter
removed from media guest lists, there can be rejoicing and back-slapping. When you get David Shuster (who 99.9% of the population couldn't pick out a lineup) SUSPENDED for using common vernacular in a context that we all know what he really meant, it's not praiseworthy... it's sorta pathetic. Quit making mountains out of molehills and use our donations to score real victories against real offenses from real targets.
Someone describing someone as "shrill" isn't a sexist attack. Saying they
should stay barefoot and pregnant is. Talking about Hillary tearing up
isn't a sexist attack. Saying a woman isn't capable of serving in the office
is. Imitating a woman by using "a high-pitched, whiny voice" isn't a sexist attack. Imitating a woman by using a deep baratone...
well, that'd be just plain wierd. Let's stick to targeting real offenses, not ones where you have to squint and tilt your head sideways to see an offense. If that's the case, the offended is playing victim and the organization calling it out is grandstanding for press, power or donations.
There's a God in heaven!
For weeks now I've been furious about the MSNBC Frat Boy Brigade disses Hillar and women in general. I'm relieved somebody's doing something about it and David Shuister's been sent to the woodshed.
All we want is R-E-S-P-E-C-T!
We are also the ones who believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation for transgressors. It's perfectly appropriate, indeed called for, to criticize Shuster here. But the punishment simply does not fit the crime here, and as is so often the case punishment does not equal resolution.
It is unfortunate fact of our existence that when punishment feeds the needs of those who witness a wrongdoing more than directs the atonement of the perpetrator, nobody wins. (Anybody ever remember demanding that your little brother get grounded?)
Nobody can possibly dispute the stupidity and callousness of Shuster's remark, but that doesn't mean that a heartfelt apology can't start to set things right. And setting things right should be what all parties should be striving for here. A penitent Shuster still working for the network would probably do us all a lot more good than what we have now.
Forgiving somebody doesn't mean that you tolerate or approve of their bad behavior. You can be merciful while still making it clear that you expect the person to get right and make good. Brock got it right when he said that the culture of MSNBC has done little to prevent its staff from making such offensive comments, but he's wrong saying that the time for apologies is over.
There's never a wrong time to say "I'm sorry." Of course the words after "I'm sorry " have to be "for what I did" and not "that this happened." And once those words come out, it's a good time for others to offer some forgiveness and for everybody to find a way move ahead.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8408.html
For anyone interested, politico.com has the email exchange between shuster and a spokesman for the clinton campaign. Pretty interesting. And doesn't look like shuster was hell-bent on apologizing until the brass came down on him. Apologies if someone already posted this . . .
Poor judgement in his choice of words, but anyone who has watched Shuster knows that was atypical. He is animated about politics yes, but he is a atraight shooter. His apologies were more than sufficient, especially when you think about the fact that the use of pimp refers to the parents not Chelsea.
I think someone is now using this to pluck at the heartstrings of female voters.