NBC News president: Shuster suspended for Chelsea Clinton comments
February 08, 2008 3:57 pm ET
NBC News President Steve Capus sent the following statement to Media Matters for America:
NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:
On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.
Media Matters noted Shuster's comments here.
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Woooo, I just LOVE it when we score! GO MMFA!
Wooo, libs just LOVE it when the Clintons and their lapdogs act like fascists and stifle free speech.
Puh-leeze, Uberdouche's racist and misogynistic acts and rants are worse by orders of magnitude.
Where was all the outrage over the vile and horrible comments about and the treatment of the Bush twins?
Free speech doesn't mean that anyone can say anything they want without consequences. He's an employee. You can get fired for insulting a potential client's wife, and "free speech" doesn't protect you from that. MSNBC can take whatever action they like.
Free speech doesn't mean that anyone can say anything they want without consequences. He's an employee. You can get fired for insulting a potential client's wife, and "free speech" doesn't protect you from that. MSNBC can take whatever action they like
So why did they only take action when it was against a Dem?...Hillary in particular
Why the pass for Olbermann despite his history of racist and misogynistic remarks and actions?
What are you talking about, the chicken and waffles comment? Is there anything else?
Schuster is a liberal, so it's not exactly a partisan act anyway.
The point is if Clinton gets elected, say goodbye to free speech. The fact that she will silence even those who are on the same side of the aisle is proof positive.
NBC caving to her is utterly disgraceful. Says an unnamed source from the network:
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?"
Google "Olberman Bush twins" and see what happens.
There example after example of vile, hateful, misogynistic comments and lies by Uberdouche about them.
Ok, I took your challenge. I Googled exactly what you said to and read each of the first 30 links it gave in order to give you a fair chance. Not one single link supported your charge.
The closest it came was Olbermann reporting on the tales coming out of Venezuela when the twins went down there for their 25th birthdays. He reported the rumors, but he reported the denials of all of the parties involved. He didn't just mention the denials in passing, he referred to them repeatedly. It was obvious that he didn't give much credence to the reports and there was nothing he said that was critical of the Bush twins.
You got anything else? Or should we take your charges based on your stellar reputation for accuracy here?
Nah, I want to see evidence.
You must have spelled something wrong, because I just did it again and came up with all kinds of lies and smartass remarks by Uberdouche against the Bush twins
Nope, my Google toolbar remembers my most recent searches and I spelled everything correctly. I actually corrected your misspelling of Olbermann for my search.
You're the one making the assertion. I made a good-faith effort to check on your claim. Perhaps you could provide a link, a quote or something to make it appear that you're not full of crap. Is that an unreasonable request?
Amazing...MSNBC and Olbermann are covering their asses. After doing the "Olbermann/Bush twins search" I clicked on the 1st one and the vidoe had been taken down
http://www.clipta.com/play?v=c37692cc8923e3148eef
I then checked several others and they too had been removed. Uberdouche and the MSM are so abjectly.corrupt
Absolutely amazing!
Yeah, sure, that's the ticket. There's a mass conspiracy to erase all written and video records of all the numerous smears of the Bush twins that Olbermann has broadcast over the years.
This is flippin' hilarious.
Actually there is. Go ahead and check the links. the videos have been removed. There are transcripts available, however. Where is the outrage over this lie that Uberdouche is pimping:
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: It‘s rare when the world of politics and the world of entertainment fit together as neatly as they do in our number one story in the COUNTDOWN tonight. A tale of two pairs of girls, all of them in their mid 20‘s, all of them famous, all of them providing rich fodder for the tabloids with their latest exploits. In a moment the phenomenon of Paris Hilton and her new sidekick, Britney Spears.
But first Jenna and Barbara Bush. They have regained their party girl crowns thanks to reports from their 25th birthday celebrations in Argentina this weekend. After reports of lack security, a media frenzy and at least one lurid tale in the Argentine papers about the girls running naked down a hallway of their hotel, denied fervently by that hotel, by the way, ABC News reported the situation was so bad that the U.S. embassy asked the girls to leave, which the embassy fervently denies, by the way.
Keith Olbermann, 9/20/07: “And in pimping General David Petraeus and in the violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it.”
Wooo...c'mon guys ...let's get Uberdouche...c'mon yeah....let's get him...c'mon...hey..where is everybody?..c'mon..I even said wooo...c'mon Uberdouche used that vile phrase too...wooo.c'mon...
...oh, sorry..I forgot...he's a lib...woooo
It's not sexist, because Petraeus isn't a woman. It's a completely different context. Get it straight.
Shuster's comment wasn't sexist either. Both men and women can be pimped out. Just ask Bahney Fwank. He and his boyfriend ran a male prostitution sevice that pimped out young boys to old lechers.
The word pimp, unfortuneately has become part of our everyday lexicon...as has prostitute. They are used to refer to the using of someone or one allowing oneself to be used. In this context politically.
In Chelesea'a case, the description in spot on. Access to her is not allowed...except where given the OK by the Clintons. She is definitely being pimped out...and she is allowing herself to be prostituted.
douche is merely an instrument usually containing water and vinegar
Ummm...noooo...douche is actually the solution, not the vessel.
It's kinda disturbing you didn't know that.
The issue is that all of the campaigns have used wives and children to help out. This is nothing new or unique to the Clinton campaign. A General working for political purposes is much less common and much more troubling.
We know, they know, everyone knows...
That Schuster would have never made this comment about a Con. No way.
...Not in a thousand years. Great job by Media Matters.
Good point.
But Yeah to MSNBC on this one!
Perhaps he'll be a little more careful now.
Oh, but that would be an infringement on his "free speech." Oh gee! Sorry. Any far right raisin brain with a microphone has earned his "free speech."
I agree with the suspension after David Shuster's mediocre apology (claiming critics took his remark "literally", claiming he had praised Chelsea Clinton in ways he didn't, etc.)
If he had made a good apology, maybe I'd feel differently.
Not only that Tommy, but David Shuster is a Democratic/Liberal.
Ah well....
There are several guys that appear on Olby's show that have been featured here for Conservative misinformation. Are they all liberal? I don't know. I don't think you know either. My guess is they are more interested in rising up the food chain as Audit said below.
To Jeter, yes, I am late. So what love? I just didn't want to sound like you and T Rex mitigating bad rhetoric like you do many times a week ;-0)
And of course Schuster was probably jettisoned because it was easier than getting rid of one of the big dogs. And many of the obvious non liberals are panting over Obama and hating on Hillary. So what does that prove?
Julia dear, he's a Hillary basher & an Obama gusher. He sticks up for Democrats on a daily basis on Morning Joe. So you do the math ;-)
Of course what he said was wrong, which was already discussed on the other Shuster thread Miz Julia come-lately.
Riddle yourself that darling ;-)
Why is he the only one to get pulled? Low man on the totem pole?
David Shuster is a Democratic/Liberal.
What are you?
What am I?
You mean other than perfect, reasonable, and the most fair & balanced poster here?
I'm not sure what I am is important, but it's hardly a secret here... I'm a Conservative. A moderate one.
Up until recently I was a registered Republican. Now I'm an Independent, or as they say here in Massachusetts, "Un-Enrolled". Same thing, just means you don't have an "R" or "D" by your name.
Really?
I've noticed most Liberals think most of the media are Republican/Conservatives. They don't try to guess...they just "know" ;-)
How much time out of the day do you spend thinking about so-called liberals?
Excuse me Gov, but I feel like I'm being interviewed for a magazine or newspaper article... LOL
My answer would be...I've no clue. I've never thought about timing it...So I guess that probably means, not all that much. Shrug.
The most fair and balanced poster here and perfect to boot? Only in your own mind. But you are the best looking. Well, only if you like that type. I personally don't think GC is that handsome :-0)
But you are pretty nice most of the time. Now if you would quit reading Anne Coulter's column, I might grant you the JJ gold standard.
I hope this doesn't post twice. I'm having technical difficulties.
Now if you would quit reading Anne Coulter's column, I might grant you the JJ gold standard.
Quit reading Anne Coulter?!?
As Blood, Sweat And Tears once sang:
I can't quit her
She's got a hold on me
She got her hand on my soul
I can't quit her
;-)
There was a possible loss of revenue for MSNBC in this case.
The Clinton campaign said they may cancel an upcoming debate on MSNBC, which would mean less ad revenue.
From http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_camp_upset_over_chelsa.html
Howard "Wolfson suggested that the campaign might retailiate against MSNBC by no longer agreeing to any further debates sponsored by the cable network."
Face it Tommy, whatever way the Clintons do it is not right by you.
It only makes sense to hit ‘em where it hurts – the wallet!
Lost,
I am not real comfortable with political campaigns essentially threatening news organizations on matters of personnel and who they can and cannot employ. It has nothing to do with Schuster's remarks, which were totally uncalled for and he should sincerely apologize.
But obviously that is not enough for the strong arm of the Clinton machine, who made their intentions known.
I know you are a big Hillary supporter, and that is fine. But don't act naive to the fact that we will be in for another four more years, on top of the previous 16 years, of divisive, polarizing politics full of hatred and "gotcha" from all sides. I just don't get too squishy or warm on that prospect, sorry.
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination...
I hope they pull out of all debates unless they are real debates. At least a half-hour should be spent on each topic being debated.
If the corporate media can't structure a "real" debate, then take a walk.
Everybody is always railing against the corporate media here and how much they are in Bush's pocket, that he has undo influence over content and reporting their activities positively and with bias.
Now here comes a textbook example of a politician exercising their influence over a media decision and it's all well and good because it's on "your" side.
You don't find that to be a little bit of a double standard?
"Everybody is always railing against the corporate media here and how much they are in Bush's pocket, that he has undo influence over content and reporting their activities positively and with bias."
Unless that's because of a legitimate complaint from Bush, I don't see what the double standard is supposed to be. You've already admitted that Schuster owed the Clintons an apology, therefore that's not "undue" influence,right?
My issue with that is that an apology in and of itself may not be sufficient, depending on how it's done. For instance, John Gibson's recent apology for his Heath Ledger remarks was insufficient because he didn't really admit wrongdoing, he was just sorry that people were offended.
Schuster:"I didn't think that people would take it literally, but some people have. ... [T]o the extent that people feel I was being pejorative, I apologize for that. I should have seen that people might view it that way, and for that, then I'm sorry."
A little similar, to say the least. What's more, he lied about having heaped praise on Chelsea, which certainly changes the context. Clearly, if he explicitly praised her and then made that comment, then he might be able to expect that people would take his words more lightly. If he didn't praise Chelsea, then he can't really be all that surprised. That makes the apology even more phony.
So I don't see how that apology should be the end of things. Bear in mind, I'm not a Clinton supporter, and I know that Schuster is a Democrat.
Brab,
This is not about the sincerity behind Schuster's apology, that is for MCNBC to decide. Schusters was an idiotic remark, Chelsea has never conducted herself in any manner other than respectfully and with grace, she has been through a whole lot with her father's antics being so publicly displayed through the years, she is very classy and I admire her grit and her poise.
As for Hillary, I have often said the same things about her, there would be alot worse presidents than her, and I have said so here many times. She is tough, I admire that about her too. It isn't about them personally, or even their politics, it's the way they deal with those that come up against them, that I find very unseemly. They pull out all the stops and some not so nice, I know, it's politics, but they play just inside the edges most of the time. I don't trust them in that regard, it's my opinion.
And I am not comfortable with the obvious pressure they put on MCNBC for this incident. I would feel the same way if it were Obama, or Bush, or McCain, or any of them - this is not partisan for me, I know many won't believe that, but it's true.
How on earth is MSNBC the one to decide the sincerity of the apology? His comment was about the Clintons, his apology is more relevant to them than anyone else. Let's say this happened on FOX, would it really be up to them to decide if an apology to a Democrat is sufficient or not?
So if it was you, and you weren't satisfied with a phony apology (by your opinion, for the sake of argument), you would still appear on the network?
"This is not about the sincerity behind Schuster's apology, that is for MCNBC to decide."
I was talking about the legitimacy of the Clinton's complaint. The sincerity of that apology is directly relevant to that. The Clintons don't have to wait for a call from the network to find out if they accept that apology or not.
MSNBC can also make that determination on their own and take action, but their failure to do so doesn't mean that nobody else can. Is that more clear now?
I saw the Schuster remark as it was made live during the program. I figured it would end up here as it should have. I also thought his comment came out of left field because I didn't agree at all with his premise, much less his terminology.
But if you ask me whether or not I felt this would end in a suspension, I'm pretty surprised about that considering what other things have been said and allowed to pass on the networks. I'm thinking a suspension was pretty harsh in this case, just my opinion.
If there's a genuine complaint, absolutely! Tell me that if Olbermann called Bush's daughters "wh0res" (damn profanity filter) during the 2004 campaign and refused to apologize that the network shouldn't be pressured to do something about it.
I know it's not that extreme here, but you're talking in general terms.
Not to avoid your question, but what is with that profanity filter here nowadays? I have typed posts with no profanity and get that "please express yourself.....", and I look at every word and there isn't one there? What is up with that? Someone needs to look at that, it ain't right.
If Olbermann used that language, I am sure MSNBC would definitely take decisive action against him, but I would hope it would be their decision, and not President Bushs.
I think what might explain that is if it's not recognizing spaces before a sequence of letters. For instance, if you used a legitimate word that happened to have a profanity somewhere in it, it might reject that. Otherwise, it's a bug.
"If Olbermann used that language, I am sure MSNBC would definitely take decisive action against him, but I would hope it would be their decision, and not President Bushs."
You would hope, sure. But if they didn't take action, I'd think you'd understand if Bush told them he wouldn't appear on that network anymore.
So, in other words they weren't satisfied with the apology and refused to let NBC handle it in their own way, their own employee. They wanted to make a little "stink", exercise a little pressure to make sure the point was driven home that you don't mess with the Clintons for as long as MSNBC has been doing lately in their Obama gushing, and they were going to hear about it.
That is really what this is about isn't it? If this comment had been made on a more Clinton friendly network, the apology would have been sufficient, but it was on MSNBC, where they are very Obama friendly and the Clintons didn't like it, so they took some action. And boom, suspension for Schuster.
If you all are fine with that, so be it. I disagree.
Don't be ridiculous, it has nothing to do with alleviating someone of their responsibility. For you make it about that shows the weakness of your defense of the Clintons in action here. It's about politicians not liking something a network pundit says and pressuring them to do what they want.
But you dismiss that because it isn't exactly the kind of image the Clintons want out there, especially when it's contrasted with the positive, uplifting message that Obama brings - and that has Clinton, and her supporters, including you, a tad upset. I get that.
Interesting how the language changes from Schuster owing them an apology for his ridiculous comments to "It's about politicians not liking something a network pundit says and pressuring them to do what they want." You've already justified their disagreement with him, but now it sounds like it's all on some trivial whim or something.
Tommy wrote:
>>And obviously NBC was pressured to do something more than accept that apology, it wasn't enough for the Clintons,
No, it's not obvious. You have implied some conspiracy theory, that Clinton pressured MSNBC unethcally, a charge for which you have no more proof than you do that Clinton murdered Vince Foster. Again, it's not obvious that Clinton pressured MSNBC, not at all in the way you suggest.
Lost, The consequences of his actions should be solely determined by his employer, not an outside pressuring political organization - that is my point.
Have a good evening too.
Tommy escribier:
>>Lost, The consequences of his actions should be solely determined by his employer, not an outside pressuring political organization - that is my point.
That is one of those bizarre illogical statements you always make. Who actually decided to take action? Why, the employer, just as you said! If you mean that employers shouldn't be pressured by outside forces (as you have often stated here) because of the so-called free-market, then you are making a fallacious argument in assuming outside forces are *part* of the free market. If coke puts a new product out that tastes bad, and they then decide to stop producing it, are they being pressured by the "outside" forces? Or, to be more precise, if Coke puts has an ad that is patently offensive to Christians, and then Christians boycott Coke, and Coke takes action, is Coke being "outside" forces? When people chose not to buy something, or to not to hurt your business through legal means, that is part of the free market. You make an artificial distinction.
If on the other hand you are arguing that "outside" forces shouldn't influence corporations, then are you against the boycott that Martin Luther King instigated against the bus service in Alabama? Certainly, corporations and businesses should be influenced by outside pressure. If they are not, they become fiefdoms with too much power.
Tommy wrote:
>>For you make it about that shows the weakness of your defense of the Clintons in action here. It's about politicians not liking something a network pundit says and pressuring them to do what they want.
No. You made a generlization that is not warranted by your argument. It is not about "politicians...pressuring" the networks; it is about Clinton justifiably threatening to boycott a news channel.
"They wanted to make a little "stink", exercise a little pressure to make sure the point was driven home that you don't mess with the Clintons for as long as MSNBC has been doing lately in their Obama gushing, and they were going to hear about it."
How is making a public statement chastising them not a "stink" then, or exercising "a little pressure"? And again, it's not a matter of merely doing something they don't like, it's a legitimate complaint. That doesn't really jibe with "don't mess with the Clintons".
I already pasted the apology. If you think you can argue that it would be sufficient on any network, do so.
We are in a impassable disagreement, apparently. You have your take, I have mine. Your points, and Lost's, are valid, I see it differently however.
Have a good weekend.......
Brabantio scrieb:
>>No, you're the one who's insisting that the network makes a difference. You can't expect me to prove a negative.
Yes, that is exactly my thought. Or rather, Tommy didn't answer your argument at all, but simply shifted to an argument he could make.
The Clinton campaign said they were re-considering doing debates on MSNBC.
That isn't the same as "threatening news organizations on matters of personnel."
Nah, just not blinded by Clinton loyalty, or any politiican for that matter.
I don't hate Hillary at all, I have praised her here often. What I do hate is the way they operate and I have said so. I don't admire the way they deal with those who disagree with them, sorry.
Tommy wrote:
>>I don't hate Hillary at all, I have praised her here often. What I do hate is the way they operate and I have said so. I don't admire the way they deal with those who disagree with them, sorry.
Yes, but now you are advancing a riduculous conspiracy theory to back up your claim. If you have to use a conspiracy theory, then your claim must not be very strong.
Tommy can you hear me? Tommy?
man I love The Who.
Anyway, I was kidding. I know you're no Clinton conspiracy theorist. It's just with your posts lately, you seem to have a thing out for them.
No, I think that Howard Wolfson told MSNBC that they're re-considering doing debates on MSNBC, and MSNBC responded with this suspension.
Right, Tommy. And Clinton murdered Vince Foster, too.
"I am not real comfortable with political campaigns essentially threatening news organizations on matters of personnel and who they can and cannot employ. "
Tommy, we agree on that. I would strongly disagree with your assertion that this is the "Clinton way." This is the way campaigns and administrations work now, and the consolidation and corporatification of media has made honest reportage a risky endeavor, career-wise. I would argue that this started with the G.H.W. Bush/Roger Ailes ambush of Dan Rather. I would also argue that the Bushes have been far more successful in gaming the media by granting and withholding access than the Clintons. In fact, if the Bush 2000 campaign hadn't been as good as they were at intimidating reporters, Dubya would probably not have gotten close enough in the popular vote to have been appointed President.
I'm also amused by the recent designation of Craig Crawford as "liberal." I've been watching him for a couple of years now, and he never struck me as anything but coldy analytical. When he pointed out that the media swarms around anything negative about Hillary like a school of fish, he's a looney lefty.
Maybe he's just another corporate turd...
trying to move up the food chain.
Now if only FOX Noise were held to the same standards...
It would be good bye to the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity and the rest of the right wing propagandists.
And for good measure, add Rush Limbaugh to the list.
Amazing that Schuster's filth is allowed on the public airwaves.
Very sad for America
Chris Matthews announced on "Hardball" that he had voted for Bush in 2000.
I wouldn't describe him as a "long time dem(s)." He used to be a Democrat.
Regarding David Schuster and Mike Barnicle, how do you know that they're currently Democrats?
Yeah, I think NBC saw that the only way to reign in this filth a little was to take concrete action.
They know the mode is basically: apologize, look contrite, and then go right back to the slime machine. This will be a gentle wake up call.
Schuster is just a "sacrifice to the Gods."--a warning sign to the Big Boys.
While Shuster's terminology was ill-suited, I don't know how far removed it is from "hip" commentary found across the cable news dial. Clearly the potential debate and fresh memories of Imus caught the attention of the NBC brass.
But I do wonder if the time has come for Hillary not to be viewed as the 13-year-old she was the first time Clinton campaigned and the young professional she is now. The Clinton campaign really cannot claim that she should be "protected" any more. It's not their call anyway. Chelsea's campaigning, much like Cheney's daughter did for her pop, and should be viewed as a player.
That doesn't mean commentators should feel free to make comments like Shuster did, but it also means, like the chicken-hawk Romney boys, what she does or doesn't do can be criticized. Just ask the ladies on The View.
What did she say that was being criticized with the statement "pimping her out?" How is that a criticism of any Chelsea Clinton position or statement?
So Clinton loathing has gone so deep that we're now going to criticize Bill and Hillary for defending their daughter from slime like this?
Actually the entire family was insulted. Chelsea was called a prostitute and the parents were called pimps.
As a mom, if anyone did that to me and my family, and my daughter is 32...I would have done the same thing Hillary did, maybe worse.
You don't stop protecting and standing up for your family just because they are not teenagers anymore.
I'm glad MSNBC canned the guy. Now, I hope all the rest of the pundits take a lesson away from this and stop with the crap coming out of their mouths!!!! People are sick of it.
I love the way a guy on NBC smears the Clintons, and somehow it becomes all about the Clintons and their bad attitude. Never ceases to amaze me.
the news, but are INFLUENCING views by their constant personal and biased
remarks, sometimes bordering on the ridiculous. For the most part the NEWS
is not being transmitted to viewers, but sly and often blatant personal attacks
similar to the breathless and silly remarks made by "Entertainment News"
personalities.
Unfortunately, not a lot of people read Media Matters, Slate, Talking Points Memo,
or other watchdog sites. Most people get their "news" from the networks and hate
sites like Fox. Forget about the radio! Savage, Limbaugh, Matthews, and the king
of all, O'Rielly have the ears of millions of Americans. None of these individuals are
journalists. Therein lies a serious problem. Instead of being INFORMED, we are
being manipulated.
When Mitt Romney was asked about his son's lack of military service, he suggested that they were doing their 'patriotic duty', by attempting to get their father elected. I don't recall anyone suggesting that they were being 'pimped out'....
Dan Abrams covered a story this past week, which involved a study which documented the media bias against the Clinton's. The Shuster incident provides a nice exclamation mark to that study.
I have never been politically involved, but I have actively been supporting Hillary, based upon the media bias which I have witnessed against her. MSNBC was well on the way to becoming a premier news / reporting organization. Keith started me back watching a nightly news program, after several years of avoiding them. With the possible exception of Dan Abrams, MSNBC is becoming a variation on Fox News...with Keith Olbermann as host. Keith has obviously downed the Obama Kool-Aid...and has gone from being the next Morrow (objective), to being another partisan hack.
Would it be wrong to say that Obama is pimping them out?
All this carrying on. Wow. "Pimp" was a poor choice of words, besides being vulgar, it was also inaccurate as it implies that C.C. was being coerced into offering some kind of "service" to her audience in return for their support of H.R.C. It's also demeaning in that it implies that Ms. Clinton is somehow being forced to campaign for her mom, which is unlikely.
The correct verb would be "flack" or maybe even "shill" (depending on how much you loathe the Clintons) and C.C. would be the active party.
More interesting to me, though, is how deeply incidents like this incite in me a longing for a return to the dictates of what used to be called "Polite Society," in discussions of anything of real or imaginary import.
If Imus had restrained himself from any demonstration of ersatz ghetto cred, if Schuster had been more judicious (and precise) in his choice of words, there wouldn't be a thread like this.
The history of MSNBC is becoming disturbing. From Imus' racist and misogynist remarks about college athletes to Tucker Carlson's remarks promoting gay bashings in restroons, to David Shuster's bizarre assertion that an adult woman campaigning for her mother is being "pimped out," MSNBC TV seems to adopt a tenor, standard of decency, and level of accuracy that would be unbecoming to most fraternity parties. Shuster's apology and suspension, therefore, are inadequate. He should be fired as soon as possible and the whole political team on MSNBC should be reconfigured.