NY Times falsely claimed "a letter signed by Mrs. Clinton call[ed] on MSNBC to fire" Shuster
SUMMARY: A New York Times article falsely asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign had "released a letter signed by Mrs. Clinton calling on MSNBC to fire a reporter who had made an off-color reference to her daughter." In fact, the letter did not "call[] on" NBC News president Steve Capus to fire the reporter, David Shuster; indeed, Clinton's letter did not seek any specific action against Shuster.
A March 1 New York Times article on press coverage of the Democratic presidential primary campaign falsely asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign had "released a letter signed by Mrs. Clinton calling on MSNBC to fire a reporter who had made an off-color reference to her daughter." In fact, the letter, released on February 9, did not "call[] on" NBC News president Steve Capus to fire the reporter -- David Shuster -- for his February 7 comment that the Clinton campaign had "pimped out" Chelsea Clinton. (Shuster apologized for the comment and was suspended by NBC News.) Indeed, Clinton's letter did not call on Capus to take any specific action against Shuster.
The following is Clinton's letter to Capus:
Dear Mr. Capus,
Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster's comments.
I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.
However, I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient.
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.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Further, in a February 11 interview televised on WJLA in Washington, D.C., Clinton declined to call for Shuster's firing in response to a direct question. Politico editor-in-chief John Harris asked Clinton during the interview, "Two-week suspension, you said that's inadequate for what was said. What would be adequate? Are you looking for a firing or something more?" Clinton responded: "That's not my job, John. You know, that's the job of the people who run the network. But I think that they need to take a hard look." She continued: "This is like the third time they've had to apologize. And there are a lot of things that they haven't had to apologize for that might have merited one. So I wish they would take a look at, you know, some of the pattern of demeaning comments that are made on their networks."
From the March 1 New York Times article, headlined "On the Press Bus, Some Questions Over Favoritism":
Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign, which only a few weeks ago released a letter signed by Mrs. Clinton calling on MSNBC to fire a reporter who had made an off-color reference to her daughter, Chelsea, provided a letter to The Huffington Post this week taking issue with The Times. The letter, signed by 503 staff members and volunteers, disputed the central point in an article on Sunday's front page: that the campaign was rapidly losing hope.
At the same time, as Mr. Obama racked up a string of victories in recent weeks, Mrs. Clinton has begun appearing more frequently in the press section of her plane for on-the-record conversations. On Valentine's Day, she wandered back to call the girlfriends of several journalists, to apologize for keeping them on the campaign trail.
But to some reporters, those attempts at making nice have come late.
"Part of it is her campaign's fault," Andrea Mitchell, the longtime NBC political correspondent, said backstage at the MSNBC debate in Cleveland in Tuesday. "They started with this notion of inevitability. And they were very arrogant."
Conclusion: MSNBC doesn’t like the Clintons. The Clintons don’t like MSNBC.
I think MSNBC does not like anyone. this was horrible also, Dana Milbank on Olbermann making fun of McCains cancer. How disgusting.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/02/the_cancer_thing.html
Quite possibly. Or perhaps she wanted him killed. Or she might have wanted him to write "I'm sorry" on a blackboard one thousand times. We could speculate ad nauseam about what Hillary Clinton did or did not want, but the text of the letter is what's at issue, and it does not specifically call for firing explicitly. The NYT claimed that it does.
At issue is whether or not the letter called directly for Shuster's firing. The letter directly urges for a reexamination of "the pattern of behavior on [the] network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language." The letter directly states that neither a "temporary suspension" nor a "half hearted apology is sufficient" justification to Clinton for the "debasing language Shuster used."
What is significant here is that, beyond calling for a reexamination of behavior, the letter does not explicitly call for any action: it only explicitly registers dissatisfaction with actions taken so far. As I tried to say, whether or not Clinton wanted Shuster fired isn't the issue. There's a world of difference between wanting someone fired and telling a network to fire an employee explicitly and direcly, and that's a distinction that the New York Times did not make in its characterization of the letter.
To be clear, I don't want to seem that this is some sort of horrible crime. It isn't. I just think that the NYT article presents the letter as more of a direct call for specific action that it really was. In a nutshell, I think the letter was written the way it was precisely to deflect any potential claim that Clinton asked for Shuster to be fired. The letter was crafted to be ambiguous to a degree: the campaign went out of its way to say only what it found insufficient, not what it would find sufficient. The New York Times suggested that the letter was a direct appeal for Shuster to be fired. That's it.
The letter is clear.
She doesn't come close to calling for him to be fired.
She does say more needs to be done. What more? She says that MSNBC needs to look at their overall pattern of obnoxious behavior, and solve that issue too. His apology is not enough. One individual apologized for his actions. The system seems poisoned, and that was the reason she said that his apology was not enough.
I'm surprised so many people didn't understand this.
The letter is very clear mrs Clinton wanted Shuster off a leading role in front of the camera and busted down to a desk reporter. And as i opined before, Chelsea Clinton is an asset to the US intellectual property and might well be president someday. The potential is there and she has a running start. Mr Shuster needed a meeting behind the barn for that lapse.
Carn said
No, it wasn't "very clear".
HRC said:
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient.
Ok...what is not clear. If she did not want him fired, please explain what she meant. Again, what she wrote was veryyyyyyy clear.
The Clinton camp saw a half-hearted apology as not being sufficient.
As any advanced fifth-grader would know, the letter does not rule out that a sincere apology that is not half-hearted could have been sufficient for the Hillary camp.
If I say that I will never eat a green apple in my life, I am not saying that I will never eat any apple, because I could perfectly be open to eating a red apple.
In conclusion, Media Matters is correct in its assessment, as usual.
Read the whole sentence again, genius.
The whole sentence. There was no call for Schuster to be fired.
None.
"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient.
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."
Here's the next paragraph from Hillary's letter. In that next paragraph, she clearly describes what else needs to be done from her point of view.
I don't understand why so many are missing this. I'm not a Hillary supporter but I see it clearly. Just as Media Matters has made abundantly clear over the last few months, MSNBC has issues. Hillary is saying that they need to both punish individual transgressors as well as fix the systemic issues that condone such behavior.
The typical operating procedure there now is reporting every move that Sen. Clinton makes in a negative vein.
There are other possible actions available besides a suspension, half-hearted apology, or firing. Such as the powers-that-be ensuring that the attitude or rules evident at MSNBC be changed so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. Suspensions, apologies, or even a firing alone will not change anything unless someone gets at the root of the problem.
I dont know. I think POV has a point. While clearly there was no direct call for anyone to be fired the wording is such I think its a stretch to call this misinformation. It is a reasonable assumption to take from what was said.
I'm a little surprised by many of you. "reasonable assumptions" are not what I expect from a news source like NYT that claims to be the "paper of record". Was this an editorial or news story?
New York Times. The paper of reasonable assumptions.
You are the one who has failed, Point of View, since a temporary suspension COMBINED with a sincerere, not half-hearted apology could have been sufficient.
The temporary suspension by itself, and a half-hearted apology by itself, were not sufficient. That's what the term "or" means. It separates two unrelated items.
If a girl tells her boyfriend, "flowers or mediocre-tasting chocolates will not be sufficient to make me happy on Valentines day", we are to assume that flowers PLUS great chocolates will probably make her happy.
But you want to leave all possibilities out.
I'm with you here POINTOFVIEW. If she had left the word "temporary" out of the letter it would have had the same scolding effect - and this MMFA story might have a valid point. But that word alone changes the whole meaning of her demands.
Anyone who sees this as anything other than Hillary insisting he be fired has to first explain to me just why she specifically demands more than just a "temporary supension". What is MORE than "temporary"? Logic people, pleasssse.
When Hillary mentioned the temporary suspension and half-hearted apology, she was listing the things that had already happened, not some hypotheticals that she wanted the opposite of.
As the letter makes clear, Hillary wants real change in the reporting practices at MSNBC. Obviously, the things that were done will not lead to real change. Anything that will lead to real change would be acceptable to Hillary.
And as usual, the media doesn't bother to quote the figure they're blasting. Always raise your guard when the media is trashing someone for saying really bad things that can only be expressed in paraphrase (ie spin).
A hypothetical: If you read this line in your local newspaper as part of a story of a violent assault at a local school, what would you make of it?...
"The video of Johnny’s assault on the girl is appalling. Despite his apology, many parents feel his temporary suspension was insufficient."
Do you read this sentence by the writer as saying anything other than that many parents felt Johnny should have been expelled? Why would MSNBC, or most any reader of Hillary’s letter take it any other way? To try to make what she didn’t say more important that what she actually did say in the letter is one sorry argument.
OK, I suppose we could argue what she meant all day long. Saying that what was done is not “sufficient” without specifying just what would be “sufficient” allows anyone to interpret as they may just exactly what she means here. Do you think I am still wrong then to assume that she knew the ambivalence of her statement, and specifically used this choice of words in the hopes that MSNBC would respond with the ultimate punishment? Even when asked directly, Hillary doesn’t deny this – instead she uses typical political doublespeak. We can agree to disagree about just what she meant, but I can’t blame anyone, including MSNBC or The NYT, for taking it to mean what is seems to suggest to me - and probably most everyone but die-hard Hillary fans fearful of the “bullying” image this seems to purvey.
"Saying that what was done is not “sufficient” without specifying just what would be “sufficient” allows anyone to interpret as they may just exactly what she means here."
She's not a network executive. I would think that dictating specific action would be seen as especially arrogant.
"Do you think I am still wrong then to assume that she knew the ambivalence of her statement, and specifically used this choice of words in the hopes that MSNBC would respond with the ultimate punishment?"
She probably did. But that's not the same as "calling on him to be fired". She's calling on them to fix the problem, in whatever way that could be done. If you're unhappy with your work situation, you can bring that to the attention of superiors hoping that they'll fire your supervisor without calling for it. They could transfer you, give you a promotion, anything as long as it's a good faith effort to resolve the situation.
And there's absolutely no other possible punishment for the student other than explusion, or no action the school could take to prevent further assaults? I agree that it is reasonable to assume the parents are talking about explusion but there are other possibilities. In reporting the parents reaction couldn't the media just say the "parents feel his temporary suspension was insufficient", instead of stating the parents are calling for the student to be expelled? Which one better informs the public as to what the parents actually said?
If I read that sentence in my hometown newspaper, and then the next sentence said that the parents of that bullied child wanted the school district to look at the climate in the schools that encouraged that behavior (which is what Hillary's letter did), then I would not assume that the parent wanted the offending student to be banned forever. I'd assume that they wanted more done to fix the underlying problems that encouraged that bad behavior.
Why are so many readers not reading the whole letter, and concentrating on taking that one paragraph out of context?
I'm not so sure. I'm not seeing the difference between "temporary suspension" and "suspension", since a suspension is temporary by definition.
I think the point of that word in there is to emphasize that there's no long-term result that comes from it. Hillary isn't ruling out termination, by any means, I'm sure she'd love to see that. But when you read it in context, the point seems to be that there's an underlying problem that needs to be fixed.
"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient...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."
That language goes beyond Shuster. Temporary suspensions and half-hearted apologies aren't sufficient because they don't fix the actual problem, they don't prevent these things from happening again.
It's ambiguous, certainly. And I think Hillary probably does want him fired. If it was an opinion piece talking about the letter and how she clearly wants him fired, that would be understandable. That's a reasonable take on it. But if an article wants to make that assertion, then it should be based on something explicit.
I'm not so sure. I'm not seeing the difference between "temporary suspension" and "suspension", since a suspension is temporary by definition.
You're defeating your own argument here - then why did she even USE the word temporary? "Temporary", as opposed to <insert antonym here>?
On the contrary, you've shown exactly why reading things in context is important. I also wrote:
"I think the point of that word in there is to emphasize that there's no long-term result that comes from it. Hillary isn't ruling out termination, by any means, I'm sure she'd love to see that. But when you read it in context, the point seems to be that there's an underlying problem that needs to be fixed."
If the words not in there to make any actual distinction (since there's no "permanent suspension" here), then it's probably for emphasis. Like I said I'm sure she'd love to see him fired, but she didn't call for that. She called for them to fix the recurring problem. I understand how people reach the conclusion that she wants him fired, but at the same time the media should let people decide that for themselves instead of saying "she called for" it. There's a big difference between underlying hopes and outright demands.
andrea mitchell has no credibility. she attacked john kerry after one of the 2004 debates, because he had criticized federal reserve chairman alan greenspan. she did not mention that she is also mrs. greenspan. see link.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041115/alterman
You have got to be kidding. What did she want? Tonight's spot on SNL?
Guess NBC is okay now.
Until she changes her tack again tomorrow!!
And let's be frank: these are not the usual wingnuts coming here bashing Hillary. Some are Obama supporters, many of whom defended Shuster, only because his sexist comment was against Hillary Clinton.
How about something substantive? Like "MSNBC has reviewed these incidents, and subsequently talked to all of our on-air hosts about what we consider proper and respectful in their future broadcasts"?
Any confusion or disagreement about the meaning of the letter is attributable to the Clinton Machine's chronic aversion to communicating clearly without couching everything in fuzzy-phrased weasel-speak --- in case their future polling shows they need to do a 180 and claim they never said what they actually said. (We've seen this pattern time and time again over many years.)
The fact is Hillary's letter stated that "no temporary suspension" is "sufficient." So it's quite reasonable to conclude that she was saying Shuster should have been fired.
On the one hand, the NYT should probably issue a clarification stating that the Clinton letter did not explicitly demand Shuster's resignation.
On the other hand, Media Matters owes a clarification as well, as its criticism of the NYT's story improperly suggests a gross factual error, which was clearly not the case. The NYT's "error," if a any, was in not acknowledging that, as demonstrated in this comment thread, it's possible to stretch reality enough that an alternative interpretation of Clinton's letter almost seems remotely tenable.
I cna see how this could be interpreted either way, but there is one part that everybody seems to be leaving out of the quote;
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient.
it could be read as "sufficient to justify the language."
Which could mean that the punishment is reasonable, but doesn't make everything all right. Maybe Clinton wrote it deliberately this ambiguous to cover herself, maybe it was just meant to acknowledge that something had been done about the matter, but to underscore that it didn't clean the slate or absolve MSNBC of their pattern of behavior..
NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin report that Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions." Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court." It is so hypocritical that she will not Reject and Denounce this money since she is supposed to be a champion of women's rights.
It's NOT about Schuster. It's about MSNBC. But, if you're only focusing on this paragraph from her letter:
"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient."
I can see the confusion. But, in context of the entire letter and this followup, there's NO doubt in my mind what she'd like to see happen.
"Further, in a February 11 interview televised on WJLA in Washington, D.C., Clinton declined to call for Shuster's firing in response to a direct question. Politico editor-in-chief John Harris asked Clinton during the interview, "Two-week suspension, you said that's inadequate for what was said. What would be adequate? Are you looking for a firing or something more?" Clinton responded: "That's not my job, John. You know, that's the job of the people who run the network. But I think that they need to take a hard look." She continued: "This is like the third time they've had to apologize. And there are a lot of things that they haven't had to apologize for that might have merited one. So I wish they would take a look at, you know, some of the pattern of demeaning comments that are made on their networks.""
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient.
Sounds like Hillary is saying there is nothing, including Shuster's apology or NBC's suspension of Shuster that will satisfy her anger at what Shuster said about her daughter.
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.
Sounds like the reason Hillary won't accept Shsuter's apology or NBC's suspension of Shuster as adequate compensation is because the network has a pattern degrading language in regards to Hillary and her campaign.
Gotta say sounds like she wants him fired.