Skip to main content

View Diary: Clintons vs. MSNBC & Shuster's Disgusting Remarks. Shuster Suspended. (1823 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Boycott MSNBC (3+ / 0-)

    We should boycott MSNBC until they fire David Shuster.  His comments were obscene and outrageous.  We are all used to the gang banging Hillary gets every day by the cable news networks, but this time it has gone too far.

    •  David Shuster... (18+ / 0-)

      single-handedly brought the nation's attention to Traitor-Gate by reporting on it, regularly, at a time when other news networks, and even many major newspapers, were studiously ignoring it.

      I remember Rick Stengal, Managing Editor at Time Magazine, saying on Chris Matthews show, that he was sick to death of the whole story, didn't think it deserved all the coverage it was getting, and he didn't want to ever hear about it again.

      And you want to boycott MSNBC because of Shuster?

    •  You don't want to do that (15+ / 0-)

      Talk about suicide pacts.  The guy's a tried and true ally of progressives.  He made a mistake.  Put down the gun.

      "Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

      by The Termite on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:33:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Seriously... (10+ / 0-)

      Take a deep breath.  Shuster apologized.  'Pimp' is a modern term used by my teenagers everyday.  I think it is highly in-appropriate for him to use the term - but fire him?  Seriously slow down.

      kakistocracy - Elections have consequences, but capitulation has its price.

      by RichM on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reality Check 2.0 (5+ / 0-)

      This is a ridiculous controversy.  People use the term "pimping" all the time, and we all know what it means and what it doesn't.

      If we're going to boycott people for using this, then I suppose anyone who's ever said "pimp my diary" in this community now needs to be boycotted.

      Perspective, people... perspective.

      •  exactly. and as the diarist pointed out the bush (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burlydee

        twins have been dragged through the trailer park over and over again around here. so why shouldn't some of that vulgarity trickle upstairs to msnbc?

        if it's good enough for paula kathleen and juanita it probably won't hurt little chelsea over much.

      •  Incorrect (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ThirstyGator, DMiller

        He was not using "pimping" as in "pimp my ride."  He was saying that the Clinton campaign was whoring Chelsea.  

        Not necessarily a firing offense, but let's not pretend that wasn't what he meant.

        •  Well, sorta... (0+ / 0-)

          I can buy it's not a "pimp my ride" thing, though I think it's actually closer to "pimp my diary" than whoring.

          I mean, really, did anyone actually think he was implying that she was being asked to sleep with these superdelegates?  Of course not.  

          Clearly, it was meant in the slang term, not anything literal or close to obscene.

          •  Again incorrect (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tamens, Boorad

            The implication is that the campaign is whoring her out, i.e. quite literally using/selling her in a way that debases her.  Shuster's comment was blatantly offensive and insulting.  

            I am free to support whatever candidate I choose, and to contact whoever the hell I want in an attempt to persuade them.  Doing so does not make me a whore.

            Just so with Chelsea Clinton.  

            •  Again, I'm not buying it (0+ / 0-)

              It's a casual slang term that any one of us could've thrown out here without people taking it as blatantly offensive or insulting.

              Should he have said it?  No, it's probably too close to the line, at best.  And even with the freewheeling style of the show, it's not profressional.

              But does the Clinton campaign realistically have a right to be going ballistic, saying it's part of a pattern of behavior, and threatening to boycott NBC?  

              Uh, no. It frankly makes them sound like they're trying to pick a fight for press purposes.  And frankly, the "pattern of behavior" line makes them sound oddly paranoid.

              •  It IS a pattern of behavior. (0+ / 0-)

                Anyone who can't see that their coverage of the campaign is SOAKED in misogyny simply doesn't want to.

                Also: campaigns don't have "rights," but people do, and I'd damn sure go ballistic if it were my kid they were using that language about, particularly if it were commensurate with a pattern of behavior.

                •  From MSNBC? You must be kidding. Yet Fox is fine? (0+ / 0-)

                  The idea that they're "shocked, SHOCKED" by MSNBC, but somehow... well, just fine with Fox (i.e., accepting their debate) tells me that they are frankly full of crap.

                  I'd have no problem with them getting ticked over this, and asking for an apology.

                  But the over the top outrage is so clearly disingenuous that it leads to one conclusion -- they are consciously "pimping" this whole controversy.

                  •  The idea that they're "shocked, SHOCKED" by MSNBC (0+ / 0-)

                    Who are you quoting?  Who said "shocked, SHOCKED"?

                    How is accepting a debate equivalent to being "just fine" with everything a network does?

                    Is Obama "just fine" with MSNBC champion host Chris Matthews' sexist bullshit?  Well, he's agreed to MSNBC debates, so by your logic, I guess he is!

                    In other words: I call straw man fallacy.  You're debating a parody of what they're saying.  You don't like Hillary Clinton and so you're willing to see her daughter slimed, blaming the victim for Shuster's insulting comment.

                    (And again, no one is arguing that what the Clinton camp is doing is not political.  We are simply saying that was Shuster did crossed a line, and it doesn't matter whether Hillary is a dem or rep or likes Fox or doesn't, or whether her reaction is good politics or not).

          •  it's highly unprofessional (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jxg, DMiller

            They used to teach journalism students - and probably did when Shuster was a student - that if a word or phrase is potentially offensive to a large percentage of your readership it IS offensive and it's unprofessional to use it.  Common sense.

            It's time for a president to to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war -- John Edwards

            by ThirstyGator on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:41:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Since a diary is an object (7+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, tamens, shelle, Boorad, grannyhelen, DMiller, Tybalt

        and Chelsea, last I looked, is a human being, there are absolutely no parallels between them.  

        Do you think that Shuster was using "pimp" in a positive manner?  

    •  Overall David Shuster is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stephdray, shelle, eleanora

      a very good reporter who does his job and is not afraid to ask tough questions of the Bush Administration, a rarity today. That said, this was an outrageous and unacceptable remark. The Clinton campaign is right to take him to woodshed over this. He has apologized, which is only right. I doubt that he will this mistake again. He doesn't deserve to lose his job over it. Whatever else people on this site may think of the Clintons, they are great parents, and they are sending a message - we are not going to let the media savage Chelsea in this campaign. I think that is commendable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site