Why Shuster was Suspended
09 February 2008 11:34 am by Taylor Marsh
Why Shuster was Suspended
cross-posted at Huffington Post
 |
The title of this post says it all: “The
Mess at MSNBC.”
Politico.com
has put up the entire email exchange between the Clinton campaign and David
Shuster. It’s also been in the comments here, as well as being passed around
via email. One can hardly find a more ignorant move from Shuster than this. Putting your spin into text. Not only did he defend the indefensible, but digging in your heels on something
like this is just plain stupid. As I said originally, he’s built up a lot of
reserve for his reporting, especially on Libby and other matters, but it’s clear
he doesn’t understand the double standard towards Chelsea Clinton, especially
when compared to the kids of the other candidates. Romney’s sons all campaigned
for their dad, but in the middle of a war he supports, has one reporter asked them why they haven’t served their
country? Are they being “pimped out?” If Shuster had made this comment about Obama’s kids, the furor we’re witnessing right now would pale in comparison to the shouts for Shuster’s head. As a radio person and on air commentator, I’m not calling for that at all. If you talk for hours extemporaneously, you’re always one sentence away from saying something stupid. But what made matters worse for
Shuster was his disgraceful non-apology on “Morning Joe.”
I’ve been linking to smaller blogs recently who
take up fair coverage on all things Clinton. Today it’s Tony (from kayobi.blogspot.com),
who put a link in Hot
Topics on the subject. He puts it succinctly: it took mr. shuster a
total of 192 words to actually get to the two that matter most: i’m sorry.
The truth about Shuster is that he never intended to apologize; didn’t want
to; was made to. The exchange below reveals it. It’s also why he ended up getting
suspended. Imagine this attitude being displayed while his bosses were getting
besieged by phone calls, emails, as well as irate MS/NBC female employees. Shuster’s
cluelessness is one thing, his unprofessionalism is another. But in this day and age putting your idiocy in text form is just dumb. It’s also arrogant and gets to the heart of the problem. MSNBC has obviously sent a message, whether through Chris Matthews or their continual genuflection to all things Obama, that all things Clinton are fair game. It’s important that everyone see the evidence. Mess at MSNBC, indeed.
Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.David – how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to
contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going
on air and saying that she is being “pimped out” ? It’s absurdly
offensive. And what the hell does that even mean?I just don’t get MSNBC – does GE not allow you to make toll calls? What’s
the problem.Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton—–Original Message—–
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 8:51 p.m.Nice to hear from you, philippe.
It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your campaign
colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign has reacted
quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea. That was
the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea while simultaneously
having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to convince super delegates
to support her mom, that’s the reference.Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying “I don’t want to talk.”.
But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks
to talk to chelsea…that’s an issue.————————–
Sent using BlackBerry—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:00 p.m.Since you guys asked for the transcript – here specifically is what David
said on air:SHUSTER: “But doesn’t it seem like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem
as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable language was never used
on MSNBC’s air about Karenna Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex Kerry,
Kate Edwards, the Romney sons – or any other adult offspring who chose to
campaign on behalf of a parent.—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:16: p.m.David – I want to make sure I’m crystal clear here – you’re saying that because
she doesn’t grant interviews and makes calls on behalf of her mother, you
are right to say that she is being pimped out?I don’t need to read a the whole transcript for context, you were way out
of line. Nobody’s jumping down your throat about asking for an interview or
talking about calls she made. And you know it.There is simply no excuse for being so offensive.
By actually rationalizing your behavior rather than accepting responsibility
and apologizing, you become the poster child for everything wrong with tv
journalism, and it’s a shame your NBC colleagues have to be associated with
this (expletive).—–Original Message—–
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:29 p.m.No. That’s not what I’m saying. And if you bothered to look at the transcript
and saw all of the glowing things I said about chelsea and the way she was
raised, you would know that.The issue is not her making calls. As + said on the air, I have no problems
with that what so ever. The issue is not her refusing interviews. The issue
is that the campaign has come down hard on reporters who merely sought to
ask chelsea questions. You can’t have it both ways. Reporters have long respected
the clintons desire that we avoid chelsea and let her have her space. But
to get angry at reporters seeking to talk to her now is patently unfair. And
you know that.————————–
Sent using BlackBerry—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:49 p.m.I think we’ve each said what we have to say on this matter. Based on this
email exchange, we’re assuming two things:1) You are not disputing that you said on air: “But doesn’t it seem
like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped
out in some weird sort of way?”2) You have no intention of apologizing for the above.
