Tell MSNBC An Apology Is Not Enough
I may be a pacifist, but if some asshole said this about my kid, let alone on television, I would be one mightily pissed off mama. It doesn’t matter if you are supporting Clinton, Obama or for that matter, McCain or Huckabee, or even Ralph Nader (no don’t even think about it)–this isn’t ok. Write to MSNBC’s Phil Griffin, and their News Director Steve Capus and share your thoughts about this:
“Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson today blasted MSNBC for a remark made by talk show host David Shuster about Chelsea Clinton’s efforts in campaigning for her mother. Shuster, filling in for talkster Tucker Carlson, said Thursday that Chelsea was being “pimped out” by the campaign after noting that she had called panelists on “The View.”
Here’s the full exchange between Shuster and Democratic pundit Bill Press:
DAVID SHUSTER: Bill, there’s just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea’s out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom, and she’s apparently also calling these super delegates. BILL PRESS: Hey, she’s working for her mom. What’s unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it’s great, I think she’s grown up in a political family, she’s got politics in her blood, she loves her mom, she thinks she’d make a great president —
SHUSTER: But doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?
Shuster reportedly has apologized, but Wolfson said today on a conference call with reporters that that wasn’t good enough. “I havent received any phone call. I’m not familiar with any apology,” Wolfson said. “Look, I think the comment is disgusting. Its beneath contempt. It’s the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network.”"
In a word, no shit. This kind of vile garbage isn’t cute, it isn’t politically acceptable, and it is irrefutable proof of the fact that what passes for news coverage and political commentary in this country is beginning to look like the contents of a clogged up toilet.
Filed under: Uncategorized, Action Alerts, Atrocities, U.S. Politics, Misogyny, Media
Totally unacceptable comment by David Shuster. He should be fired.
I received an urgent plea through Media Watch to email Mr. Capus at MSNBC regarding the Schuster remark. I did send an email saying that a few months ago, Jenna Bush came to my town to promote her recent book. A local letter writer, a male filled with venom, wrote a letter to the editor saying that Jenna and her sister should both be fighting in Iraq where they will be killed, giving their parents an opportunity to suffer as they have made others suffer. THAT I objected to because the intent of the letter was so deeply mean. But I heard Schuster’s remarks. I thought he was using colorful language, and using it about a woman who, at nearly 30, is hopefully independent from her parents, emotionally and spiritually. I did not think Schuster meant it to be mean. This obviously was a matter of company policy, and that is where the decision making should begin and end.
how naive can anyone be to think of this as ‘colorful language’. when the perfectly normal and ordinary participation of women in politics is framed in the language of prostitution it is shameful. it marginalizes women as adult citizens. it implies that a grown woman campaigning for her mother — and what could be more laudable and ordinary? — is somehow inappropriate and sleezy. use of sexual language to discuss women in politics is a bullying attempt to put women in their place and deny them citizenship.
we all know how framing discourse affects outcomes. this is shameful — and in keeping with MSNBC’s long use of sexist language in politics. they apparently aren’t willing to deal with Chris Matthews alternatingly childish and offensive blather. let’s hope they can deal with Shuster’s attempt to liken Chelsea to a prostitute for her perfectly appropriate attempts to campaign for her mother.
Artemesia
I agree with Artemesia. If this were a general trend and this type of language was applied to all of the candidates adult children, I would agree that it’s a tempest in a teapot. This was specifically directed toward one candidate’s child. That’s deliberate, not colorful. I would have the same objection if this type of language was directed at any other candidate’s child.
Shuster should really just be ignored.
locker-room language is still rampant on our airwaves and elsewhere but should never be allowed to go unchecked. It seems as though, if people turn a deaf ear to it, this so called “colorful language” of disrespect will continue. I was watching Bill Maher the other night and P. J. O’Rourke said something to the effect that what Ann Coulter says at 3 in the afternoon on TV, piped into millions of viewers living rooms, is language I (O’Rourke) would use in the middle of the night, at 3am, while I was roaring drunk. That says it all! In other words, this pattern of inconsiderate thought should be kept to one’s self. This type of bad behavior by anchors, writers, pundits or any, who supposedly represent segments of we-the-people, should never be deemed as normal conduct. DAVID SHUSTER, should have known better when that misogynist thought popped into his locker-room head. The fact that he ran with it, speaks volumes about our society’s inability to consider all people equal, regardless of their political, racial, gender, sexual or religious differences from ourselves. We should expect more from our media and they should expect more from themselves.
Please, stop with the fake outrage. There is so much worse being said, even by the Clinton camp. I’m not saying that it was appropriate, but isn’t there a whole lot more out there to be outraged about? It seems that the more they fall behind, the thinner the skin of Clinton supporters.
My issue is the approach that they are taking. The Clinton Camp is losing (slightly) with the public so now they want to turn up the heat on the superdelegates? To me if the superdelegates swing it against the popular vote for either camp, we will do great harm to the Democratic party. The participation this year has been huge and if the popular voice is rejected we can kiss all of those new people goodbye.
I think it’s all just more manufactured outrage - much ado about nothing. In the context that Schuster said this, it’s clear it was just a figure of speech. FYI for those who don’t know, Schuster - while subbing on MSNBC’s news show Tucker - said it seemed to him to be weirdly like they were pimping out Chelsea by having her call up hollywood celebs and Dem power-broker Superdelegates to shore up their support for Hillary’s campaign. Frankly, using Chelsea in this manner seems to me to be more inappropriate than Schuster’s choice of words in characterizing it. I think it would be far more appropriate for the Clinton campaign to send Chelsea to college campuses to recruit younger voters than to have her make cold-calls to entertainers and politicians on behalf of her mother! I have found Chris Matthews’ numerous sexist comments about Hillary to be far more offensive and off-color than poor David Schuster’s passing choice of words re: how the type of assignments Chelsea has been given in the Clinton campaign….. I wrote MSNBC’s Steve Capus and Phil Griffin and told them this. I asked them to let Schuster come back soon - I personally miss his reporting. It’s much better than most of the rest of the coverage we see on both MSNBC and CNN. You guys are making a big deal out of nothing! (Like I said - manufactured outrage.) Complain about Chris Matthews and his daily inappropriate comments re: Hillary - not David Schuster, who almost never says anything out of line about anybody! It was clearly just a slip on his part - not an intentional put-down. Cut the guy a break, already!
After all the water passing under the bridge and the Clintons are getting prissy about what people say about them. I have sympathy for the Feminist Peace Network having to defend this young girl from this impermissible comment; however, our public language has been corrupted partly through the very agency of her parents. All of this, of course, must be premised on Schuster’s not having been requested to make this idiotic statement by the Clintons themselves to provide a basis for much face time and media time and fake outrage and causing us all to stop from what should be the focus of the day. But for the Clintons that is par for the course.
You do see a pattern emerge with regard to clinton. Yes–this one thing being said all by itself is not that over the top–but taken together it helps for the Corporate media’s narrative of clinton. she is the triagulating flip flopper that won’t take a position on anything. Will say and do anything to get elected. The problem is that you can say this about EVERY politician. But Hillary is beaten with it. You can;t see or read a story about clinton that doesn’t at some point take a jab at her–and I am not a clinton supporter– i liked edwards–and his Corporate media narrative was a self serving trial lawyer that can’t be for progressive ideas because he made money and overpays for haircuts—unfortunately for progressives we need a homeless person to run. So the one comment is nothing to sneeze about but taken in whole a pattern does emerge.
And now because it’s the primary we have the odd experience of fellow Democrats on Air America saying this is no big deal and it’s part of the way people speak these days. If this had been said about someone in the Obama camp, would they be so quick to brush it off? (Hey, Progressive Patriot, Obama and his people are calling the super delegates, too, but I’m sure it’s OK when they do it.)
David Shuster is an excellent journalist and did put his big foot in it when he made the comment about Chelsea Clinton. Let’s get real - what is Chelsea doing talking to Super Delegates? She’s shmoozing them, just like Hillary, Bill and Obama’s camp.
His comments were completely wrong, but calling for his head won’t do anything but take a good journalist off the air. Remember his reporting on the Libby trial?
I assume he got his butt chewed by his wife, mom and any other female relatives, so putting him out of work won’t do a thing.
Imus on the other hand went down the racist anti-feminist road. He’s been there for years, has his own lemonade stand and the street’s name for him.
Give David a chance to make up for his verbal diarrhea.