Pimp My News

Friday, February 15, 2008


MSNBC’s David Shuster, while not the only reporter in trouble for using a p-word this week, is the only one suspended for doing so. The Huffington Post’s Rachel Sklar says Shuster’s suspension and NBC’s apologies may have more to do with Chris Matthews than a single inappropriate blunder.

Comments [8]

Joe M Beam from 1630 Groce Meadow Road Taylors SC

I think it amazing and disgusting that your station is giving so much air time to this drug addict Russ Limbaugh who proclaims his desire to have our president fail.
Joe Beam

Mar. 05 2009 12:23 PM
Merton Bernstein from Brewster, MA

RE; Chris Natthews lengthy interview with Rev. Rivers - This guy played footsy with George W. Bush. He's a pastor with a congregation that could fity into a nuresery school cloak room. And yet, Chris and he went on and on. I like Hardball., This one was a g foul ball.

Mar. 14 2008 05:20 PM
Jack from Chicago

Please Chris, just because the US looks like it's going to reject Clinton is more a comment on her than on the US. She is hardly the ideal candidate; so much baggage and such a tarnished and limited history in the Senate.

The ERA was a terrible piece of legislation. It failed to pass on its own merits or lack thereof.

Here's the math I like, Obama gets more women's votes than Clinton. Are women self-hating or do they know a stronger leader when they see one?

Mar. 04 2008 10:36 AM
Chris Gray from New Haven, CT

It is increasingly clear that the United States can tolerate men seeking the Presidency, even a Black man, more easily than women.

Four hundred years of subjugation is easier to overcome than millennia. Both the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act passed. Women's Suffrage passed, but the ERA did not.

You do the math.

Feb. 20 2008 01:59 AM
Rosalind Horton Cauffman from Pa

Thank you very much for Rachel Sklar's participation in this segment. She nailed it.
If the "pimped out" remark had been made about anyone in Obama's campaign Obama himself would not have had to say a thing because the outraged media in his corner would have fought his fight for him.

Feb. 19 2008 12:11 PM
Roberta McNair from Gig Harbor, WA

Free speech isn't the issue with Shuster and MSNBC. It's providing commentary that is based on a bias I don't think the reporters and pundits even know they have: sexism.
I've followed Media Matters reporting on the instances of gender-based comments (some of them just sophomoric) on MSNBC (although they're not alone in this). From comments about cleavage to cackles to crying to Chelsea, these same opinions would never--and could never--have been expressed about any other presidential candidate. Take any reference to Clinton out of the comments, leaving them about "Blank," and they do not make sense. They are gender specific. Animus against the Clintons aside, these reporters and pundits simply cannot get over the fact that Hillary Clinton has different genitalia than they do.
Rachel Sklar rightly pointed out that every other candidate with children has said children participating in his campaign. It would not have occurred to Shuster to make his comment about anyone but Clinton. She is held to a different standard in all things--from compliments to criticism--because she is a "she."

Feb. 18 2008 01:46 PM
Andrew Sleeth from Raleigh, NC

Indeed, the Clintons are thin-skinned. But what I find more alarming is the growing cultural evolution toward a populace that's so thin-skinned as a whole, that any hot breeze cuts right through them, demanding emergency fawning and appeasement.

Why is it that avoiding "offense" in public life has fast become the national pastime? Where is the land of the free-to-speak-their-mind and the home of the brave-in-the-face-of-unpopular-appeal that makes the United States a grand, worthwhile experiment in democracy?

I view the fallout from Shuster's "pimping" remark as simply another instance of the press's abdication of free speech, most notably egregious because it's this very institution that's explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights.

Shuster should be ashamed he apologized for expressing himself. And MSNBC execs ought to go back to the boardroom to reconsider what it means to be an adversarial press when they're acting more aggressively toward their own journalists than in pursuing the important truths, like how it is that a gang of schmucks in the executive branch of the federal government can instigate the deaths of tens of thousands by spouting a conspiracy of lies to Congress and the American people, on camera and for the record.

And NBC thinks SHUSTER should apologize?! By those standards of mushiness, I suppose NPR ought to make Bob Garfield apologize to all the alcoholics within earshot for referring to this story as "a ginned up controversy."

Feb. 17 2008 07:12 PM
Jack from Chicago

The Clinton's are so thin-skinned. If Chelsea is going to stump in public for her mom, she's got to take the heat that all public figures do. Her policy of not taking questions from the media is pathetic. Simply a poor choice of words from Shuster and as noted all candidates pimp out there presentable children.

I thought the case for this being a MSNBC vs. Clinton or media vs. Clinton issue was weak. Clinton's contrived outrage got her a couple more minutes of media attention that allowed her to try again to establish that she has a pulse without having to resort to tearing up again.

Moreover, Clinton's treatment in the media is usually incredibly soft like the Katy Couric 60 Minutes "grilling."

Feb. 17 2008 12:30 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.