Reporter (David Shuster) initially defended Chelsea comment

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico.com

Before MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended by the network Friday for on-air comments he made about Chelsea Clinton, the television reporter engaged in a heated correspondence with a spokesman for Hillary Rodham Clinton in which he defended his appearance and refused demands to apologize.

...snip...

On Thursday, Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, "Tucker," and in referring to Chelsea Clinton's role in calling superdelegates on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, he asked whether she was "sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Later that night, he heard from an outraged Reines, who called the remarks "absurdly offensive."

Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8408.html

---

Transcript of the email correspondence

[SoFlaJet]

1. give it a rest brook

the guy fucked up, got suspended and said he was sorry-he's a good damn reporter and he's one of the good guys with all his work he's done exposing the GOP over these last few years

[msongs]

2. how is this LBN? nt

[kristopher]

6. It includes email between Schuster & Clinton campaign

It is good information for placing the episode into the larger context.

IMO, MSNBC should be ashamed of caving in and throwing Schuster to the wolves. My guess is that this is a play by Laurel and Hardy (Matthews and Russert) to undermine the streak of truth telling that Olberman got started. In other words, the real target is the truth.
Haven't the last 7 years taught us anything about letting the politicians control the media message?

[tuckessee]

3. I don't see what the big deal is.

Would we be pissed if someone accused Ghouliani of "pimping 9/11"? What if * was campaigning prominently with his daughters?

Sure, Schuster's comment was crude but this much a do about nothing. A big distraction.

All it will do is make journalists more leery about critcizing anything concerning the powerful & vindictive political elite.

:hide:

[Ian David]

7. It was bad, but not NEARLY as bad as what many say WITHOUT being punished.

Remember when Chelsea was under the age of 18, and "Wayne's World" gave her "Schwings!" on Saturday Night Live? They re-play that episode occasionally, and edit it out when they do.

And then there are all the awful things McCain and Limbaugh and right-wing talking heads have said about Chelsea, Hillary, and Obama.

Schuster was a schmuck, yes.

But what he said pales in comparison to drug-addled gasbag Rush Limbaugh playing, "Barack The Magic Negro," for just one example.

[11cents]

13. Sure. And if he said Barack was pimping out Michelle...

...big whoop.

I don't think you can possibly be so obtuse as to believe that there's a comparison between saying that Giuliani was "pimping" a concept (9/11) and a couple was pimping their daughter.

[Ian David]

4. When Intern-killer Joe Scarborough out-classes you, you know you're in trouble. n/t

[ursi]

5. "while dialing for voters, Clinton daughter begs for parents to get a second chance in WH"

that's what he should have said.

[gratuitous]

8. I'm sure we all remember how hard Shuster was on Mitt's boys

Oh wait; we don't remember that at all.

Looks like the popular media are winding up the Clinton Rules again, ready to say and do the most shameful things if they were applied to any other politician, but that somehow get a pass when the name "Clinton" is involved. Did you know that Bill Clinton discovered oral sex? Or that the Clintons were the first politicians ever who got their start in politics because some wealthy guy somewhere saw an advantage to launching his own political protege? It's true! The Clintons were also the first politicians who ever campaigned with their own offspring. And that all three of these are shameful, dark, e-e-e-evil things that no one has ever done or even thought of before?

At least, that's the impression you would get from the popular media. It's preposterous on its face, but for some reason when it comes to the Clintons, anything goes. I'm an Edwards supporter, and I don't hold any particular brief for the Clintons, but the standard of the Clinton Rules is just too obvious to be ignored.

[kristopher]

9. Actually, I do remember

When Romney used his sons as a prop by comparing their work on his campaign to service in the armed forces he was raked over the coals, and not once did he or his campaign whine about it and try to intimidate the press.
You have one thing right, the Clinton Rules are in effect; you're just looking at the wrong set.

Why do Clinton supporters always label themselves (apropos of nothing) as Edwards supporters?

Ashamed?

[gratuitous]

14. Uhm, I am an Edwards supporter

And I'm not ashamed to say it. I don't know why you would imply that I'm a Clinton supporter. I would similarly not be ashamed to say that Clinton is my top choice, except for the fact that it's not true.

Anyway, I would greatly appreciate any link you have to David Shuster or any other political reporter for a network or national cable show "raking Romney over the coals" or talking about the Romney boys in terms anything similar to the words Shuster used in relation to Chelsea Clinton.

There were certainly a number of folks around here and on other blogs and commentary websites who ridiculed the Romney boys for pretending that their campaign activities on behalf of their dad were on a par with the efforts of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as far as professional journalists or pundits using their national platform to opine how unseemly it was for the Romney boys to be out campaigning for their dad, and using and defending the most demeaning terms to do so, I don't recall that happening at all.

[DURHAM D]

10. Shuster is a dense little boy.

He went on offense by saying he attacked Chelsea because he was mad at Clinton staff members. He actually thought it was a good defense.

What a fucking juvenile.

[TacticalPeek]

11. Does anyone have a link to Shuster's complete remarks on Scarboy's show yesterday?

MSNBC doesn't appear to post any transcripts for that show.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

:shrug:

[KoKo]

18. Media Matters has the whole thing....if you follow the links...

over there:

http://mediamatters.org/index

Crooks & Liars has it too, you can Google for it if you want more.

[rosesaylavee]

12. I don't understand, why shouldn't she be making calls?

If it were my kid, they would be part of the staff too, making calls, doing whatever to get me elected. Chelsea sure has taken alot of undeserved shit over the years.

[kristopher]

15. You must not have read the OP

I'll let Shuster speak for himself: here is the email exchange (between Shuster and the Clinton rep) from the article.

----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 I 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.

[KharmaTrain]

16. Opinion As News...

I suspect Schuster's suspension is a shot over the bow...primarily at Tweety...but these emails show the dark side of the reporting game...where "reporting" is trumped by opinion and cliches. The Clintons problem has been that they became such targets of the corporate media (and by extension Chelsea) that the media goons not only accepted all the slime, they passed it along as if it was "assumed" to be true. Bill is a womanizing, slick operator, Hillary as the shrew and Chelsea as some freak of nature...all accepted as "fair game". They also felt that the rest of us were along on these "jokes" and characterizations and it's still "funny" to make a Clenis joke or other reference. Hell, if it made Rushbo a star, it can't be all wrong.

The backstory on this election is the miserable failing of the corporate media...downsized to drive out real journalists and primed for profits through creating controversies where none exist. The GOOPers by selecting McCain are repudiating hate radio...and Democrats by not following the "polls" and buying into their narratives.

[kristopher]

17. How in the world did you get that rant out of the emails???

Shuster has (IMO) more credibility than any other reporter on cable. His point is valid: Chelsea is 27 and has chosen to place herself in the public realm by actively campaigning for her mother.

For the campaign to still act as if she is an underage bystander is absurd. I don't think Shuster's phrasing was the best, but his point is valid.

Do you really endorse this type of tactic being used by politicians against the press? Hasn't Bush taught you anything?

[KharmaTrain]

19. Reporter Vs. Opinion

Schuster's slam wasn't part of a report...he was hosting a talk show and this was opinion that slipped out of his mouth. Please don't confuse the two.

The point is that other children have also involved themselves in their parents campaign and you don't see the same kind of attitude taken on their actions. When Mittens sons...all military age...were playing around Iowa last summer in a van and daddy said they were doing more working for his campaign than they would if they were in Iraq...the corporate media laughed it off.

The emails show that Shuster got this hot little tid bit and ran with it either in spite of the Clintons or just to get a "scoop"...he didn't contact the campaign to get their response to her involvement in the campaign and since Chelsea turned down his request for an interview, this is what ensued. Yes, she's chosen to involve herself in the campaign...and good for her! If a superdelegate is impressed with what she hears from Chelsea...that's even better for her...it was done on her merits, not her name.

While I consider politics and prositution similar in many ways, singling out Chelsea with this kind of slander was definitely over the line. How would you feel if it were your daughter? And what has Chelsea done to deserve this characterization? She sure hasn't been caught drunk in bars like the daughters of a certain squatter of the white house. And how dare anyone else bring this up as the kids should be left alone...that is unless your name is Chelsea Clinton.

No I don't condone the corporate media labling the daughter of a Presidential candidate as "pimpin'"...or many of the other slimy inuendoes the corporate media has used against the Clintons over the years...and assume its fine to throw them out there. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I am one who believes in fairness. Obviously that a lesson some need to learn...