Print This Post
Feb
9
Update: Excellent analysis by The Moderate Voice founder, Joe Gandelman.
Politico has this article posted about MSNBC’s David Shuster and his on-air question about whether people think Chelsea Clinton’s level of participation in her mother’s campaign is unseemly and as though she’s being “pimped out.”
My favorite part?
Behind the scenes, Phil Griffin, senior vice president at MSNBC, took the criticism over Shuster’s remarks from the Clinton camp especially seriously, and Tim Russert helped mediate the situation, according to sources.
But one high-level NBC source told Politico that apologizing was an act of cowardice on behalf of the network.
“This is at least the second time they’ve caved to the Hillary Clinton campaign,” a source told Politico, referring to Chris Matthews’ recent apology over remarks he recently made about Clinton that were widely denounced as sexist. “What does this do to journalism?”
What do the apologies do to journalism? WHAT JOURNALISM? Asking viewers if they think Chelsea Clinton is being “pimped out” is journalism? Since when? Chris Matthews’ constant screeds about Hillary Clinton is journalism?
Before you go getting all over, “well see – this is what happens when we blur the editorial lines between opinion and straight news or citizen journalism and traditional journalism,” – we are talking about classically trained journalists who are employed by a classically mature broadcast conglomerate. So don’t even go there.
Hah. Whomever that source was that suggested to the Politico that what Shuster and Matthews’ do is journalism is as delusional as those two personalities.
Feh.
Oh – and here is the exchange of e-mails between Shuster and Hillary Clinton press secretary, Phillipe Reines. The ones I find most relevant after the jump.
I’ve bolded the portion that, to me, is the crux of how it is that what Shuster said is so out of line. It simply isn’t industry-standard, though he tries to defend it as that, to suggest what he suggested. In part, that’s because it is not news that candidates’ kids campaign for them. End of story. The “pimped out” suggestion is as non-journalistic as you can get in this context.
—–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
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:36 am February 9th, 2008 in Campaigning, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, Politics, Quotes, WH2008, Women
Comments
4 Responses to “E-mails show David Shuster’s cro-magnon genes as he defends “pimped out””
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
While it’s an understandable error (because so many like him have migrated into “journalism,” especally on TV), Chris Matthews doesn’t remotely qualify as a “classicly trained journalist,” and barely as a journalist, in fact. His background and formative experiences, like his fellow Jesuit-trained colleague Tim Russert, were in politics, as a longtime aide to House Speaker Tip O’Neill.
Through those ties, he was tapped for a brief spell as a columnist for the San Fran Chronicle, and from there recruited by fellow former politico, Fox’s Roger Ailes, to do a food-fight talk show, later moving to MSNBC. His style to this day bears the taint of Fox’s crude tabloid sensibility. So to serious journalists, he’ll always be suspect, just as (for me, at least) Tim Russert will never quite live down the taint of being recruited by GE’s Jack Welch, who surely didn’t add him to his stable for his sparkling journalistic qualities.
The point that those who come later to this work never seem to really be able to absorb through their skin, alas, is that while true objectivity may be a myth, a principled, disinterested journey toward its rough equivalent for the sake of fairness and intellectual integrity is at the heart of good journalism. My fervent hope is that would-be citizen journalists will find some way to absorb those crucial lessons through non-traditional means. But it will probably be a harder thing to acquire than if it formed the basis of one’s formative professional training. Just as young doctors and lawyers are instilled with the accumulated wisdom and lore of their crafts, so too are journalists endowed with some important reminders of the public trust aspects of their professions.
Hmm, I just left you a comment here, and now it’s gone. Weird.
ANyway, great post. I love how the Clinton camp is standing up to this garbage. Put ‘em on notice that this kind of cheap personal attack won’t stand.
Thanks for taking the time to write that comment, John. I agree with several of your points.
Dave – sorry – something weird IS going on with my comments – I don’t know what exactly – they stopped flowing into my inbox sometime late yesterday or early this morning – not quite sure what even to look out to fix it.
The Moderate Voice thread I like to has some great variety in it in the comments and the body of the post. I wish people could keep Shuster’s behavior separate from the Clinton reaction. Both are worth analyzing but they are not related, if you know what I mean.