Oh, He Said It
I think he's right, but isn't this kind of an insane thing to say about your boss when you're already on suspension? David Shuster:
"Does it bother me that I was thrown under the bus to pay for the sins of the father?" Shuster asks rhetorically in the interview. "No. As somebody who's covered politics for a while, I understand all the forces that were in play."
Advertisement
I don't think it's an "insane" thing to say...
I did notice that David appeared on both Matthews and Olbermann. Matthews gave a twisted expression at the end of the report. Kieth said "Thanks. Welcome back."
I think Matthews knows he was/is the issue here and that David paid the price for it. IMHO.
February 25, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthews is "Mister MSNBC", and as such, too big to touch, so they went after a second stringer.
Much worse had been, and continues to be said by Matthews, but it went by the wayside so often that its become his Schtick and obviously acceptable.
I think the Liberal/Democrat blogs need to go to war with the MSM as happened with Joe Klein recently when ho took a Republican operative's word and ran with it.
Glen Greenwald reports today that
(2) On MSBNC's home page right now, this is the garbage that is prominently displayed:
A picture of Obama and his wife with the headline:
"Questions on Patriotism
No flag pin, no hand over his heart. Is he exposed?"
This is the shit that should be attacked ferociously by the blogs. Its how the right wing intimidated the MSM over the years.
February 25, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is David pimping hisself out now?
February 25, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect he thinks he can always do a blog, because like at TPMCafe, there's evidence of a big audience who likes that sort of "frank" political talk:
February 25, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that there's a difference between unpaid bloggers who contribute largely unmonitored fractions of content on a semi-obscure web site which might be read by a few hundred or a few thousand people on the one hand, and a highly paid, trained and accredited journalist broadcasting on a major commercial network to millions of people?
February 25, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point of workplace discipline is to bring it to the Employee's attention in a forceful way that certain forms of behaviour are not acceptable, and to dissuade the employee from that behaviour.
Shuster clearly didn't get the message. He feels that he has been made the scapegoat and there was nothing wrong with his cheap, pejorative and sexist attack on the Chelsea Clinton and her mother.
Fair enough. I respect his right to believe whatever he wants, and to act as his conscience dictates. But I would say that as an employer, he would have to exercise his rights somewhere else.
If he doesn't get that what he said was in and of itself unwarranted and offensive, then he should be fired.
February 25, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser is correct. Shuster fits right in here. I cannot believe that the Cafe is encouraging a discussion about whether or not David Shuster got the shaft. The guy is a mult-six figured television journalist with a fabulous hair style for gosh sakes. He's not some truck driver whose boss made him drive the overweight vehicle under risk of discharge. Did Matthews get a bye? Probably. So? Point? Anyone? Shuster was a pig and he got a slap on the wrist. End of discussion.
February 25, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well if you say it's the end of the discussion I guess no one else has any right to continue on if they disagree...
February 25, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boy Andrew. Ever here the expression: "End of Discussion?". Apparently not. Way to feel dissenting voices welcome as always. Carry on with the Obama lovefest. Forgive me for interrupting.
Of course, when I compliment you for your post about homelessness in America, that's OK. When I criticize the premise of shedding tears for Shuster, take me on. Whatever.
February 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, bslev. I think you should reach for persuasion, though, rather than just declaring things. I made my case on the Shuster case here. Feel free to make yours.
February 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obscure is not a word I would use.
New York Times today:
Of course Shuster should obey the boss if he wants to save his job as a broadcast correspondent. I didn't say that, though, did I? I said he probably thinks he can always blog.
The nightly broadcast news audience is one thing. The political junkie audience is another. I think almost everyone who pays for cable and watches MSNBC, Fox News or CNN for political news is also looking at blogs or related political regularly. They are now one and the same audience. I'm sure he's aware of that, he's not stupid. Maybe he's tired of having to do the bland round-ups for a general audience and wants to have blunt fun like all the other political junkies get to now because of the blogosphere.
Clue: I'm not condoning it, matter of fact it really turns me off. But I am not at all a political activist, preferring analysis of politics, one of them effete snobs, I guess. Who am I to fight the vox populi on what they want in political coverage?
February 25, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew:
I read your piece on Shuster and how criticism of him misses the forest through the trees, and I believe I participated in that discussion.
I don't really have the inclination to challenge this notion that Shuster took the fall for Matthews, because I do believe that Matthews and MSNBC in general get passes. That's why Brokaw has been so visibly embarassed by Matthews and Olberman during this campaign.
My point is that it's ridiculous for progressives, even those who aren't women or who don't have three daughters, to defend Shuster. IMO Shuster was a pig and he's lucky he wasn't fired.
You should come to one of the myriad discharge arbitrations I have attended over the past twenty years or so Andrew; they probably number in the hundreds. Perhaps you will then understand where I'm coming from--I have seen real workers get the shaft far too many times in my career to start shedding tears for some sexist pig trying to show that he's just as groovy as the other guys on TV.
And the fact that Shuster has failed to demonstrate contrition, that he blames those unnamed political forces for his punishment, tells me that the punishment was not severe enough. My oldest daughter turns 22 in 3 days. If some guy ever suggested I was pimping her or my other two daughters out I would slash his throat or rip his liver out. So I have little sympathy for pretty boy Shuster, and I'm frankly surprised that there are progressives out there who apparently do.
February 25, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
If its not clear, I have to agree with bslev.
His words were nakedly derogatory and sexist. If he'd have said the same sort of thing in a racial context he would have been fired outright... notwithstanding that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly get away with that crap.
He takes the notion that certain people with power at the top can get away with bad behaviour makes that behaviour legitimate. He feels that he's entitled to bad behaviour.
When he discovers he is not, he just figures he's being scapegoated by the powers that be. He still thinks his behaviour is legitimate.
It isn't. He hasn't gotten the message.
February 25, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
Shuster is a reflection of the atmosphere at MSNBC, he joined the club with the "pimping" comment. Matthews, Tucker, Scarborough set the tone and Shuster finally joined in. Don't expect any change until you see MSNBC punish one of their hosts.
Joe Klein was raked over the coals for his asinine column on the Dem's supposedly legislating that warrants are needed to intercept foreign terrorists' communications. Klein simply wrote what Repug Peter Hoekstra slipped to him.
Glenn Greenwald upset John King by criticizing King's softball interview of McCain.
It looks like the Dems have finally started to take a cue from the right wing playbook; complain loud and long to those that write against you.
February 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey John:
Good to see you. Agreed. Always important to work the refs. Of course, sometimes the refs don't care about the pressure from the stands and they go with who it is they favor anyway. Some might say that the refs have that kind of an unshakeable preference in the current Democratic campaign. And those same refs often take offense at the slightest suggestion of their bias. It'll be interesting to see how MSNBC's refs act tomorrow night. Will they get HRC back for challenging their integrity, or will they demonstrate the kind of integrity one would expect from a free press and host an even-handed debate? I honestly wish I knew the answer to that question. Stay tuned.
Bruce
February 25, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"isn't this kind of an insane thing to say about your boss when you're already on suspension"
No.
Criticizing your boss's judgement is stupid. Pointing to double-standards is bold.
As I see it, Shuster is saying - if you promote me, I expect the protection you afford Matthews; mess with me again, I'll call bullshit on you in public ("As somebody who's covered politics for a while, I understand all the forces that were in play").
I guessing you've never have a bust-up with your boss. But if you do, it's no bad thing to do what Shuster did because it can get the rest of the organization on your side.
February 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well maybe I'm the only one who is interpreting Shuster’s comment about being thrown under the bus for the father as a message that the "father" of the "pimping" comment was not he but someone at MSNBC who made him say it. Recall that he hedged when saying it, was not comfortable with it...even used "sort of in a weird kind of way..." qualification. Shuster is an excellent reporter, but he cannot dictate message. MSNBC message at the time was "Bury Hillary's campaign at all cost". Why? I speculate because they see Hillary as beating Mc Cain and they prefer McCain to face Obama, who is someone with great oratory, but little substantive cognitive skills, unlike Hillary who has excellent cognitive skills and modest oratory skills and could probably shred McCain in a debate given his octogenarian penchant for repeating the same old tired phrases.
I know now I'm going to be called paranoid etc. It is my hypothesis. And all of you who are quick to bash other’s need to realize that all you present is also hypothesis. The issues is how much explanatory power does a hypothesis have, and the Obama boosters/Hillary bashers' hypothesis are frankly very lame. Lots of assertions no real speculative analysis. Where is the beef, as they say.
February 25, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: I should have said "the Obama Booster/Hillary Basher phenomenon.." (it is not a hypothesis but an actual phenomenon).
Maybe a better way of putting it is this way: All the Hillary bashing and Obama Boosting that we have witnessed not just here at the Cafe but throughout the media (which led me to classify TPM, Huff Post, Dailykos and others as PART of the MSM) has really been a spectacle for us to see play out. MJ constantly implies that anyone who dares question Obama's qualifications and skills as a "racist".
Very suspicious indeed.
February 25, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
(Or should I say "Andrew, Andrew, Andrew...") Who helped you log on today?
So let me get this straight: Barack Obama, he with "little substantive cognitive skill," is getting the best of Hillary Clinton, she with "excellent cognitive skill" (who just unfortunately happens to be saddled with modest oratory skills)? Did I read you right? Him dumb but talk good, she super smart, not big speak ability? And the MSM want Big Dumb Fork Tongue to triumph because he can't handle Old Repeats-A-Lot, whereas Lady Too Smart to Speak Fancy would just run circles around him in the general? That's your argument?
And I guess you read this:
http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=278019
and think "Old Grey Hoosier write paper, Big Dumb Fork Tongue sign name too," right?
I guess you'll be able to explain to me why Hillary isn't winning, then. It's the MSM, right? And I guess you'll be able to explain to me why her campaign is running through money like the fraternity trip to Cabo San Lucas. Let me guess, they haven't really wasted money. MSNBC is just making it seem that way. And I guess the millions of people who have voted for Barack Obama just haven't had time to really get to know Hillary so they can realize how smart she is. She's got 35 years of experience living and toiling on our behalf in quiet isolation with nothing but the sweat of her brow to mark the time, so I can speak for myself when I say "maybe I should've taken more time" to learn about this plain spoken genius from ChicArkanYork and not been so swayed by Dumb Fancy Talk Obama.
You should un-tuck your shirt. Your biases are showing.
February 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey the MSM blitz worked a treat for "W."
Sure you want to base your argument on that?
February 25, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were you responding to me? Because you didn't really address anything I wrote. Sure you want to base your non-argument on nothing?
February 25, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as "MSM" was the big evil you mentioned more than any other, it's ludicrous to argue that wasn't a point. Feel free to be a belligerent asshole.
This election isn't all about YOU. You think you did your homework? Well, goody. Far more haven't, and I thought that was the issue here.
My bad, it's obviously all about YOU.
February 25, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is amusing watching you have a dialogue with yourself. I suspect you are a Bush/Rovian Repuke invading our territory here. You certainly don't exhibit any of the personality traits we associate with liberalism.
February 25, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink