Word has it that David Shuster, who was suspended for using a common colloquial that is even featured in the title of a popular television show on MTV, will be returning to the air on February 22.
What’s more, Hillary Clinton, who has been railing about Shuster’s comment, and threatening to boycott MSNBC, has confirmed that she will participate in a debate on the network February 26 – the week following Shuster’s return. I always thought Clinton’s over-reaction was politically motivated, and I think this decision is as well. With her campaign teetering, she likely believes that the exposure of a nationally televised debate is more valuable than a few more days of righteous indignation.
Throughout this affair, Clinton has narrowed the scope of her rage to only MSNBC, despite the fact that Fox News has been a far worse offender. While she was considering whether to ditch the MSNBC debate, she had already accepted one on Fox (Obama did not accept and its originally scheduled date has passed).
It is unclear whether Shuster ever got credit for demanding that right-wing Republican dirty-trickster, Roger Stone, take responsibility for a profane anti-Clinton organization he founded called “Citizens United Not Timid,” or C.U.N.T. Their stated mission is to “Educate the American public about what Hillary Clinton really is.” Wow, those Republicans are really classy! Check out that logo.
Finally, Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo has confirmed that Shuster was never really Clinton’s primary target:
“As dumb and clueless as Shuster’s “pimp” remark, this was never really about him. The Clinton campaign, while genuinely upset about what Shuster said, lashed out at the network because they were primarily irked by Matthews’ conduct…”
I still wonder when they will become irked by Fox News’ conduct.
Perhaps Sen. Clinton was savvy enough to realize that most people that are not absolute republican zombies, pay no attention to the Fox neocon network. For years NBC and by connection MSNBC were considered a true news service, and, therefore, needed to get their act straightened out to continue to earn that respect. Most people just discount anything said on Fox as controversial and open to question, but she probably tended to have more respect for NBC and MSNBC — her mistake! Who knows why Sen Barack and Sen Clinton made appearances on that network; both of them should know better, which is why all of the candidates refused to debate on that network earlier, even for the black caucus. Of course, Sen Barack managed to slide under the radar, but when Sen Clinton started getting flack (because she is always scrutinized), someone came forward to admit she was not the first one.
No one has accused any daughters of candidates of pimping for their fathers previously during campaigns, so why should it be overlooked now? By the way, I know the ‘news’ seems to be going that direction, but are we actually going to see news departments chasing cars and turning them into “Britneys” to make the news more exciting? Most people think Shuster was disgusting for posing that question and he was previously respected as someone who seemed to legitimately report the news. What a downhill slide for him. I hope that brought him and others on that channel to their senses.
I agree that Shuster’s question was wrong, and I wrote about it here. And I agree that the news is heading in an atrociously tabloid direction.
My complaint with Clinton was not that she was angry with MSNBC, it’s that she was NOT angry with Fox. There is no justification for becoming outraged at MSNBC’s bad behavior and then accepting an offer to debate on Fox, which has been far more insulting to her and other Democrats.
While I think that Shuster’s “punishment” was too severe, he did deserve some punishment. And MSNBC also needed to get smacked-down, mostly for the slander from Matthews and Carlson. So the attention that Clinton brought to this was beneficial. She just should have applied the same standards to Fox.