This video is from the first minute of tonight’s Hardball. Is it really so hard to get this right?
Or is Chris Matthews sucking up to the Clinton camp? After numerous slurs, insults and misogynistic rants, perpetuating the Obama/Osama association may be Matthews’ version of an apology.
The News Corpse Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is proud to present its Oscar nominees for 2008.
News Corpse would like to congratulate the nominees and remind them that they are already winners.:
Atonement – The story of a country and a political party finally trying to make amends for a history of repression.
There Will Be Blood (Mud) – An epic tale of the destructive power of nature, and the even more destructive power of a corrupt and incompetent government.
Michael Clayton (Hayden) – Espionage, intrigue, torture, and deceit mark this political thriller that delves into the secret world of the CIA.
Juno (Repo) – This is the heartwarming tale of a family struggling to make ends meet in an economy ravaged by self-serving politicians and their cronies.
No Country For Old Men – Follow the adventures of a mysterious and foreboding figure who exudes fear and terror wherever he roams.
Also available on YouTube. (It’s my first YouTube video and is a little rough around the edges. I like this widget better).
For reference, these are the original posters for the Academy’s nominees:
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.
This is my first YouTube video. It’s a little rough around the edges but, hey, you have to start somewhere.
Also available in Widget form.
On this special day, Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, can look back fondly on a lifetime of love and romance. And isn’t that what life’s really about?
| Candy McCain’s Valentine’s Day Card: |
 |
Whether it’s President Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger, Mayor Giuliani, or some poor sap at a rally, Johnny sure loves to pour on the sugar.
Too bad he doesn’t feel that way about all the soldiers that he’s so proud to have sent to Iraq.
And it’s too bad that he thinks it’s OK for them to be there for the next hundred Valentine’s Days.
And it’s too bad that so many of them will not be celebrating Valentine’s Day with their sweethearts and families because they have been sent thousands of miles away to police another nation’s civil war.
And it’s too bad that some of them will never come home or will return so damaged that they don’t even know what Valentine’s Day is.
And it’s too bad that, despite previously condemning torture, Johnny just voted to allow it, perhaps as a gift to the president he is so fond of.
And it’s too bad that this “family values” advocate, who is presently on his second wife, won’t let others celebrate Valentine’s Day because he disapproves of their gender status.
And it’s too bad that he thinks that bombing civilians in Iran is joke to be put to the tune of a Beach Boys song.
But other than that, he should have a warm and enriching Valentine’s Day in the bosom of his family and not let the tragedies for which he is responsible spoil this happy occasion.
The armies of consolidation are on the march. Last week, Microsoft made a surprise $44 billion bid for Yahoo. Microsoft is desperately trying to shore up its exposed Internet flank, which Google is battering brutally. Snatching up Yahoo would go a long way toward putting Microsoft back in the online game.
Enter News Corporation. Rupert Murdoch is now reportedly offering a deal that allows Yahoo to remain mostly independent. He would trade Fox Interactive Media for a 20% stake in the new and improved Yahoo. FIM is significant property. It includes Myspace, Photobucket, games giants IGN and GameSpy, AmericanIdol.com, and the MyFox internet platform for the News Corp-owned television station group.
I’m not sure which of these is better (or worse, to put a negative spin on it). Murdoch is, of course, pure evil. But his proposal would leave Yahoo independent and in control of some of the biggest destinations on the web. And all it would cost them is a 20% chunk of the company. Microsoft is a serial monopolist in its own right, and their deal would consume Yahoo whole. On the other hand, they aren’t Murdoch.
Ultimately the problem’s roots go back to the hyper-consolidation that has created an environment where all parties believe that they have to become gargantuan just to be able to compete and survive. In this matter, there don’t seem to be any good options.
One of the most annoying measures of electoral appeal is the moronic notion that a candidate’s company at a beer bust speaks to his/her qualifications for office. The implication is that a drinking buddy will be someone who is more like me and, therefore, more acceptable to represent me.
Bullshit!
If I’m looking for somebody to assume a high office, like that of the presidency, I’m not looking for someone who is proficient at getting high. And I don’t want a candidate who is like me either. I want one who is WAY better than me. Since when did our standards sink so low as to include the guy chugging pints at the end of the bar?
Well, leave it to the National Beer Wholesalers Association to further blur the lines between competence and crapulence. The NBWA is polling visitors to their web site on with whom they would rather share a beer. This bit of harmless stupidity is the sort of thing that makes H. L. Mencken such a fount of wisdom for observing that…
“As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Notwithstanding that the downright moron of whom Mencken speaks is about to complete his final term, the NBWA still isn’t helping to improve matters.
For the record, Barack Obama is pickling his opponents.
Dow Jones announced today that it will be adjusting the components of its Dow 30 stock index. This is the first change since Dow Jones, parent of the Wall Street Journal, was purchased by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, parent of Fox News and the recently launched Fox Business Network. The index will be replacing the Altria Group and Honeywell with Bank of America and Chevron. The result will be an increase in the weighting of financials and energy in the index.
It will be interesting to see the effect over time of these trades, but given the propensity of Murdoch to attempt to manipulate outcomes to his liking, one must wonder if there is a hidden purpose to these events. He has previously confessed to trying to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. He also promised to make the FBN a business friendly network.
Murdoch’s machinations of late have not met with the success to which he is normally accustomed. Fox News is presently the slowest growing cable news network. FBN got off to a pathetic crawl. And I wonder if anyone else has noticed this sign of the Apocalypse: When the Fox Business Network launched on October 15, 2007, the Dow Jones had just hit its all-time high. Since then the markets have collapsed, diving 15% in the four months since FBN’s debut.
Coincidence?
Chris Wallace is rocketing to the front of the hack pack in television journalism. His bias and arrogance is thrusting him to new heights of disrepute.
The latest embarrassment occurred during an interview with President Bush for Fox News Sunday. In an exchange revolving around the Bush administration’s use of torture and wiretapping, Wallace sought to capsulize the question for the President.
WALLACE: …are you ever puzzled by all of the concern in this country about protecting [the] rights of people who want to kill us?
I don’t know when I’ve ever heard a more obsequious inquiry from a supposedly professional reporter. The question is swathed in a fawning concern for whether the poor, put upon President is puzzled by treasonous civil libertarians in league with the enemy.
For the record, Chris, we’re not concerned about “protecting the rights of people who want to kill us.” We’re concerned about protecting the rights of Americans and the innocent who are harmed by the administration’s over-reaching. We’re concerned about preserving the Constitution.
You know that you’ve sunk to pitiful depths when the stupendously idiotic premise of your question is rephrased more fairly by no less a fabulist than George W. Bush:
BUSH: That is an interesting way to put it. I wouldn’t necessarily define some of the critics of my policy that way. I would say that they want to be very careful that we don’t overstep our bounds from protecting the civil liberties of Americans.
This concept is so simple that even George, the C-minus Yalie washout, is able to articulate it. But Wallace doesn’t exhibit the slightest awareness that his query is the sort of premium grade suck-up that demeans his profession. This is the same third-rate miscreant who sought to persuade Democrats to participate in Fox-sponsored debates by calling them “damned fools.”
His father must be so ashamed.
[Updated with new Clinton response]
First things first. when David Shuster asked, “…doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” he couldn’t have been more wrong. It was inappropriate, demeaning, and unprofessional. In the wake of those remarks, he has apologized on air twice, expressed his regrets personally to the Clintons, and been suspended from broadcasting for an undetermined period of time.
That said, Hillary Clinton’s latest response to NBC News President Steve Capus is rife with hypocrisy and calculated outrage. From the Clinton letter to Mr. Capus:
“Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.”
I’m not sure what criteria she used to assess the apology as “half-hearted,” but the ones I heard from NBC, Shuster, and Keith Olbermann all sounded pretty whole-hearted to me. Yet Clinton seems to be leaving open only one option – to fire Shuster. She may have an ulterior motive for this which I will address later. The letter continues…
“I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language […] Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.”
What I’d like to know is, how on Earth can Clinton ask that of MSNBC without holding Fox News to the same standard?”
That said, there needs to be some measure of perspective inserted into this affair. The term “pimp,” like many other rhetorical incivilities, has been been recast by contemporary social applications. Nobody thinks that MTV’s “Pimp My Ride” is pejorative in context. Pimping has assumed a colloquial definition of either enhancing or promoting the subject. That’s not to say that the traditional meaning is moot, and that is why Shuster is deserving of criticism.
However, Clinton’s response is wholly out of proportion. To threaten to cancel debates on MSNBC because of these comments raises an obvious question: Why did she happily agree to debates with Fox, despite the fact that they have said far worse for much longer about her and pretty much everyone in her party? If the Clinton campaign was truly concerned about not patronizing networks that disparage them, she would have canceled both network’s debates. Her selective outrage reeks of political chicanery, rather than maternal protectiveness.
For me this is not about the Shuster comment which is universally reviled. It is about the Clinton response that is inconsistent and not applied equally to her detractors at Fox whom she has embraced. And while Shuster deserves and has accepted the consequences of his verbal blunder, Fox stubbornly stands by every slur they’ve ever uttered.
While inartfully executed, Shuster’s point was not far off the mark. Politicians have been been likened to whores on more than a few occasions in the last thousand or so years. They engage in campaigns that are drenched with money from those seeking favors. They sell their votes and influence for cash, endorsements, appointments, and attention. And they are certainly not above exploiting their families.
Finally, no one should ignore the supreme irony of Shuster being suspended for offensive remarks he made while filling in for Tucker Carlson. Carlson is well known for making offensive remarks repeatedly, never apologizing, and yet he has never faced suspension. This is a particularly egregious oversight in light of the fact that his show has no business being on the air in the first place. It is a perennial ratings loser to his competition and is the worst performing program on the network. Yet his offenses have yielded nothing, but Shuster, a reporter with a long history of journalistic integrity and achievement is suspended.
This isn’t the first time Shuster was compelled to issue an apology. On the prior occasion, however, his bosses at MSNBC forced him to apologize for a mistake that, as it turned out, he didn’t make. It also isn’t the first time Shuster has butted heads with the Clintons. At KATV in Little Rock, Arkansas, and later at Fox News, he was assigned to the Whitewater investigation (h/t Chip Ramsey). Could this have something to do with the ferocity of Clinton’s attack on Shuster? It should be noted that when he left Fox for MSNBC he was unusually candid about his experience working for Murdoch and company:
“…there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look.”
That rare moment of refreshing honesty will now be overshadowed by the drama that Clinton is stirring up, perhaps motivated by revenge. The right-wing media is already pouncing on this to hammer MSNBC as disreputable. But they should take note that at least this network has taken the responsible steps to repair any damage from the affront. When was the last time that Fox behaved responsibly? Yet Fox is being rewarded by Clinton for their irresponsibility. And speaking of double standards, Will Bunch at Attytood has posted what may be the definitive take on it:
…was it the worst thing ever said about Chelsea Clinton in the public arena? Not even close.
“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”
— Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.[…snip…]
Maybe MSNBC should ban John McCain from appearing on the network for a while. And given Hillary Clinton’s strong stance on the matter, I assume she won’t be debating McCain this fall, either?
So one stupid slip by an otherwise outstanding reporter draws threats of a boycott, but years of premeditated character assassination earns a personal appearance on a televised debate that will bring viewers, revenue, and prestige to the offending network. Fox has already started touting the victory of snagging Clinton for the debate, even though there may not be one as Sen. Obama has yet to accept. That didn’t stop Fox’s Chris Wallace from telling A Daily Show’s Jon Stewart that “The dam is broken now that John Edwards is no longer in the contest.” The dam has been broken at Fox for a long time, and here’s a sampling of what has been pouring through:
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Note to Hillary: Cancel both debates or SHUT UP! |