About "shunning" MSNBC...

[Bread and Circus]

First, I think the words and meaning by David Schuster were wrong. We all say really aweful things from time to time but if it was an intentional vent of animosity, then it's entirely unacceptable. "Suspending" him may be appropriate, even though it's just ritual sacrifice. It gives him "punishment" and time for atonement. It's a symbolic act that implies MSNBC treats journalistic integrity as "serious business" (whether that's true or not, who knows). I don't mind Clinton for making political hay out of this. Can you really blame her for playing the victim? Every time she does, it garners votes.

But I wonder if the Clinton Camp stance of "shunning" MSNBC will eventually blowback in their faces or worse, harm this country.

First, it's a bit disingenuous because there is no source of media out there that is more destructive to the Clintons (assuming they are real Democrats in search of truth) than Fox news and I've never heard them respond so strongly to them. It was just the other day the Clinton Camp was clamoring to debate on Fox News.

More importantly though, this "outrage" and "shunning" smacks of Bushism. The press is to be respected as its own independent body, and the 1st Amendmet protects it as sacred. Bush has used "access" as a bludgeon to the press during his whole Presidency, with distrastrous results for the rest of the country. Even, if the Clintons are "posturing", the very threat that they would forgo a debate on a certain network because of this is beyond the pale.

Now, many here complain there is a "pattern" of sexism on MSNBC. I find that very, very hard to believe considering that this claim has never been so oft floated until very recently, when for the very first time Clinton's candidacy has been so threatened. If for years, devoid of anyone having a dog in the fight, the claim of rampant sexism was made then it would be believable. However, that is just not the case, especially around here. If anything, MSNBC has been credited with being one of the better news sources. It also had a healthy showing in a recent poll on DU for the "source" most of us watch. It just doesn't jive with logic that it's the most popular news source and has been lauded on DU for it all of a sudden to be a vile bastion of sexism. It seems the only real explanation is that people aren't hearing what they want to hear about their candidate and so they are grasping for something that can be used as a blunt weapon and is very hard to disprove. Further, this didn't originate here on DU alone. Part of this has been orchestrated by women's advocacy groups in massive "call ins" to MSNBC. These leadership of these advocacy groups are partial to Clinton. Make of that what you will but "brownshirting" comes to my mind.

I will admit that the media in general can act petty, vindictive, and juvenile. When Hillary Clinton was having trouble before New Hampshire, they smelled blood and the zeitgeist at the time was to "go in for the kill". But this is not a sexist act and nor was it exclusive to MSNBC. Clinton was being "Gored" (as in Al Gore, a male and one of the best leaders of our time). Such feeding frenzies are not reserved for women, they are reserved for those that are perceived as politically weak at any given moment. The kill is not for the kill itself anyway, it's for the theater of it. It's the human sacrifice that draws people to the public square, and in our modern age, to watch commercials.

The Clinton campaign has engaged Chelsea in a very political way. She has become an official "non-official" part of their campaign. It's good practice and they are right to do so. However, she is not a child. She is a grown adult. She also has a lot of genetic gifts, great experiences, and an outstanding education. Whatever withering comments she may have had lofted in her direction, they weren't at her. They were at her parents. But no matter what was said it wasn't personally threating, nor was it slander.

There's no basis for "shunning" MSNBC and even to hint at that is unacceptable if Clinton aims to be a good President. We don't need another 4 or 8 more years of a petulant President that offers access in exchange for compliance. We don't need another 4 or 8 more years of a President that calls out the "brown shirts" in order to achieve their political goals. We don't need another 4 or 8 more years of a "kowtowing" media.

* On edit: I want to make it abundantly clear that is "ok" for individuals to "shun" media outlets they don't like. It is NOT acceptable for politicians to do so in such a capricious way. The press is there to make the government answerable to us, the people. The thrust of my argument is that politicians should not trade "access" for "compliance". That's what George Bush does. That's what Clinton is doing.

[neutron]

1. MSNBC destroyed Gore, Kerry and Dean

by interviewing Swiftboaters night after night, and not
refuting their fake testimonials.

They aired Howard Deans scream every 10 minutes.

You think it's ok for a cable news station to operate
as infommercial for right wing interests?

[stray cat]

2. I think you give MSNBC too much credit....

[neutron]

5. Gee I thought Kerry was Swiftboated

Thanks for setting me straight.

[K Gardner]

16. Neutron is right about this. MSNBC was absolutely the WORST offender

when it came to Gore, the recount of 2000, Kerry AND Dean. They were not the only ones, granted, but they played a HUGE role that most of us will NEVER forget in the Selection of GW Bush and the destruction of some of our best candidates over the past 8 years.

[UALRBSofL]

21. As well as FAUX

Don't forget them.

[suston96]

3. "There's no basis for "shunning" MSNBC..." Yes, there is, and MSNBC is shunned as of now...nt

[neutron]

4. MSNBC is a PROPAGANDA MILL

Their pattern is to start a season fairly "unbiased.."
Then to go in on our candidate using Right Wing slander
for conversation focus.

[goldcanyonaz]

6. Boycotting MSNBC and all it's sponsers too.

[neutron]

8. I wish someone would list their sponsors and provide links

[TheUniverse]

22. You realise it will be pretty much impossible to boycott everyone who advertises on MSNBC?

I am pretty sure everyone including Microsoft, Apple, (Have fun not using a computer), Dodge, Ford, Most food companies, most gasoline companies, even some states have probably advertised on MSNBC. Pretty much to boycott everyone who advertises on MSNBC, you'd have to live in a hut like the unabomber. And is really worth it for one remark, one commentator made which MSNBC even suspended him for it? Shouldn't you save boycotting the world for something that really matters?

[goldcanyonaz]

23. One remark? The sexist drivel they have been pushing has been going on for months.

Did you think Imus should have been fired?

[TheUniverse]

24. Yes I think Imus got what he deserved.

I dont know if Shuster made any more comments but if he did, is that worth boycotting basically every major company over? Seriously, there are much bigger things to boycott all the corporate world over, maybe the genocide in darfur, or the spread of aids in South Africa, or the War in Iraq, or something far more important. I could understand boycotting MSNBC over this, but all their advertisers? Thats pretty much impossible and there are much bigger things to worry about. If you did try to boycott all their advertisers, Id give you 1 day before you gave up.

[goldcanyonaz]

26. Uh huh... My operating system is Linux, so boycotting will be quite easy for me.

Proctor and Gamble will also be easy to boycott. Don't put little faith in others just because you may not have the same faith as them.

[TheUniverse]

28. So how are you gonna boycott the car and gasoline companies?

Also, Does your computer have an intel processor? Im sure Ive seen ads for intel on MSNBC. Hell, your internet provider has probably advertised on MSNBC. I need to find a list of everyone who advertises on that network, which would be huge and many of those companies would own subcompanies. I could not even fathom boycotting such a huge network's advertisers. And besides Shuster was suspended, so why the boycott in the first place?

[H2O Man]

7. Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby

used to obsess about MSNBC's Chris Matthews and David Shuster. They wanted MSNBC to punish them for their reporting on the Plame scandal. They called the top dogs at MSNBC to apply pressure.

I'm no fan of Cheney or Libby.

[Bread and Circus]

20. Exactly. That's my whole point.

[OzarkDem]

32. But Shuster really stepped in it

Why did he say such a stupid thing? I hope he has learned his lesson.

[TexasObserver]

9. There's nothing wrong with what he said. It's a contrived outrage.

As for MSNBC, they are clearly the best choice of the cable news networks. I don't care if Hillary shuns them. Who wants to see her on TV anyway?

Clap, clap, point, point.

Clap, clap, point, point.

She's a robot, with no original thoughts or ideas. Who cares if she refuses to go on MSNBC? Her loss. She's in the rearview mirror in this race, and fading into the past, as she should.

[KittyWampus]

11. it was an ugly, unnecessary comment. yes, Clinton and her cult are overplaying this.

but the comment was a low point for Schuster.

[TexasObserver]

18. Bullshit. If that gives you the vapors, better not watch TV any more.

Please stop acting like his comment was inappropriate. Join the world in 2008, where real pressing issues do matter, and another phony outrage for the Clintons is just that.

They pimped her out. It's a word. It has meaning beyond some street ho and her procurer.

[WillyT]

36. I Guess If It Had Been A Car, It Would All Be Ok, LOL !!!

:evilgrin:

[bluerum]

10. I think that every candidate should avoid the msm like the plague. Extreme

internet campaigns, grass roots, road trips and public television and radio should be used to do the job.

It is a very different approach and campaign strategies would need some retooling, but I believe that it can be done.

Damn the msm.

[peace frog]

12. Olbermann is the sole exception

I will continue to watch 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann'- but when MSNBC pairs him up with Tweety for any damn thing, I'm switching channels. FUCK Chris Matthews.

[Saturday]

17. Olbermann too has had the KoolAid. Listen to him closely.

He does not speak the words but he has every guest do it for him.

[peace frog]

33. I do listen closely

and I'm not convinced KO is on the RW whackjob bandwagon. If and when it becomes clear that he has gone over to the dark side, I would have no problem abandoning him and MSNBC entirely.

[Turn CO Blue]

43. What? Do his special commentaries

ring a bell with you?

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. There was a time when DU supported those who stood up to the

propaganda machine. It is evident that MSNBC is all out attacking Clinton. Nothing is off limits, no matter how remote the source or how trivial the content--it is distorted and twisted to be negative.

Schuster was personally pissed off that Chelsea was involved in the process without talking to the press. He even said it--that they push the microphone away when press tries to talk to Chelsea. He used his power--think about that--his massive power of the airwaves to attack Clinton.

Politicians have volunteers and friends and family make political calls for them daily. That is simply part of the process. When Clinton does it--there are all sorts of nefarious meanings given to it.

Not one person on DU should be making excuses or applauding Schuster. Everyone on DU should be outraged at the constant attacks on our progressive democratic presidential contender.

You guys are sleeping with the enemy because they temporarily favor your guy.

[Windy]

27. I saw quite a few posts from the Hillary tribe yesterday wherein they stated they were going to Fox

because they were the only news organiztion that was treating there candidate fairly.

What does that say about people standing up to the media except when they are more favorable to their candidate?


Shuster comment aside, being unfavorable to the Clinton camp is when someone calls her or her campaign out on tactics or points out the fact that she is not annointed. You don't want objective journalism!

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. "objective journalism?" That is a joke, right?

Every campaign has surrogates making phone calls. Yet when Clinton does it--she is attacked.

You have your head in the sand if you think that the propaganda machine is airing "objective journalism."

The idea that people would rather go to FoxNews, shows how bad MSNBC has become. Indeed, Tweety likened Clinton to a baby killer and to Hitler. Can't get worse than that--even on Fox news. YOu are looking at it backwards. The fact that FoxNews has more "objective journalism" than MSNBC should tell you how bad MSNBC really is.

And, of course you know that. How can you not see it? A level playing field. Unbiased reporting. That is not too much to ask.

[Windy]

34. Excuse me... did I say that I agreed with Shuster? I was discussing Olberman

and the Clinton camps migration to Fox. Pleae don't twist what I posted.

[Evergreen Emerald]

35. you did not make yourself clear. I was responding to the thread

you said "objective journalism" I do not see anything there speaking only of Olberman, but of MSNBC in general.

I agree that Olberman is objective. I disagree that MSNBC is objective. Nor is FoxNews, but when FoxNews becomes more objective than MSNBC, we Americans are in trouble.

[goldcanyonaz]

42. That was before a woman had a chance at being President.

[Saturday]

14. Any news media that decides it is no longer a news media

but instead a propaganda machine needs to be shunned. Just like FOX is a propaganda machine so has MSNBC become one. Our present day media only cares about ratings and if what they say can prolong an argument or be divisive they go for it so people will tune in to see the next chapter. Just as they helped to take us into Iraq they are now choosing our candidate and it is appalling.

[JVS]

15. I think shunning MSNBC will backfire on her.

She is the one who wanted more debates. Obama agreed to one and then two more debates, which is kind of him because she's essentially asking him to alter his own plans to give her free air time. Fox news was already considered a venue hostile to Democrats and is thus out. With MSNBC out too, the field of possible hosts for these debates is growing narrower. She will now look like the one who is preventing a debate if she refuses an offer by MSNBC to host one.

[Samantha]

19. I will not change my MSNBC viewing habits

You make some good points, but those aside, if one does shun MSNBC, where would one go? I am a C-SPAN junkie, but it does not always have coverage of what I want to see as events evolve. I have boycotted FOX for 7 years due to its unorthodox, unethical coverage of Election 2000, and CNN simply does not have the quality commentators MSNBC has on board now. It can't compete.

I think what happened with the Schuster comment was highly regrettable. However, he did promptly make his apology and Keith Olbermann followed up last night with a highly dignified apology on behalf of the network.

It appears the network has done what it could to make verbal restitution, so I think we must now overlook it.

I really think the Clintons have done a superb job with raising Chelsea. I hate seeing the offspring of our public citizens criticized so unfairly when they make public appearances. Unfortunately, stepping into the political arena invites such disparaging comments. The Clintons of all people know this. They must do their part in recognizing they exposed Chelsea to these types of incidents, and they must not overreact by threatening non-participation in debates as a punitive action. I think we are all in trouble when we allow any one politician to get a grip on a cable news network 's throat, and thus if Hillary does follow through with her threat, we should not support it. The Clintons hands are not clean in this very same area; the only difference between them and David Schuster is they do most of their political underhanded dealings under the radar, as opposed to in public view, and thus they are not often held accountable.

So I believe the issue at this point should just be allowed to drop.

Sam

PS Nice thread.

[maq-az]

48. I don't believe it

This type of comment reminds me of people who say it was the womans fault for being raped because she was wearing a mini skirt.

[Samantha]

53. Not at all similar

Schuster used "pimp" as a verb in a sentence with a political connotation. His sentence had absolutely nothing to do with a sexual connotation. The spitball was thrown at the Clintons, not their offspring. There's no question Hillary Clinton is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Her husband made a public statement misrepresenting his participation in a controversial situation, parsing his words. While many citizens called for him to be "fired" from his job, he remained. If a POTUS can make a grammatical "mistake" and keep his job, why cannot a commentator who does so in a much less controversial situation?

Appears like the Clintons have a double standard for situations such as this. Perhaps you do as well.

[TheUniverse]

25. I think now that NBC suspended Shuster for his remarks.

Hillary should continue to appear on NBC. They did the right thing, and there is no point in doing this because you are right, politicians must in general answer to the media. I also agree that democrats should appear on Fox News though as Bill Maher said, they should go and win an away game.

[Pathwalker]

30. I will watch what I damn well please, and not watch

what I damn well please, and no anonymous posters on the net will convince me otherwise. I am an old woman with long established viewing habits, and I will do as I damn well please. Don't like it? I don't care. Long live The Weather Channel!!!

[Bread and Circus]

37. ?!? And what does this have to do with the original post ?!?

[Pathwalker]

39. I will "shun" MSNBC if I choose. Your opinion

and anyone else's is just irrelevant to me. All day long, MSNBC sucks, All night long MSNBC sucks. I was boycotting MSNBC before it was "cool". I despise Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchannon, and since they're all ob there several times a day - I won't watch it. They are disgusting, vile, and offensive to me, so I won't allow their spewage into my home. Period.
I'd rather watch weather.

[Bread and Circus]

40. Well, you either didn't read the original post or your reading comprehension is poor.

I didn't say it was wrong for you to shun MSNBC. I said just the opposite and it is in bold.

I said that it's bad for the Clinton Campaign and Clinton herself to shun MSNBC, a major news outlet, because that's the same kind of games Bush plays.

Trading access for compliance is a dangerous game.

Maybe you made an honest mistake, I don't know, but it seems like you are going off half-cocked.

[Pathwalker]

41. Ah, another insult poster. Opinions differ.

Lame. If you think it will backfire to have a mother defend her cgild, then you don't know mothers very well.

[Bread and Circus]

44. It's not an insult, you are just missing the point. Hence that's why

I question your attention to detail or reading comprehension.

Perhaps I should question your sincerity instead.

[OzarkDem]

31. No justification for insulting Chelsea

She's an adult, intelligent, educated, politically active, campaigning for her mother. If I ran for office I would love it if my kids campaigned for me. Where's the controversy? Why is she deserving of criticism? Why would anyone criticize adult children for campaigning for their parent?

[Bread and Circus]

38. Whether or not she's fair game is beside the point.

[OzarkDem]

45. How so?

[Bread and Circus]

46. Because I wrote the original post and the point is about the danger

when politicians trade media access for media compliance.

This is what Bush does. This is what Clinton is doing. That's a problem. That's the issue. That's the point.

That's how so.

[AZBlue]

47. I agree with what you said & would like to add one more point:: Pathetic Media Ploy

Look at how much free publicity she's gotten from this. And, given her financial situation, she's looking for all the free coverage she can get. It's also following along the same line of her stated financial situation - she's trying to win by getting the sympathy vote. So PATHETIC.

[suston96]

49. I am shunning ALL TV media. From now on I will get eveything I need to know.....

....about the elections from Democratic Underground: Primary.

Where else can you find insightful, reasoned discussions by politically savvy, mature and genuinely inspired individuals?

[bvar22]

50. I find the migration of the Clinton Tribe to FOX completely understandable.

They will be much more at home there.

I will continue to watch KO.

[Whisp]

51. MSNBC won't even touch anything uncomplementary

to the Clintons from now on.

why she has not publicly submited her tax forms won't be a story
reminding people of her stance on K/L and the IWR, probably won't be talked about much.
and countless other 'soft spots.'


they will be Afraid to Touch anything like that. THAT WAS THIS IS ALL ABOUT. Shuster fucked up, but the campaign was honed onto grabbing something like this and running with it.
I don't watch MSNBC, but for regular viewers, might be worth paying abit of attention to how much 'nicer' they will be toward Hillary.

[no name no slogan]

52. I've been boycotting GE for years

and that includes More Shit NoBody Cares about. I also encouraged others to stop watching MSNBC after they retracted their debate invitation to Dennis Kucinich.

I find it somewhat funny that all of a sudden everybody gets outraged over a tasteless, offhand sexist comment by a talking head, yet are somehow not enraged when MSNBC tried to narrow the field of debate by uninviting a candidate who offered alternatives to those pedaled by the "major" candidates.

At least we have our priorities in line. :sarcasm: