home

Clinton Demands NBC Change Its Pattern Of Behavior

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:30:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Over at TPM, Greg Sargent is, in my opinion, completely misreporting what Hillary Clinton meant in her written response to NBC Clinton wrote:

Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.

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.

. . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Sargent utterly misses Clinton's point. He thinks she wants Shuster fired. That is not what Clinton is demanding. She wants "the pattern of behavior [at NBC] that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language" to change. Too often people miss the real problem. Jamison Foser got it. Greg Sargent did not. BTW, that is poor reporting by Sargent imo.

< Washington State Caucus Results | Hillary's Campaign Responds to Obama's Win Today >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Demands NBC Change Its Pattern Of Behavior | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Woops (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    I put this elsewhere but will post it here.  Politico has the original conversation between Shuster and the campaign wherein Shuster continued to "miss" the point that it's not okay to call Chelsea Clinton "pimped out."

    In light of his insistence, his half-a*s apology yesterday morning is even more infuriating.  

    BTD, (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:54:02 PM EST
    I'm starting to think that you've become the unofficial watchdog of establishment blogs that used to be watchdogs of the MSM.  It's crazy.

    Someone has to do it (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:59:13 PM EST


    Parent
    I can't even tell you how grateful I am. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:21:39 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    Yes, Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:04:14 PM EST
    And, FWIW, you have an ally over at Shakesville, Melissa McEwan, who writes:

    I've read, just now, on about half a dozen male-authored blogs, some of them considered to be Very Important, the assertion that David Shuster calling Hillary a pimp and her daughter a whore isn't really sexist, or isn't sexist enough to warrant offense, or isn't overtly sexist--as if "overt sexism" (meaning, I suppose, the kind that men use deliberately to hurt woman as opposed to the casual sexism all real men engage in, about which women aren't supposed to complain) is the only kind that matters--although these dubious dudez will magnanimously acquiesce that what Shuster said was inappropriate.



    Parent
    The question to such men becomes . . . (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:30:38 PM EST
    just what would it take for you to call that shark a jumper?

    So Shuster had to SAY Chelsea Clinton is a whore?  Or would that be just another joshin' line from the boyos at MSNBC, another line to be discounted?

    Really, just what would it take?  Talking about her t**ts the way they talk about her mother's ankles?

    I probably don't really want to know.

    Parent

    BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by sancho on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:24:06 PM EST
    TPM is a de facto Obama site. At least Kos endorsed insead of pretending to be neutral. TPM also is, imo, alarmingly sexist in its coverage. Frat boys with graduate degrees and intellectual pretensions. They are better covering the abuses of the Bush regime. No women are featured there as commentators. I wonder when they will hire their Rachel Maddow. Great work here, though. Thanks.

    Parent
    Establishment blogs (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:24:54 PM EST
    Heh. I used that term on a discussion forum the other day and someone said "You people are ridiculous."

    Not sure who "you people" are, but I thinkthat includes me.

    Parent

    Sign me up (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    for being included in "you people."  :)

    Parent
    Sargent (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by eric on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:09:33 PM EST
    I think that Greg Sargent should start doing a little first-hand investigation before he types up such inflammatory headlines.

    Call the Clinton campaign.  Are they asking for Shuster to be fired?  It's an easy question to ask.

    BTW, if they did want him to be fired, wouldn't they have actually written that in the letter?

    The Clinton campaign (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:20:23 PM EST
    does not want him fired based on what I have heard.

    Trying to confirm myself.

    Parent

    This is a great opportunity (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:13:34 PM EST
    to begin retraining the media. There are three or more decades of RWNM pressure to undo to get them to stop their kneejerk rightwing genuflecting and dissing of anything Dem or progressive. They use the Clintons as a surrogate when they can't directly bash Dems or anything vaguely leftish, and its become so habitual they're probably surprised that they're finally being called on it. Long overdue, IMO. Give 'em hell and make them afraid to pull that kind of continuous low-grade smearing anymore.

    Here are lyrics to a Melissa Etheridge song (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:16:20 PM EST
    that all Hillary supporters need to read

    Precisely so. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Klio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    I was stunned and chagrined to read the headline at TPM -- calling for Shuster's firing?!? -- and when I clicked through and read the letter, I arrived at precisely the conclusion you did.

    I don't want to say they're engaging in a willful misreading, but it's clear (to me anyway) Clinton is calling for a change in the network's approach to coverage.

    Sheesh.

    It's even worse than that . . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by hellskitchen on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    On the front page the headline is "More Pimpin."

    Commenter Billy Glad  wrote the following in the comments to the story about Shuster's second apology:


    When I flamed Joshto the story about Shuster's second apology about Greg's cynical speculations, he replied: "The folks here are idealistic kids who work really hard for low wages because they care about politics and good reporting. You shoot off nasty emails. If that makes us cynical, then we're happy being cynical."


    Parent
    Ugh. (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:51:15 PM EST
    They're having a hard time with this, aren't they?

    Parent
    I imagine Bill's response (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:04:44 PM EST
    is unprintable here--just like Hillary's before she sat down to write that letter.  Jeralyn, you really could rake in some dough if you had a swear jar here!

    took matters into my own hand... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by white n az on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:22:37 PM EST
    To:        letters@msnbc.com
    Subject:   To the Editor
    Date:      Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:19:46 -0700

    sorry guys...there's only 1 way you are going to learn and that is by losing viewers...you lost me for all except Keith Olbermann...I just switched you off in favor of CNN

    and it's not because I am mad at David Shuster...I like David. He screwed up big time and but for the arrogance of your network, took way too long to figure out what he had done.

    Scarborough's a jerk but you knew that when you gave him mornings.
    Matthews is a jerk and is probably your biggest problem.
    Carlson...what the hell is he doing on your network anyway?

    I can't stand what you are doing on your network.

    So it's CNN from now on until you guys figure it out

    what the heck is this (sorry for the O/T) (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:27:32 PM EST
    Is Obama really skipping this event???

    From Hillary's website:
    2/8/2008
    Senator Hillary Clinton to Attend the State of the Black Union 2008
    The Hillary Clinton campaign today announced Hillary will attend this year's State of the Black Union, a symposium hosted each year by Tavis Smiley Presents.

    "I care passionately about delivering solutions to the big issues we face in this country," said Senator Clinton. "After 35 years of working on issues like education, health care, and racial equality, I am ready to continue the dialogue with symposium participants and to further outline my platform to move this country forward," she concluded.

    State of the Black Union 2008: Reclaiming Our Democracy, Deciding Our Future brings together a diverse group of participants including entertainers, political and community leaders who will discuss the state of the Black community and seek to educate, enlighten and empower America.

    Tavis Smiley, oversaw the collaboration of The Covenant with Black America. In 2007, Smiley moderated and executive produced the Democratic and Republican All-American Presidential Forums on PBS. This marked the first time in history that a panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color was represented in primetime television conducting a presidential debate.

    Senator Clinton is the only Democratic presidential hopeful scheduled for this year's event which will be held on February 23, 2008, in New Orleans, Louisiana.

    He won't confirm Wisconsin Dems' big annual event (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:33:38 PM EST
    next week either, now -- and three days before the primary here -- although his speaking at it was announced months ago.  Clinton has confirmed -- and that she would do a local debate, too, although he also won't confirm for that.

    Maybe it's because Wisconsin isn't a caucus state?  But for many reasons, he could do well here.  Huh.

    Parent

    I don't think Obama ever cared very much about (none / 0) (#40)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:33:41 PM EST
    the AA community, as weird as that might sound--at least until the South Carolina primary came up.  I wonder if he just assumes now that they're in his pocket, he doesn't need to bother.

    Parent
    They are in his pocket and he doesn't have to care (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:41:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe a slighty different emphasis (4.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cboldt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    What about this part of Senator Clinton's letter, "no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."?

    That may be construed to be ambiguous, but I think reporting it as "she wants him fired" isn't without foundation.

    In addition, she is putting MSNBC on notice of a pattern of behavior that she finds objectionable.

    Is not without foundation? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:47:19 PM EST
    What can of journalistic standard is that?

    Sorry, terrible reporting by Sargent. ESPECIALLY when the next sentence tells you WHAT WOULD BE sufficient. It is NOT about Shuster. It is about NBC.

    Weak argument you make.


    Parent

    Not sufficient for MSNBC (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:51:50 PM EST
    to just suspend, apparently with pay, one guy.

    Quite clear to me that it's not asking for more to be done to one guy but that it's a systemic problem at MSNBC.

    Parent

    Pretty obvious to me (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:54:16 PM EST
    Sargent really screwed this one up.

    Bad job by Greg.

    Parent

    Actually, it is. (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:20:50 PM EST
    If she wrote "I want him fired" or unambiguous words to that effect, he could report it that way.

    This isn't journalism he's doing. It's editorial. It should be flagged as such.

    Parent

    cboldt, now what say you? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:02:07 PM EST
    Do you see that your last sentence is not "in addition" -- it is what she is saying would be sufficient?

    Parent
    I still see an ambiguous demand (none / 0) (#76)
    by cboldt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:09:51 PM EST
    All this in once sentence leads, somewhat naturally,  to a connection between Schuster, and an opinion as to the adequacy of his temporary suspension.  It may not be the correct intention, or even express the demand/remedy being sought.

    "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."

    Now, an alternative expression, one that focuses on modification of MSNBC conduct, would omit the clause "no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient," or at least distance THAT from Shuster's conduct.

    The message you read into the letter would have been less ambiguous, and simpler, if composed as:

    "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used.  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."

    I completely agree that the letter isn't a call for firing.  My point was that the conclusion that it was calling for firing isn't out of the clear blue.  And I agree that the report is sloppy, because it didn't recognize an obvious ambiguity.

    Parent

    What is sufficient? (none / 0) (#79)
    by cboldt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:27:34 PM EST
    No temporary suspension is sufficient.

    No half-hearted apology is sufficient.

    Obviously, the letter suggests more than merely "looking at a pattern of behavior."

    So, the verb "pimping" is off limits.  Is that it?  I mean is that the extent of remedy the writer seeks?

    We don't know.  But we do know a temporary suspension is not a sufficient remedy.

    Parent

    You're right BTD (4.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:33:34 PM EST
    MSNBC missed the point. There has been a trend of rank behavior and speech that has been running rampant (and I don't mean right sided profile, the "well, if R could say that and get away with it, if I say something not quite as bad, it will be ok."

    It's got to stop.

    Mrs Clinton doesn't want Shuster fired, she wants an honest apology (none of this "Sorry if I offended", should be "I am sorry I offended you, I was wrong") and for all journalists and real news media to clean up their acts.

    I will give MSNBC credit though. In '98 Rush Limbaugh said something even more vile concerning Chelsea, and he wasn't abjured or made to give an even half arsed apology. As contrived as Shusters' was he at least did it. Still say Olbermanns' packed more weight than Shusters did.

    Credit where it's due,please (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM EST
    I will give MSNBC credit though.

    No. Give Hillary the credit. She is the one who is holding MSNBC's feet to the fire and making them accountable.

    Was Limbaugh working for MSNBC at the time he made that remark about Chelsea? I don't think he was.

    Parent

    Nitpick (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    Limbaugh called Chelsea the White House dog.

    Shuster said her mother was pimping her out.

    I'd argue that the latter is worse, because it insults both Chelsea and her eeeeevil mother.

    Parent

    more for the WingNuts go back to Ron Paul PLEASE (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:16:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Actually what he said was (none / 0) (#65)
    by Nowonmai on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:37:55 AM EST
    Was worse than that. He said "You know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Her father is Janet Reno."

    And to echinopsia I didn't say Rush worked for MSNBC or NBC, I don't think they would have him (or at least hope they have better class than that.) But what I was referring to is the nasty remarks all these 'journalists' have been getting away with, with no consequences.


    Parent

    No, he didn't. (none / 0) (#72)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM EST
    He said "You know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Her father is Janet Reno."

    John McCain said that.

    Parent

    Not according to Crooks and Liars (none / 0) (#83)
    by Nowonmai on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:57:15 PM EST
    Rush repeated on air what McCain said, chortling when he said it. Hence why I posted.

    Rush has come out with even more rank comments and double entendre all on his own

    Limbaugh:...Obama is holding his own against both of them-doing more than his share of the "spade" work. Maybe even gaining ground at the moment. Using not only the spade ladies and gentleman--that when he finishes with the "spade" in the garden of corruption planted by the Clinton's, he turns to the "hoe." And so the spade work and his expertise using a hoe.

    And no one can tell me he wasn't being insulting. Go listen to it.

    Parent

    TPM missed the point (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:35:11 PM EST
    you mean? We do not know if NBC missed the point.

    Parent
    Another link (none / 0) (#3)
    by carolyn13 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:46:16 PM EST
    Politico has it too.

    Another crappy headline (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:49:06 PM EST
    She ripped NBC. Shuster is just a side issue.

    "She cast Shuster's comments as part of "a troubling pattern of comments and behavior that has to be held accountable." "

    Parent

    Crappy headline (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by carolyn13 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    Yes, it is and it confused me for a second since it didn't match my reading of her demand that MSNBC tone it down. If she wanted Shuster fired she would have demanded it in the earlier conversations. He's a side issue to her.

    Parent
    Yes agree but folks really need to (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:21:52 PM EST
    stop watching their trash talk anyway.  Turn on BillO hit mute of course, run up Fox ratings against MSNBC that will drive KO nuts.  Ed Schultz too something wrong their as well, very strange.

    Parent
    Shuster gate could be a positive (none / 0) (#22)
    by Saul on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:41:02 PM EST
    This should offset any negatives that Bill did during the campaign plus the more people see the apology this could swing some of on the fence voters, especially women voters who have not made up their mind to Hilary.

    Oh, please don't do that. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:52:13 PM EST
    I try to be cynical (some days it's hard to keep up) but I honestly do not think she's doing this for political gain.

    They slimed her baby girl. If someone did that to me in front of my mother - and she's 89 - she would wrap her walker around his neck and beat him to death with her oxygen tank.

    I am astounded at the restraint in the letter. Good on ya Hillary.

    Now let's see anybody say she's "too emotional" to be president. Can you imagine what Bill's response would have been? Yowza.

    Parent

    She doesn't (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:17:30 PM EST
    have to be in this for political gain to actually get a political gain out of it.  Voters respect a show of strength for a good reason, and she is definitely doing that.

    Parent
    TPM missed the point (none / 0) (#29)
    by Grey on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:15:36 PM EST
    I actually don't think Clinton wants Shuster to be fired at all; her point is way more far-reaching than that so, considering TPM's attitude of late, it's not surprising that they would have tied themselves to a tree and missed the forest.

    maybe tpm wanted to miss the point. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST


    Parent
    now that there is a good point. (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:39:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Grey on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:51:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Josh And TPM Has Missed Several Points (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:43:02 PM EST
    Josh didn't think the "pimped out Chelsea" comment was a big deal to begin with.

    I do not think the comment played to specific stereotypes about women in general or about Hillary in particular as it would if you refer to a black man as "lazy" or "shiftless" or a woman as "shrill" or a "shrew."  TPM

    Evidently it is something that is said about the family of politicians all the time and I just missed it.


    Parent

    thaks for the post. i just sent josh marshall (none / 0) (#75)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    another email telling him that his comment is a big disappointment to me. i am looking to see if i get back a rather rude response as i have heard others mention on here. that will decide if i ever visit there again.

    Parent
    Greg Sargent (none / 0) (#37)
    by wasabi on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:31:48 PM EST
    I sent a letter to him asking for him to change the headline.  Its inflamatory.

    Oops (none / 0) (#44)
    by rilkefan on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:44:24 PM EST
    My bad for reading the snippet on TPM, believing it, and thinking the Clinton campaign had gone way overboard.  Their letter could have been clearer, though.

    Don't apologize. (none / 0) (#49)
    by halstoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:44:33 PM EST
    You weren't wrong. Read the letter. It is constructed in a manner consistent with Sargent's analysis.

    With all that is said about Hillary, don't you think they are going overboard? It provides a way for them to influence NBC without Hillary having to complain about her personal treatment by the jocks on the network. It's perfect politics.

    And yes, she is right to be furious about her daughter being demeaned by Shuster and others.

    Parent

    Constructed in your mind (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    Your analysis is riodiculous to me.

    But worse is your journalistic analysis.

    You are simply not discussing true journalism.\

    You defend the indefensible.

    Parent

    As highly as you clearly think of yourself, (none / 0) (#57)
    by halstoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:29:23 PM EST
    this is not a journal. It's a blog. It's not called journaling, and neither you nor Sargent is a journalist, at least not here in the blogosphere. You're a blogger; he's a blogger. So no, I'm not discussing journalism, I'm discussing blogging. The ethics are different.

    And ridiculous? Well, I disagree with you, so of course I'm ridiculous. But the analysis is sound.


    Parent

    Josh Marshall (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:54:39 AM EST
    most definitely considers himself a journalist. "Just a blog" is not a sufficient defence, as a blog can be whatever its authors want it to be.

    Have a look at andgarden's email exchange with Marshall posted in BTD's other diary on this. Marshall is a journalist.

    Your claims of 'just a blog' are nothing short of elitism that you have swallowed from the MSM, who would have us all believe that bloggers are guys named Lenny blogging in their bathrobes from the Bronx.

    There is nothing inherent in blogging that prevents bloggers from also being journalists if they choose to be, as Josh Marshall has chosen to be and claims to be.

    Parent

    yes, that's true. i have had hopes that josh (none / 0) (#77)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:12:35 PM EST
    would develop this into a powerhouse media that would investigate and expose on a national level comparable with other big media groups.

    now the bias just leaves me cold.

    Parent

    'Splain to me please (none / 0) (#60)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:48:34 PM EST
    the ethics of blogging. Keep in mind that many bloggers would like to be thought of as "alternatie news outlets" and be allowed press credentials. I think you can include TPM in that category.

    And as mentioned upthread, describe the point at which the shark, she is jumped.

    Not sure really I want to know how low you think standards should be set.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#63)
    by halstoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:06:04 PM EST

    Wait: maybe we're arguing semantics, which is not all that useful. Bloggers are not reporters. A journalist simply gathers and disseminates information. Reporters have the added onus of factual proof and sources, etc. So bloggers may be journalists, I admit, but they are not reporters. They are commentators, who are not held to the same standards, correct? A copywriter could not write that headline without the word "fire," "release," "dismiss,"
    "excommunicate," or some other word in the letter. And if I were Sargent I would have written
    Hillary says MSNBC response not "sufficient".

    That would have made the same point without ruffling so many feathers.

    So why can't bloggers get credentialed? Doesn't Bill Kristol get them? Juan Williams? Peggy Noonan? Paul Krugman? I don't see how they are substantially different from bloggers, except that they work for a brick and mortar enterprise.

    As to ethics, I don't think Sargent was unethical. He interpreted the letter in a reasonable way, and as a commentator/blogger, his goal is to cut through the campaign rhetoric to deliver the real message as he sees it. It's a service to his audience, and if they don't like it (and a lot of them clearly didn't), they'll turn elsewhere (maybe here).

    If he had written a headline saying HRC wanted Shuster "made to wear a bra and panties in Times Square to get a feel for the female experience of male gawkery," that would have been unethical. Funny, but unethical.

    Finally, I want to thank you for the collegial tone you've carried with me, despite your challenges to my argument. 'Preciate that.


    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#64)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:14:58 PM EST
    I've been arguing with people all day over sexism  so it's nice to know somebody thinks I'm not rabid. I'm a Web editor with a JRN degree, and you would have thought I was doing something shameful by pointing out that yes, j-school actually trains people to recognize and avoid bias.

    Journalist is a very broad umbrella term - editor, reporter, columnist, publisher - all are journalists. What I was taught was that what we have in common is that we deal in non-fiction and presenting ALL sides without bias.

    We can write opinions, but they must be labeled opinions or columns, and there must be church-and-state walls between news, editorial and advertising. Reporters don't write headlines. Editors do (usually copyeditors).

    It's considered a real accomplishment for a reporter to become a columnist because you are basically being paid for your opinion. (Noonan, et al)

    Bloggers are self-ordained columnists/editors/publishers without the journalism chops, without the degree, without the training in non-fiction (usually). IMO, they should not get press credentials automatically - any opinionated tool can print business cards, get published online, call himself a member of the press and get in free to all kinds of cool events.

    Sargent may not have been unethical by "bloggers' rules", but he was not truthful, either. He misrepresented the letter, IMO, rather egregiously. This is why bloggers shouldn't get press credentials. If you want to publish online I think you need to make a distinction between whether you're presenting news or opinion.

    But then I am idealist who thinks journalism is a noble profession, if you do it right, but it's too easy and lucrative to do it wrong.

    That said, I would LOVE to see Shuster wearing lingerie in Times Square.

     

    Parent

    What about people like Jeralyn or Kos? (none / 0) (#66)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:19:33 AM EST
    Do you support credentials for the more established online media?

    I am a writing teacher with a BS in Journalism (broadcast) and an MA in English (rhetoric/pedagogy), so I'm not all that unfamiliar with these issues, though it has been a while since I took an ethics class.

    You and I can disagree, and disagree forcefully, but I will always try to address your argument as opposed to your character. I know I've seen your name a lot, but I really don't take it personally.

    Like I said, had I been the copy editor writing that headline, I wouldn't have written it. If, however, I was a commentator who wanted to present my own critique of the letter with the specific thesis that she wanted his job, then that choice would be rather easy to run with.

    I think I got involved in this from the composition standpoint. I believe, as I noted before, that Clinton's letter is constructed in such a way as to separate her commentary on Shuster from her call for a network-wide sensitivity seminar. I think they should have that seminar, by the way, and they should let Steve Carrell teach it. Wouldn't that be hilarious?

    But, as the letter is presented, that statement about no half-apology or temporary suspension being sufficient does make it sound like she wants Shuster specifically addressed separately from the company as a whole, though he would no doubt have to sit through the seminar. Sargent chose to interpret that as "Fire him!!" One of the things you know as a trained journalist is that a bunch of people can sit and listen to or read the same information and come away with a totally different perspective. Otherwise, there'd be no need for a press corps; we could just have  a couple of people report and that would be it if there was no human element to it. That said, I do respect your view on his liability in this case.

    From your viewpoint, are there blogs that serve as news sources? I mean, I know Talk Left and DKos and others do point us to news, but that's usually throgh links or something else. The real point of the blog is to have people journal on the news, or am I missing an element here?

    Finally, since your background does include formal training, I'd like to hear your thoughts on media bias. Specifically, why is it that NBC is at once labeled a "liberal" network and yet at the same time is clearly guilty of some of the more chauvinist language on the airwaves? Olbermann is clearly a liberal, and Matthews has Democrat Party bonafides, but they also allow Tucker and Joe on the air. Is that not fair and balanced? And who, besides Alan Colmes, is a liberal on FOX with their own show?

    As for sexism, do you think that misogyny has simply so penetrated our culture that we don't recognize it, or do you think that perhaps political sensitivities do at times run amok, finding sexism where none is intended? Because, honestly, as a young 30-something, I was not all that put off by Shuster's comments. I also don't know how Obama is sexist for saying that "the claws come out" when you challenge the status quo. I of course know how the history of those things may be sexist, but I also know that for a lot of us, they are simply part of the vernacular. It's like when I say someone is my boy. I know what it meant in 1940, but that's not what it means today. Are we simply in the midst of a transition here where the language is catching up with the culture but memories are long and generational gaps are emerging?

    Parent

    Memories Are Long (none / 0) (#67)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:23:20 AM EST
    Some people may not see a problem with subtle racist or sexist language. Perhaps those of us that have lived with the problems of bigotry of race, gender and age discrimination are not quite so sanguine about it. Perhaps generational gaps are emerging? Does that mean that 30 somethings don't care if others not their age or with their life experience are not only offended but are enraged by what they perceive as bigotry? What you may not think is sexism may be seen as egregious by a woman that has been a target of sexism all her life.

    My life experience has taught me that once subtle bigotry is accepted it is soon followed by things not so subtle.

    Whether you choose to believe it or not there is rampant sexism in this country. Women know it, women live it and many have simply just given up and accepted it as a fact of life. Those who have not are frequently simply dismissed as "feminist" and thus not credible.

    I also would suggest that you not use the term "boy" about a black man. You may think that the word has lost it's sting but I doubt that many black men would.

    Parent

    Thank you for your comment. (none / 0) (#68)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:40:42 AM EST
    I do agree that my lack of life experience, or your abundance thereof, certainly colors our perceptions. I also agree that those of us who do not have that life experience should not minimize the pain you honestly feel from such language. Respecting our elders--and their experiences--is something that we younger generations are not always very good at.

    Your points are all well-taken; Shuster may be closer to my age, but no doubt his audience is made up of more people closer to yours, and thus the outrage, as you pointed out, is in fact justified. Thank you for helping me see that.

    Last, I would like to assure you that under no circumstances would I address an older black man as anything other than "sir," just as I would an older white one.

    Very enlightening, ma'am. Again, thank you for sharing.

    One question: since women have reached a level of prominence in TV news to the point where they are a significant, if not equal, portion of the on-camera contingent and thus able to call us on our barbarism and ignorance, do you think this does anything to lessen the sting, or maybe even level the playing field? After all, The View is on five days a week to poke fun at men's lack of sophistication, and Scarborough's guest host (I don't watch, so her name escapes me. Brezinski?) certainly doesn't take his abuse. Megyn Kelly is as smart as any man on Fox, clearly, etc. Does any of that help? Do you see progress down the road? Or is it really just a fact of life, as you say many women have reluctantly accepted?

    Parent

    I See Progress but... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:24:21 AM EST
    I see progress but not nearly enough. I have seven granddaughters and I had hoped that they would not have to fight the same old fight that I have found so enervating. Time that was spent fighting gender discrimination in the workplace when I was young was most recently spent fighting age discrimination in the workplace.

    I don't watch the View or Oprah or any other daytime television programs aimed at women. I am a human being, not just a woman. (Although I will confess to liking some so-called "Chick Flicks" as opposed to Testosterone laced action Flicks that I have another name for but don't think would be allowed to post here. Hint: Just add flick to Cheney's first name and I don't mean Richard.)

    I only know about things that Joe Scarborough says when they are so egregious that they make it to Media Matters or some other site posting MSNBC's Band of Boneheads. I believe that recently Joe asked whateverhername is if he was going to have to backhand her for something she said to him. I don't know what she said but I find his response repulsive.

    I don't like or watch ANY program that I perceive is aimed at making any specific group look bad. I particularly loathe sit-coms that portray the father as some kind of nincompoop or the mother a too stupid to find her butt with either hand.

    I don't think it's a fact of life. I just see the fight as being too far from over for me to have any hope that it will get noticeably better in my lifetime. Each generation must do it's part when it comes to discrimination of ANY kind. I just didn't think it would take so long and I certainly never thought that any progressive would ever accept discrimination just because they don't like a particular candidate. I thought by the time I got to be this old I'd be smarter.

    Parent

    I'm sorry for the disappointment you feel. (none / 0) (#78)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:24:22 PM EST
    I suppose from my vantage point, the fact that you have that name for action flicks is indicative that at this point women are capable of giving as good as they get. Same with the sitcoms that have Dad as the neanderthal; sure, Mom is a ditz, but is he really any better? And doesn't Mom seem to be right 99% of the time (while you don't watch, maybe you are familiar with my gist).

    I don't watch Morning Joe, but the exchanges I've seen on YouTube look to me like two adversarial friends playing to those types in typical ways. From what I've seen of the female hostess, I doubt she'd tolerate any outright mistreatment, but I could be wrong.

    I've taught high school and college in the past couple of years, and in watching the younger people interact, there are still lots of the typical teenage stories, but the females in the class appeared confident and assertive in ways not typically associated with their sex.

    Some girls I know call themselves chicks; others don't like it too much. If they don't like it, they mostly let you know. Others embrace the more unisex standard and don't embrace the stricter (I guess feminist?) standard of disgust.

    In many ways, it's kinda (and I mean kinda) related to the idea that the n-word is acceptable among a young, homogeneous African-American crowd, but not coming from whites, and their grandparents still don't like the word.

    Unfortunately, I do agree that society seems to feel the need to have outcasts. I would argue that gays are currently inhabiting that role, along with Latinos and Arabs.

    As it relates to the election, I was thinking today of the suffrage movement, and the schism that developed when black men were enfranchised without women, despite Stanton and Anthony having fought for 20 years alongside the abolitionist movement. When that happened, Stanton became irate and adopted highly racist language in attempt to denigrate the black man out of her frustration. I think there is an element of that type at play this year, though the general public is no doubt less informed about the women's movement. Would you agree or disagree with that? Oh, and that is not a dig at Hillary. I don't think that is what she is doing. I'm really talking about the demographic divides we're seeing in this election among the populace. Hillary is way above that, and is running as a woman rather than for women, if that makes sense. I hope it does.

    Parent

    One at a time: (none / 0) (#73)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    TPM wilfully misinterpreted the letter. Period. You can opine all you want about what you think about something, but you can't be untruthful. TPM is being untruthful and deceptive.

    All they had to do was call the Clinton campaign, as some have already done, to find out of that was what they meant. That's what press secretaries are  for. Clinton's campaign said that's not what she meant in the letter and that should be the end of it. Continuing to claim otherwise is just lying.

    All big media is corporate. It's hard to be corporate and liberal, especially when the media ownership is conservative and they sign your paycheck.

    Liberal ≠ non-sexist (I am forced to conclude; I used to think it was). Olberman is sexist, Matthews is a slug, Tucker and Joe are beneath contempt, and Alan Colmes is not a liberal. MSNBC is not fair and balanced when they continually fawn over one candidate (of any political bent) and slime the other.

    Sexism and misogyny are and always have been rampant in our culture. I suggest you would feel quite differently if the same remark had been made about Obama's wife or daughters or perhaps if you were a woman.

    "Claws come out" is definitely and deliberately sexist, and not the kind of thing a candidate who wants women's votes should say.

    Just because something is "part of the vernacular" does not mean it isn't sexist. I'm sorry, but that is just a ridiculous idea.

    If any blog deserves press credentials, this one does. BTD and Jeralyn may not be journos, but as lawyers they are trained to figure out what words  mean and to look at both sides of an issue. They do that extremely well, IMO.

    Parent

    I was convinced that TPM was being (none / 0) (#80)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:40:20 PM EST
    dishonest when I saw them run a tall headline claiming she wanted the firing, only to have a micro headline beneath reporting the denial. That is dishonest, and I fully accept your point.

    On the sexism, I also see your point. I would be interested to know what you think about the emergence of strong women on TV, and their clear ability to fend off men and even beat them at the belittling game. As a man, I clearly can see lots of instances on TV where men's IQ's are questioned, where our lack of sophistication is mocked, and our shallowness exposed. So in that sense, I do see an evening of the playing field, and lots of men and women seem to enjoy either playing to or pointing out the stereotypes on both sides.

    I can only speak for myself and my experience, but I know lots of people who at least portray themselves as being post-gender, disinterested in the bickering over sexism and more interested in being viewed as peers who can both take and dish out criticism. It may make our mothers cringe, but it really is happening, and that's why I think as we move along the timeline of history a lot of these things will become less of an issue.

    What you see as clearly and deliberately sexist I see as merely a metaphor. Is it sexist to say that men have two heads, and that they think with the wrong one? Is it sexist to identify a man as a chest-thumper, insinuating he's some sort of Tarzan, uncivilized? Or to call our competitions pissing contests? Are those all sexist?  

    Parent

    I'm sorry, but (none / 0) (#81)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    you're getting wildly off topic. We were talking about whether bloggers have a duty to be truthful, as journalists do. My answer is yes.

    I'm not really interested in writing a treatise for you on sexism in the media or the vernacular.

    Parent

    Oh, well, sorry. Someone else commented (none / 0) (#82)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:04:23 PM EST
    on sexism and so I was asking your opinion.

    The blogosphere is a marketplace, and my position is that a dishonest blogger will lose their audience, so being honest is good business in addition to being the ethical choice.

    As for journalists and truth, I think I also pointed out the relativity of that statement. That's why the NYT's coverage can differ from the Washington Times. Their is a professional mandate for honesty b/c your editor/publisher will fire you. If you work for a blog, I imagine they would have their own standards. If you run the show, you can present it as skewed as you like. If the audience follows, you keep it up. If they bolt, you make a change.

    Parent

    Always apologize is NBC's rule for Shuster (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:06:07 PM EST
    This isn't the first time that he has had to apologize for treatment of a prominent woman politician, y'know.  Also last fall, a Congresswoman. . . .

    Btw, lawyers of counsel to media LOVE apologies.  Cheaper than lawsuits.  Not that there's cause for a lawsuit here, but -- apologies are hardly unusual in the media.  That's why they're so facile at it, the "I understand that you feel that way" sort of b.s. that Shuster said, that Matthews said, etc.

    Parent

    Uh, y'all are gonna crucify me, but (none / 0) (#47)
    by halstoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:40:31 PM EST
    that letter could be read as a demand to fire Shuster.
    If you notice, in the cited paragraph, she is addressing Shuster specifically when she says "no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."

    There is then a line break, and in the penultimate paragraph she exhorts Capus to investigate the systemic issues that have led to such behavior, but those are two separate imperatives.

    1. Re: Shuster, a temporary suspension and feigned apology won't get it.

    2. Furthermore (which is why she starts a new paragraph, to indicate transition), they also need to address the entire staff and its sexist behavior.

     That is how the letter is constructed, and as such Sargent is not stretching journalistic ethics. Hillary clearly wants more than a "temporary suspension." What would that be, I wonder? Maybe a permanent suspension? It would seem so.

     My question is, if she wants more from Shuster, why has no one called for Matthews and Scarborough to be fired?  

    Suppose you are right (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:52:28 PM EST
    "Could be read" can not possibly lead to a headline EXPRESSLY STATING "Clinton Want Shuster Fired!"

    Atrocious journalism.

    Parent

    Since when is TPM a source of journalism? (none / 0) (#56)
    by halstoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:25:37 PM EST
    It's a blog. Sargent is not a reporter, he's a blogger. Attrocious journalism would be if the NYT splashed that headline on their pages. On TPM, it's one man's opinion. Get a grip.

    Parent
    Oh ye of little imagination (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:59:02 PM EST
    Hillary clearly wants more than a "temporary suspension." What would that be, I wonder? Maybe a permanent suspension? It would seem so.

    A fine, a reprimand, a reassignment, a demotion to mailroom clerk or janitor, a transfer to Afghanistan, a transfer to a local pudunk affiliate, public shaming, a real heartfelt apology, a six-month suspension, a cut in pay, bannination from the MSNBC cafeteria, denial of executive parking privileges, removal of executive washroom key, forced to wear a clown nose on camera, sackcloth and ashes, scourging, and my personal favorite: a cessation of talking biased sexist misogynistic trash on pain of permanent suspension.

    Parent

    Laughing so hard here and adding (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:02:43 PM EST
    to your list in my mind.  But I can't come up with anything near as good . . . unless it's that he have to write Gloria Steinem's NYT piece on the board 100 times.

    I particularly liked "bannination."  It's one of those words that just oughta be.

    Parent

    I don't know if he's paid while suspended, (none / 0) (#55)
    by halstoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:23:23 PM EST
    but if not that would be a fine. He's clearly been reprimanded. Rassignment/demotion/transfer would all be essentially firing him from his current high level position. Making it 6 months would still be temporary. She did not call it "short term"; she called it "temporary."

    As funny as your list is, Hillary's choice of words is quite clear: temporarily suspending Shuster was not adequate.

    I also thinks it's clear he's been spanked with a rolled up newspaper and scolded, "Bad boy! NO!"

    He knows to cut it out, in other words, so your last suggestion is already in place.

    Parent

    We Shall See. (none / 0) (#58)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:39:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Darn, meant to add (none / 0) (#59)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:41:39 PM EST
    Smacked with rolled-up newspaper is a good one! But did they also rub his nose in his mess? And chain him out back? And ban him from the sofa?

    I'm not speaking figuratively, here.

    Parent

    I think they actually signed him up (none / 0) (#61)
    by halstoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:48:47 PM EST
    to face one of Vick's champion fighter's in a death match.

    Parent
    Wonder no more. (none / 0) (#62)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:03:59 PM EST
    Hillary did not request anything more of Shuster.

    Her request was that NBC " look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language"

    Parent

    Who"s Ox is being Gored? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Sunshine on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:42:31 AM EST
    It's all a matter of who's ox is being gored.. It sure seems to me that Hillary's ox is constantly being gored while Obama's ox is grazing in tall green grass.. I wouldn't mind so much about Hillary's ox if Obama's ox got it stuck to him once in awhile...  I don't think that MSNBC even knows that there are 2 ox's out there, and if they are a news station, they should report both sides...

    Whoa (none / 0) (#74)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:39:15 PM EST
    Way to run with a metaphor!

    Parent
    Clinton Demands NBC Change Its Pattern Of Behavior | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment