There have of course been apologies in the wake of Schuster's suspension. Matthews, Olbermann, the network President, the whole lot of them. But at this point, is there really any point at all in these people apologizing? Does Schuster being gone matter? Is there going to be anything different about this network's collective spewage tomorrow?
But the apology was too little too late for the Clinton campaign. On a conference call today communications director Howard Wolfson said NBC hosts including “Hardball” host Chris Matthews, have shown a “pattern” of making offensive comments about the Clintons and later apologizing. “It’s the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network,” Wolfson said.
Exactly. Harrogate agrees that if Chelsea Clinton is going to continue to actively campaign, then it is reasonable for the press to pressure her to talk to them. But it is not reasonable to say she is being pimped out. Nor is it decent. It is, though, par the course for NBC.
14 comments:
I see that, one, for the Clinton's, the first amendment has an offense standard that people were not aware of; and, two, I am not sure if the Clintons can handle the attacks from the right wing if they complain about comments from NBC.
But this is just a preview... I will have more to say about this in due time...
that should be Clintons'
Sigh.
Hard to tell what the first amendment has to do with anything, unless there was some attempt by the Congress to infringe on NBC's speech rights, that Harrogate missed.
And, Harrogate continue to be amazed at peoples' willingness to look the other way at this kind of behavior, so long as it is directed at the Clintons.
The problem with FOX was always that it is a propaganda outfit masquerading as something else. Now we have NBC squarely in that same genre, but that's okay with many Obama supporters, because it is kind to him.
You are 'not sure' if the Clinton's can handle attacks from the right wing if they are offended by their daughter being referred to as 'pimped out'? Are you familiar with the history of the Clinton's at all? Wake up. No family--not the Bushes nor the Clinton's can or should stand still for one minute when their child is attacked like that. Do you not have children? I mean, what in the hell is the matter with you???
richestorags,
when writing counter arguments, appeals to pity are not very persuasive and neither are red herrings.
The problem with Chelsea Clinton is that, one, she is a public figure who is attempting to persuade others about who ought to be president of the United States. The means that criticism should be allowed, though the Clinton campaign is attempting to stifle that. Some level of reciprocity should be available to public figures. If she does not want to receive any criticism, then maybe she should choose not to be a public figure. Yet, since she seeks the spotlight...
Second, the comments of the NBC correspondents concerns the way in which Chelsea, and the Clinton campaign, is seeking to persuade Super Delegates to support Hillary for President. This is certainly awkward for the way in which it subverts the democratic process. By relying on a her daughter to campaign for her through back-room deals could be very destructive to the democratic party.
Yet, who cares about the party when you want to be president....
Harrogate-
It seems that my problems with this refer to the first amendment topos of the chilling effect, where by the Clinton campaign is attempting to stifle criticism of their campaign.
This is what we know about the incident:
(1) David Schuster's delivered his comments when he filled in on Tucker. If you have watched Tucker, it is not the program designed for rational discourse. Neither is it journalism as it focuses more on editorial comment.
(2) The Clinton campaign is trying to use this incident to claim that the media, especially MSNBC, is unfair to them. When individuals or blogs, such as Talk Left, make claims against MSNBC, then never offer any formal criteria to judge "negative," "unfair," or "bias." It seems that some Clinton's supporters think that any positive comments about one candidate means negative comments about another. Further, to advance the claims of bias, Clinton supporters need to overlook all of the talk before Iowa when Clinton was the "inevitable" nominee as well as the talk between New Hampshire and South Carolina when Clinton was the presumed nominee. This argument was made regularly on MSNBC and I do not remember other camps claiming the bias of the network.
Further, I would argue, knowing a lot more of how political campaigns work, that when the Clinton Campaign makes an argument about bias, they do not care about whether or not there is bias, but whether or not a New Network runs a story. The campaign is concerned about definition: the Clinton camp is trying to be the underdog campaign to downplay their "establishment image" and to increase fundraising efforts.
(3) I find it a problem when any candidate, not just Clinton, would attempt to stop news organizations from debate on a topic no matter what words are used. Think about this for a second, David Schuster identifies himself as a Democrat (especially against Morning Joe) and for most of the primaries, he has been nothing but favorable and supportive of the Clintons, especially before South Carolina. His opinions may have changed after the campaign there but he said many favorable things toward them. Yet, while Schuster has been favorable, other hosts such as Tucker, Rush, Levin, Hannity, Coulter, et al., have been openly hostile towards Clinton, and that includes Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea. Yet, the Clinton campaign does not attack them... they only call for the suspension of Schuster, a man with very little power at MSNBC... and this is because of one comment... one word. This sets a very dangerous precedent.
And yes, I am very skeptical of anyone running for president who rely on chilling effects arguments. I hated Obama's answer during the debates about violence in movies, just as I am disgusted by Clinton's work in the Senate to ban certain forms of speech, such as flag burning and video games.
Furthermore, the propaganda argument, the analogy between Fox and MSNBC, seems suspicious because of the more than fair treatment Clinton receives from the NBC network as she is a frequent guest on MSNBC and, more importantly, Meet the Press. Before one of the primaries, Clinton received one full hour on Meet the Press, yet no one questions this as being unfair to the other candidates in the race. All this time she could air her views without seriously being challenged. Just before her appearance, she stated that she would not use the gender card. On the show, she used the gender card and no one challenged it.
Finally: my love of the first amendment is not in support of one candidate. This cuts across partisan differences.
And my defense of Schuster has nothing to do with my support of another candidate. My defense concerns making sure tastes do not govern the first amendment.
solon:
If you really cannot see the problem with the comment, and with a Network News Agency continually smearing a candidate on personal grounds, then Harrogate is left to imagine that the Kool-Aid has truly extended itself to all parts of your epistemic and metabolic structure.
Ah, the political Kool-Aid. What havoc it wreaks on our sensibilities.
And harrogate-
I could say the same to you: If you cannot see that the Clinton campaign is exploiting its supporters to attack MSNBC then you have "drunk the Kool-Aid."
I tried to make a defense on free speech grounds, not on the grounds of partisan preference. Yet, you could only see my argument through the grounds of partisan interests.
I myself do not know what to say...
It seems that we are all blinded by our interests...
Harrogate:
et tu harrogate: "Obama supporters crying racism while charging the Clintons with playing the race card simultaneously, all the while sounding more like Republican Pundits every day in the way they discuss not only Hillary Clinton, but increasingly, national policy as well."
"There is what is coming to look more and more like a Cult movement surrounding Barack Obama..."
These are Clinton talking points, the language of Talk Left. This is not the language of rational defense.
Further, it absolves the Clintons for using race, saying only Obama supporters "crying" racism. It is not about the Clintons dividing the party or its supporters by suggesting that Obama is not a serious presidential candidate, that he must have been a drug dealer because he used drugs and is black, and that he only receives votes because he is black, meaning that whites and Latinos should not vote for him. Republicans used the last tactic in their redistricting efforts in Texas (to brand democrats as the party of blacks and latinos so white would not vote for them.)The Clintons attempted to make sure only Blacks would vote for Obama.
But, yet, to note this, is to use a Republican talking point.
Again, as I asked elsewhere, how did Clinton explorers free themselves from their chains and leave the cave to see the real images and not the shadows?
Given your growing affection for bringing up Talk Left, there are a couple of facts you should know, if you are interested.
1)Jeralyn Merrit is a friend and admirer of Schuster's and, while condemning his comment, has called for everyone to back off. She also denies MSNBC has treated Hillary Clinton unfairly.
Clearly she is one of many who doesn't count Christ Matthews and Keith olbermann as representatives of MSNBC.
2)Jeralyn also is a VERY enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton and has been from the beginning. Harrogate was always saddened by this, because he saw what was coming, and said so repeatedly in the comments.
Meanwhile, her current collaborator, BTD, is an Obama supporter, though a lukewarm and critical one.
Please bear in mind that Harrogate is no Hillary Clinton enthusiast. But he does put a premium on fairness, and has thus been disgusted at the undeserved treatment she has received by people on all sides on the political spectrum.
As for Cult thing, Harrogate has been complaining about that aspect of the Obama campaign from the very beginning, long before Jeralyn or anyone else dared type the word.
Reliance on crowds? Check. Glorifiaction of Youth? Check. Insistence that you and your people are somehow 'postpartisan'? Check. A Ron Paul-like conviction that your candidate, and your candidate only, is the One Who Can Save America? Check.
There will be more to come on future threads, Harrogate welcomes your continuing defense of prostitutional language to describe the Clintons' daughter.
Isn't it disingenuous to state that because person x believes in y that person x drank the candidate z's "Kool Aid."
Think about it. This statement does more to confuse than clarify.
There are real differences between the democratic candidates, in terms of character, policy, and style. Both campaigns are differentiating themselves from one another; both candidates are attempting to gain any advantage they can.
When one supporter states that the supporter of the other is drinking the campaign "Kool Aid" it does not help the debate.
If you support a candidate, make your case for that candidate. If you object to a candidate, make a case against the candidate without relying on the empty talking points of a candidate or from his/her supporters.
A reply-
you wrote: "Reliance on crowds? Check. Glorifiaction of Youth? Check. Insistence that you and your people are somehow 'postpartisan'? Check. A Ron Paul-like conviction that your candidate, and your candidate only, is the One Who Can Save America? Check."
Every campaign relies on these. After New Hampshire, Clinton put only college students on stage. She has said she can unite against the Republicans. Only she can withstand the Right WIng Attack machine; only she can pass health care. (This is common for all campaigns. It has nothing to do with a cult.)
And, how is it that to use race is perfectly appropriate-- it is only the supporters of Obama who sees it a problem. Yet, to jump on an isolated incident that focuses on "prostitution" without attempting to defend what she was doing (campaigning and being a public figure though separating herself from any criticism; using an undemocratic process of calling on super delegates to sway the election; and encouraging one campaign to create a "chilling effect" on the media-- if this were a Republican thing, you would not be happy).
Forget the word and defend the acts...
My last comment on this point:
My problem with the entire incident is that instead of discussing how a public, political figure, who is not accountable in any one to the public, is attempting to influence the presidential primary, we instead discuss how bad it is that a reporter used the word "prostitute."
There has been no attempt to examine the entailments of the metaphor. Instead, the remark and the reporter must be condemned. It is not that the acts may be "sleazy" but that the word and the reporter must be silenced to ensure fairness. I dislike those consequences.
Back in the Clarence Thomas hearings, Thomas effectively (for himself) ended the inquires into sexual harassment by stating, "this is nothing but a high-tech lynching." That comment ended the inquiry.
Now, we will not have an inquiry into how unaccountable individuals are attempting to alter the election. Instead, this is a 13 comment thread on bias in elections.
Speaking of Chelsea Clinton:
There is bad news about her father.
It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post. Moreover, there are innumerable copies in very many countries around the world.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
Post a Comment