Same-Sex Marriage Bill REJECTED in New York State Senate
UPDATE: City To Remove 14 Blocks Of Bike Lanes On Bedford Ave.
Catholic League Pissed at PETA
Hamster Rides The 4 Train
Bouncer Beatdown at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club
Photograph of Bill, Chelsea, and Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night by Carolyn Kaster/AP
Yet another example of foot-in-mouth syndrome due to the hours of punditry on TV, followed by an apology and suspension! Yesterday, while referring to Chelsea Clinton's campaigning on behalf of her mother, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster commented, "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Yes, he totally said that. Or, as the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz writes, "Using a prostitution metaphor for the daughter of a presidential candidate is a surefire way for a journalist to get into trouble."
Earlier today, Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson spoke out against MSNBC, noting that it was "disgusting" and "beneath contempt," even suggesting to pull out of a debate on MSNBC. So, tonight Shuster apologized:
"I used a phrase that was inappropriate, and I apologize to the Clinton family, the Clinton campaign, and all of you who were justifiably offended. As I said this morning on MSNBC, all Americans should be proud of Chelsea Clinton, and I am particularly sorry that my language diminished the regard and respect she has earned from all of us and the respect her parents have earned in how they raised her."MSNBC president Steve Capus has suspended Shuster (the remarks were "irresponsible and inappropriate") and even Keith Olbermann weighed in (after noting that while Shuster is a good reporter) that the remarks were reprehensible.
Media Matters' president David Brock made a statement criticizing a "troubling pattern" of behavior from MSNBC commentators, such as Don Imus, Tucker Carlson, and Chris Matthews: "If MSNBC was genuinely trying to tackle the problem of sexism on their airwaves, this wouldn’t keep happening...The time for apologies has passed. The time for a real commitment to change is long since overdue."
We can't speak for 27-year-old Chelsea Clinton - or Jenna and Barbara Bush or Mitt Romney's five sons - but we bet most children of politicians try to support their parents' efforts however they can. Unless they're Andrew or Caroline Giuliani, that is.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Interesting that Chelsea Clinton is getting prettier while the Bush daughters are getting dowdier.
love your voice in this, jen...perfect pitch
It's a shame MSNBC took it out on Shuster, given the litany of much worse comments made by MSNBC "stars" such as Chris Matthews (see the Media Matters link above). Shuster has been a responsible journalist up until this ill-advised comment.
When MSNBC finally gets a clue and suspends Matthews, then we can start believing that they're committed to ending this kind of garbage.
Thanks MFer for raising the bar. :-)
Almost all of the MSNBC comments are in poor taste. Lester Holt's comment wasn't offensive, imo.
That comment wasn't offensive.
yeah they should execute shuster for his remark!! Give me a break!
unfortunately, now hilary clinton has something else to pimp out to promote herself.. where's the fake tears... "oh they hurt my daughter boo hoo hoo give me some latino votes please boo hoo hoo"
This is such an engineered play. Very few people actually associate the word 'pimp' with prostitution anymore (I think Craigslist has decimated the pimping industry, the pimping bubble has burst). It is used mainly to declare someone a 'shill' in 2008, at least in the US. That's the common usage at the moment. If I'm not mistaken, 'It's hard out there for a pimp' won a Grammy award, so clearly most of America can stomach hearing the word without flying off the handle.
The media pitch is that somehow it is 'wrong' to attack Chelsea Clinton, because she is a former presidents daughter? Once she started campaigning, she is fair game like everyone else in the public eye. She's a hedge fund analyst, I'm certain she can take the abuse. Watching tv reporters get up in and arms and self righteous is one my favorite forms of entertainment, it couldn't be a bigger joke. It's fine to criticize LaLohan or any other starlet, and openly call them promiscuous, but if you criticize the young Ms. Clitnon this 'somehow crosses the line'.
This is just the Clinton campaigns way of moving media attention away from her campaign, which is faltering. It's a classic bait and switch.
Remember Chelsea, pimpin' at easy. Also, your mom voted for the war.
Another case of someone way too old using a term way too young. Here's a tip for Shuster: stick with a word like "bling" a la Mitt Romney and Marty Markowitz, and not one that, despite being part of the title on a long-running MTV show, has its origin in corralling women who sell their goodies for cash.
It was the time delay between the insult and the apology that will hurt David Shuster and MSNBC, in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons similar delays have damaged other media reputations. The delay (and initial refusal to even acknowledge the mistake) clearly implied that Shuster (like Chris Matthews several weeks earlier) didn't quite "get it" until MSNBC brass explained it to him. If media personalities want to avoid escalating mistakes like this they should take an immersion program in public relations crisis management -- the advice they should follow is pretty straightforward: a proper apology, according to http://www.perfectapology.com, should always include the following:
1. a detailed account of the situation
2. acknowledgement of the hurt or damage done
3. taking responsibility for the situation
4. recognition of your role in the event
5. a statement of regret
6. asking for forgiveness
7. a promise that it won't happen again
8. a form of restitution whenever possible
Obviously perfect apologies work best when delivered to recipients who are prepared to forgive. But when the aggrieved community sees an opportunity to push the hurt a little further then no apology is likely to be good enough. And that is precisely where we are today -- we're in the midst of a political charged election environment where the primary imperative is not to be reasonable but to search for ways to generate support for your side. When media personalities like MSNBC's David Shuster or Chris Mathews (or MSNBC's Don Imus, or Golf Channel's Kelly Tilghman, etc.) screw up by insulting Chelsea or Hillary (or the Rutgers University women's basketball team, or Tiger Woods, etc.) even perfect apologies may not work, for perfectly rational political reasons.
The real error in these cases was not the initial mistake but the fact that the best, most sincere and meticulously worded apology was the last one to be issued by those who screwed up. What is so fascinating (and perplexing) about the rising number of failed public apologies over the last few years is that so few public figures (surrounded by public relations advisers) really know how to do it well, or quickly enough.
Peter F. Goolpacy
It was the time delay between the insult and the apology that will hurt David Shuster and MSNBC, in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons similar delays have damaged other media reputations. The delay (and initial refusal to even acknowledge the mistake) clearly implied that Shuster (like Chris Matthews several weeks earlier) didn't quite "get it" until MSNBC brass explained it to him. If media personalities want to avoid escalating mistakes like this they should take an immersion program in public relations crisis management -- the advice they should follow is pretty straightforward: a proper apology, according to http://www.perfectapology.com, should always include the following:
1. a detailed account of the situation
2. acknowledgement of the hurt or damage done
3. taking responsibility for the situation
4. recognition of your role in the event
5. a statement of regret
6. asking for forgiveness
7. a promise that it won't happen again
8. a form of restitution whenever possible
Obviously perfect apologies work best when delivered to recipients who are prepared to forgive. But when the aggrieved community sees an opportunity to push the hurt a little further then no apology is likely to be good enough. And that is precisely where we are today -- we're in the midst of a political charged election environment where the primary imperative is not to be reasonable but to search for ways to generate support for your side. When media personalities like MSNBC's David Shuster or Chris Mathews (or MSNBC's Don Imus, or Golf Channel's Kelly Tilghman, etc.) screw up by insulting Chelsea or Hillary (or the Rutgers University women's basketball team, or Tiger Woods, etc.) even perfect apologies may not work, for perfectly rational political reasons.
The real error in these cases was not the initial mistake but the fact that the best, most sincere and meticulously worded apology was the last one to be issued by those who screwed up. What is so fascinating (and perplexing) about the rising number of failed public apologies over the last few years is that so few public figures (surrounded by public relations advisers) really know how to do it well, or quickly enough.
Peter F. Goolpacy
It always amazes me that people who make a living talking continue to show that they don't know how to talk. Schuster seems thorough to me so I think he pimp term was planned. It's a poor choice of word.
This is similar to the constant spelling errors made on TV graphics. Fox is the worst at this.
Schuster usually is a hard-bitten reporter and commentator, so I'm not surprised he said something like that. Of course, he should not have said it in that way, if he wanted to make the point that word isn't appropriate to make the point. The Clintons always go after people who go after Chelsea. To a lesser degree, the Huffington Post got into trouble the other day by mocking the View's hosts "mocking" Chelsea calling the hosts asking them to support her mom. This was more from the View hosts, but the Clintons also made it known that they didn't like it.
Certain words, such as pimp and bling, should only be uttered by either criminals or hipsters. This should be legislated. Anyone older than Marc Jacobs should be severely penalized for using such terms.
And of course lost in all of this is the question, is Chelsea calling the Super Delegates and is that appropriate.
The Clintons have not learned that the "War Room" mentality of not letting the slightest attack go unanswered was one of the reasons people dislike them.
PHOTO FLOP
Chelsea's slow to learn
From Dad of the south
And Mom of Midwest--
Open the mouth!
Not responding to attacks = swiftboating = Bush's 2nd term.
Hillary is justified in being upset and responded to this today.
One thing she said was a mistake I believe. She said she's a mother first and a candidate second. That's a comment conservatives could try to exploit to voters who might not like McCain but aren't sold on a female president.