Posted on 02/08/2008 4:46:22 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
As Mark Finkelstein reported on Newsbusters on the 7th, MSNBC's David Shuster made a rather interesting comment about Chelsea Clinton as he was hosting "Tucker" that evening. Shuster asked if Hillary Clinton's use of her daughter on the campaign trail seemed "like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Well, NBC has now announced that they've suspended Shuster over the comment.... so much for free political speech.
In a press release, NBC says the following:
On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.
Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns accepted invitations from us on Thursday evening to participate in a February 26th debate. Our conversations with the Clinton campaign about their participation continue today, and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned.
Of course, Shuster's comment seems quite mild compared to say Randi Rhodes' radio skit that said that Romney supporters would go on mass murder sprees, or that conservatives will "kill" Hillary as Chris Matthews said on the 8th... or just about anything that the women on the View say at any given time. Not to mention the horrible things that liberal TV hosts have said about Rush Limbaugh or any conservative figure.
So, where are all the suspensions of liberal TV hosts who attack conservative candidates or personalities? Can you name one?
And, it is also interesting that Hillary has gotten into such a faux outrage over this particular comment. No one hearing that comment would imbue it with a sexual meaning. Shuster's comment is completely understood to mean that he thought the Clinton campaign was using her daughter in a cheap way, but no one imagines it to have a sexual connotation at all. In fact, there isn't even any real way to misconstrue the comment into a sexual innuendo on Shuster's part. It just isn't too hard to "get" his point at all.
Is Hillary that thin skinned?
Worse, why did the TV giant bend over so easily and suspend Shuster for this little comment when they let so many vile slams on conservatives go by without so much as a raised eyebrow?
In fact, MSNBC makes their biggest name caller a center of attention, don't they? After all, not long ago the Cable station said that Keith Olbermann formed a focal point for their new "leftward tilt."
So, suspend someone who says a somewhat off color comment about a leftie, but encourage and reward those who viscously attack conservatives.
That's the MSM for ya!
“You plankton!...”...I’m sorry..
I’m still LOL ROFLMAO
Where are you? South Pacific?
Gulf of Mexico? An aquarium in Kansas City?
Chelsea plastic surgery rumors are abound.
Before & after pics
http://cosmetic-makeovers.com/2007/10/31/plastic-surgery-for-chelsea-clinton
I don't know how Olberman gets away with his hate speech every night. They love him so much at MSNBC that he usually gets to anchor election coverage for hours.
All the vile words they have called our President in the past 8 years and that is OK.
Actually, the Founders only considered political speech to be covered by the “freedom of speech” phraseology. The Founders never meant to cover just any speech at all. In fact, every single colony had speech codes and it has only been in the 20th century that “freedom of speech” was enlarged to cover all speech.
Originally, the Founders wanted to cover political speech so that we would have a free and open democracy that is controlled by the people and one where the government could not clamp down on the open expression of new political parties, groups, and advocates.
And, the Constitution was already ratified by the states way before the Amendments (including the Bill of Rights) was instituted. Many states said they ratified contingent upon the Bill of Rights being added later. But, it was still ratified, nonetheless. So, conceivably, we could have had the Constitution without the Bill of Rights ever coming about. After all, it was already done.
Agree completely. Besides that, this was also a shot across the media's bow to remind the MSM who's boss. There's a chance it might ultimately backfire if the journos begin to resent chafing on her leash, but for now she has them cowed.
Originally, the Founders wanted to cover political speech so that we would have a free and open democracy that is controlled by the people and one where the government could not clamp down on the open expression of new political parties, groups, and advocates.
And, the Constitution was already ratified by the states way before the Amendments (including the Bill of Rights) was instituted. Many states said they ratified contingent upon the Bill of Rights being added later. But, it was still ratified, nonetheless. So, conceivably, we could have had the Constitution without the Bill of Rights ever coming about. After all, it was already done.
Thanks, MV.
No Problem
So is Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers.
And let’s not forget that Vince Foster was someone’s son.
I hope everyone digested what you posted.
Leni
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.