www.slate.com has two headline articles about this, one linguistic, one
stretegic.
-moishe

On Feb 9, 2008 2:30 PM, Gorelick, Steve <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Students on the HC-J list:
>
>
>
> Some of you may or may not be aware that MSNBC anchor David Shuster said  on
> the air on Thursday that Hillary Clinton had "pimped out" her 27-year-old
> daughter by having her call Democratic superdelegates on behalf of her
> mother.  Shuster, who apologized on the air for his comment, has been
> suspended.
>
>
>
> I thought some of you might like to see the email exchange between MSNBC
> correspondent Shuster and Hilary Clinton's press secretary that immediately
> followed the "pimping" comment.  And I'd love to know what you think.
>
>
>
> I don't, though, want to seem completely neutral: I love rough, honest
> political reporting that cuts through the spin and calculation, but I
> confess to being old-fashioned enough to feel that no serious print or
> broadcast reporter should ever use language like this.
>
>
>
> But this email exchange is very revealing of the ongoing struggle between
> campaign staff and the press that is quite routine during a national
> campaign.
>
>
>
> Steve Gorelick
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Reines
> To: David Shuster
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.
>
> David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to
> contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going
> on air and saying that she is being "pimped out" ? It's absurdly offensive.
> And what the hell does that even mean?
>
> I just don't get MSNBC - does GE not allow you to make toll calls? What's
> the problem.
>
> Philippe Reines
> Press Secretary
> Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Shuster
> To: Philippe Reines
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 8:51 p.m.
>
> Nice to hear from you, philippe.
>
> It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your
> campaign colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign
> has reacted quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea.
> That was the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea
> while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to
> convince super delegates to support her mom, that's the reference.
>
> Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying "I don't want to talk.".
> But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks
> to talk to chelsea...that's an issue.
>
> --------------------------
> Sent using BlackBerry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Reines
> To: David Shuster
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:00 p.m.
>
> Since you guys asked for the transcript - here specifically is what David
> said on air:
>
> SHUSTER: "But doesn't it seem like she's being--but doesn't it seem as if
> Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
>
> I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable language was never
> used on MSNBC's air about Karenna Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex
> Kerry, Kate Edwards, the Romney sons - or any other adult offspring who
> chose to campaign on behalf of a parent.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Reines
> To: David Shuster
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:16: p.m.
>
> David - I want to make sure I'm crystal clear here - you're saying that
> because she doesn't grant interviews and makes calls on behalf of her
> mother, you are right to say that she is being pimped out?
>
> I don't need to read a the whole transcript for context, you were way out
> of line. Nobody's jumping down your throat about asking for an interview or
> talking about calls she made. And you know it.
>
> There is simply no excuse for being so offensive.
>
> By actually rationalizing your behavior rather than accepting
> responsibility and apologizing, you become the poster child for everything
> wrong with tv journalism, and it's a shame your NBC colleagues have to be
> associated with this (expletive).
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Shuster
> To: Philippe Reines
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:29 p.m.
>
> No. That's not what I'm saying. And if you bothered to look at the
> transcript and saw all of the glowing things I said about chelsea and the
> way she was raised, you would know that.
>
> The issue is not her making calls. As + said on the air, I have no
> problems with that what so ever. The issue is not her refusing interviews.
> The issue is that the campaign has come down hard on reporters who merely
> sought to ask chelsea questions. You can't have it both ways. Reporters have
> long respected the clintons desire that we avoid chelsea and let her have
> her space. But to get angry at reporters seeking to talk to her now is
> patently unfair. And you know that.
>
> --------------------------
> Sent using BlackBerry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Reines
> To: David Shuster
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:49 p.m.
>
> I think we've each said what we have to say on this matter. Based on this
> email exchange, we're assuming two things:
>
> 1) You are not disputing that you said on air: "But doesn't it seem like
> she's being--but doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out
> in some weird sort of way?"
>
> 2) You have no intention of apologizing for the above.
>