Here's the telecast of Schuster and his non-apology apology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxgw04Y0Fc
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:30:52 -0500
>From: "Gorelick, Steve" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Suspension of MSNBC Correspondent David Shuster
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
> 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.
|