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. >