Reply #27: I disagree. [View All]

[H2O Man]

I don't think I have anything to "defend." A quick review:

(1) What David Shuster said about Chelsea Clinton was wrong.
(2) It is good for the public to respond.
(3) I can understand the Clintons, as parents, reacting.
(4) I am very uncomfortable with the note from Senator Clinton to MSNBC which stated that David's statement was part of a larger pattern, and that his being suspended was not enough.

There were two types of negative responses to my thread, and two types of positive responses. I'll limit my focus here to the negative comments that I thought raised important points that I had not considered fully when I wrote my essay:

(1) MSNBC does have an undeniable history, including their coverage of this primary, of seriously offensive sexist remarks. I had separated David's remark from the larger pool, because I do not think he is a sexist pig, even though his comment was terrible. Yet it is possible that he felt comfortable saying what he did, because of the general atmosphere at MSNBC.
(2) Not only does any parent have the right to respond, but all parents have an obligation to respond.
(3) The corporate media will not only attack Senator Clinton, but will use issues which get emotional reactions to cause divides in the democratic base, as they have done in 2000 and 2004. The media of today is not simply "journalists," but corporate interests who do not want any democrat in the White House.

Not surprisingly, the Shuster issue divides people on DU along the lines of the pro-Clinton versus the pro-Obama lines. I am an Obama supporter. I am in no way supporting Shuster's comment, and still have very real concerns about the Clinton camps's response to it. But I can appreciate that it isn't a situation with an easy answer. I do not think that the quality of the media coverage would be improved by firing David Shuster as an individual, and I do not think that either Fox or CNN provide as good of coverage as MSNBC.