I forget -- do we love David Shuster for hammering the pugs or hate him for selling out this week?

[Bucky]

I haven't seen any threads recently either praising him or railing against him and I don't recall where we left off with him. At last point, was he 100% hero or 100% villain.

--Thanks :)

[rpannier]

1. Short answer

Yes

Long answer

Yes to both

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. It's really hard to keep track of who's in and who's out on any given day,

let alone who should be thrown under the bus, who has been thrown under the bus, who has crawled out from under the bus after having been thrown thereunder, and who's driving the bus.

[rcrush]

3. It depends on the script he gets that day.

Some days they need him to be the hero and sometimes he needs to be the douche. Standard operating procedure for everyone on cable news.

[Bucky]

7. "they"

interesting

[rcrush]

9. Yeah

THEY are everywhere. And they will eat your babies.

[librechik]

4. admire his style, don't trust him as a liberal

he isn't. Period.

[Bucky]

6. Hmm, I'm just the opposite: I trust him as a journalist, but find his lockjaw style annoying

Not that I'm any better on camera

[librechik]

8. he's a decent journalist

better than, say John Major or Chuck Todd. Just not someone you can count on to bash conservatives, as in OP. He used to work for Fox. He can bash libs too, depending, (as someone else in the thread has said, the script)

[TahitiNut]

5. Far too many on DU seem to think this place is an audition for a Kangaroo Court.

:shrug:

[UTUSN]

10. O.K., here's the full monty on him

1) He's been fine, even-handed for several years.

2) Before that (I never saw him) he was a Faux "news" employee.

3) However, during the KKKarl "indictment" non-happening, he was on the air (with Keith) every night, claiming that his "sources" were telling him that an indictment was IMMINENT.

* It didn't happen. We here on DU went on for a couple of weeks, fed by some "Jason" dude, and there was a flap here about, was it "working days" or "calendar days."

* SO, when it didn't happen, Senor SHUSTER "revealed" his sources: They were ATTORNEYS WHO HAD HAD CLIENTS IN FRONT OF (OTHER) GRAND JURIES BEFORE, iow, PUNDITS ---------NOT anybody with FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE from sources IN the Grand Jury OR from the FITZGERALD office. They were PUNDITS.

* I complained to Keith at that time and, of course, never got a response.


* However, in all the years since, he has been totally fair.