David Shuster Not Necessarily Done at MSNBC?
This soap opera just doesn’t seem to want to die. Now this evening, The Political Carnival has talked to David Shuster and Shuster seems to be contradicting Betsy Rothstein’s reporting on Fishbowl DC this morning…(via J$)
Thanks Laffy… you are one of the few people who actually practices the lost art of responsible journalism — by actually asking me if this was accurate or not.
I have never told anybody that I will not come back to MSNBC. As has been publicly stated by MSNBC, my contract runs out in December. At that time, I’m sure we will have an amicable discussion about my future and theirs.
Advertisement
October 29, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I’ve never been much of a fan of Mr. Shuster, but – as an MSNBC viewer – I have to admit I’m starting to miss his particular variety of bombast. He’s doing the right thing by generally staying out of the fray and waiting for “comeback time”.
He may be a bit much as a “straight reporter”, but in a world in which Megyn Kelly can hold down a dayside news block, and Keith Olbermann can be an election night anchor, it may be time for MSNBC to consider giving an appropriately chastised David Shuster another shot. He may have overplayed his hand a few times, but he’s done a lot of good work. He certainly deserves at least as much MSNBC airtime as a Cenk Uygur..
October 30, 2010 at 5:36 am
Why do I get the feeling that MSNBC is a little overloaded with skillful journalists? Are they thinking of going 24/7?
October 30, 2010 at 7:46 am
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anyone apply the term “skillful journalist” to Shuster. As to your last question, NO!
October 30, 2010 at 10:11 am
icn2, I was brought up to be polite.
October 30, 2010 at 10:42 am
After they find a place for Alan Grayson (post loss of course), I’m not sure how much other space there will be…
October 30, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Well, at least we know Fox News has already beat them to the punch by employing several Republican politicians who have either run in the past or could run in the future (i.e. Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, etc.), along with campaign fund-raising arms that exclusively appear on the network as “contributors” (i.e. Dick Morris, Karl Rove) and tell people to donate to current candidates, who happen to all be Republicans.
On the flip side, Adam Green appearing on MSNBC as a member of “Bold Progressives” is not the same thing as what Morris and Rove do, because Green is not an MSNBC “contributor”… the others at Fox ALL are. And, let’s not ignore the likes of Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Nikki Haley, and John Kasich appearing countless times on Fox and receiving easy softball interviews.
I just thought INB should be educated on what the differences between the networks guests are, since he clearly wants to push J$’s complaint of Alan Grayson (and other Liberal activists) appearing on MSNBC so much. Funny how you never see him complain about Fox news doing the same with paid contributors. Hmmm…
October 30, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Last time I checked, Gingrich, Palin, and Huckabee arent running for office this election. Alan Grayson is.
As much as dems like to bash Rove, it has less to do with his analysis and more to do with dems needing an easy target (strawman) to distract from their failure.
October 30, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Oh Prog… how you make me giggle.
Grayson (as said above) is CURRENTLY involved in a campaign, which makes his constant MSNBC airtime a little more significant, don’t you think? Tell me, why was he on MSNBC so often? Do you have a problem with it?
As for the FOX folks, all networks employ former politicians and political workers. Harold Ford is on MSNBC… Spitzer, Carville, Begala on CNN. It’s called getting experts.
Frankly, when MSNBC hires him, I wont complain (past the part where Grayson is unethical and a disgraceful politician)… it’s there call on which experts they choose to employ. I just think they should wait until after he loses his job…
October 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Alan Grayson is an entertaining guest. Anybody complaining about a cable news network wanting interesting guests on is an idiot.
October 30, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Alan Grayson is an entertaining guest. Anybody complaining about a cable news network wanting interesting guests on is an idiot.
Apparently, some Californians are celebrating passage of Proposition 19 early.
October 30, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Being interesting and entertaining is a great reason why he should get hired… later. But being a sitting Congressman is more relevant, and the amount of exposure MSNBC has given him while a Represenatative is problematic to say the least.
October 30, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Are you really going to tell me it matters if a particular politician gets a lot of airtime? Why don’t you just be honest and admit you don’t like MSNBC, don’t like Alan Grayson, and have created a “problem” to express it?
October 30, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Better than making you say “feh”… but I digress.
First of all, Grayson is not brought on MSNBC to deal with softball interviews in every instance. He gets the cheerleading on Schultz’s show… that’s a given, but the last interview I saw he had on MSNBC was with Contessa Brewer when he got grilled on his very deceptive campaign ad. I called him out on that from the very beginning. Second, if he’s brought on to get softballs thrown at him, I DO have a problem with it. That’s not the case every time… compared to the candidates who are brought on Fox, he doesn’t exactly get promoted on MSNBC.
Again, Harold Ford is not planning on running for President, and when he was running for the Senate, MSNBC rightly suspended his contract with the network once he decided if he wanted to stay in the race again Gillabrand in NY. As for Carville and Spitzer, I don’t watch CNN much, but they aren’t running campaign fund-raising groups. They go on to give their opinion. Morris and Rove not only give their biased opinion, but push for voters to fund their donors to help Republicans win. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when has James Carville ever done that?
What has he done unethical? He put out one deceptive ad (and he should be reprimanded for that), but politicians is a dirty game, and both parties are guilty of that. But, disgraceful… because he stated his opinion about the Republican Party’s tactics to stop people from receiving health care?
October 30, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I don’t think msnbc is wrong for having Grayson on a lot. What bothers me is when ANY politician on ANY network makes a plug for donations via campaign site. Cable news does not exist to raise election funds; It exists to disseminate news. Or at least it’s supposed to be.
October 30, 2010 at 7:55 pm
^ I guess I agree, Josh. I’ve always treated it as the same as an author plugging a book, but it’s becoming more rampant and annoying lately..like those NASCAR drivers that answer a question with a list of sponsors that takes up half the interview.
October 31, 2010 at 5:34 am
Grayson has learned the simple fact that if you want to appear on cable news more than once you have say things that are outrageous. That’s why you see Michele Bachmann, and other flamethrowers on the air all the time. It’s also why shows like Maddows are desperate to get Sharron Angle and other tea party candidates on air.
In the converse no one wants to hear what Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid have to say even though they speak for the party; they rarely say anything that’s not boring.
The big difference in the two parties is that there are only a few Graysons in the Democrats but the Republicans have literally dozens of Angles.
October 31, 2010 at 7:25 pm
joeremi Says:
October 30, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Are you really going to tell me it matters if a particular politician gets a lot of airtime?
Wasn’t this the argument put forth by the left-wing blogs and Republican candidates on FNC? Eh, double standard… I know.
But yes, it is a problem if a candidate running for office spends an unusual amount of time on a network. We’re not talking about a few interviews, we’re talking about (according to J$) about over 60.
Additionally, there is a question of whether or not he appeared on other networks as well. Congressmen shouldn’t be beholden to one network or another until after their days of public service are over. And that many appearances certainly do suggest some sort of “arrangement,” don’t you think?
Why don’t you just be honest and admit you don’t like MSNBC, don’t like Alan Grayson, and have created a “problem” to express it?
Because it’s not true?
I disagree with MSNBC’s editorial position, their intent on attacking FNC, promotion of unstable and dishonest people like Keith Olbermann, and their complete insistence that they’re somehow better or “different” than the rest. As for Grayson, I’ve already stated I think he’s unethical and dishonest (I’ll get it into it below). But if you believe that my distain for those certain things about MSNBC (although, I’d never say things like they were “ruining the country” or any of the same nonsense the left spews about FNC) and Grayson is the impetus behind my pointing out their connection, you are mistaken. There’s enough evidence to call their relationship into question… and just as you assume my dislike is the real reason, I suppose I could assume you’re dislike of FNC, Republicans, and subsequent like of MSNBC and the liberal-left, is the reason why you’re defending them. Would that be a fair statement?
ProgLib Says:
October 30, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Better than making you say “feh”… but I digress.
I dunno… I’m pretty sure I’m not actually laughing with you.
First of all, Grayson is not brought on MSNBC to deal with softball interviews in every instance. He gets the cheerleading on Schultz’s show… that’s a given,
And Olbermann. And at what point did softball interviews become acceptable on news networks, as long as they only happen “sometimes.” One of the reasons why I’m not a “Hannity” fan (and a lot of right-leaning folks around here aren’t) is because he IS soft on Republicans, and more about the promotion, less about the debate and information.
…but the last interview I saw he had on MSNBC was with Contessa Brewer when he got grilled on his very deceptive campaign ad. I called him out on that from the very beginning.
I’m sure you see how out of 60 something interviews, one “grilling” doesn’t really mean MSNBC is a “tough venue” or not promoting his campaign the majority of the time.
Second, if he’s brought on to get softballs thrown at him, I DO have a problem with it. That’s not the case every time…
Just most of the time.
…compared to the candidates who are brought on Fox, he doesn’t exactly get promoted on MSNBC.
Bull… on two levels. First, what candidate gets promoted on FOX? Give us some examples… show us how it’s different. And secondly, what would you call 60 something appearances? Coincidence? Didn’t (again, as J$) some of the leftwing blogs jump all over the idea that an appearance on FNC is tantamount to fundraising? How is this different?
Again, Harold Ford is not planning on running for President, and when he was running for the Senate, MSNBC rightly suspended his contract with the network once he decided if he wanted to stay in the race again Gillabrand in NY.
And this is different than FNC employees… how? Which candidate has currently announced their running for something, but is still working for them?
As for Carville and Spitzer, I don’t watch CNN much, but they aren’t running campaign fund-raising groups. They go on to give their opinion.
You really don’t think they’re providing advice and consent to various leftwing groups? Really?
You may want to read over Wiki pages again… they’re still very much active in the political community.
Morris and Rove not only give their biased opinion, but push for voters to fund their donors to help Republicans win.
Um, isn’t that what all pundits do? Argue their point of view, hope to influence the audience and push donors to their side? How is that different from anything else? That’s just common sense.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when has James Carville ever done that?
Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign
What has he done unethical? He put out one deceptive ad (and he should be reprimanded for that), but politicians is a dirty game, and both parties are guilty of that.
Correction… he put out an ad (doesn’t matter if it was one or a hundred) that was more than misleading or deceptive… it was a straight up lie. He SHOULD be reprimanded… but wasn’t, and Joe Biden was just down there campaigning for him.
Politics is dirty… but it’s not supposed to be THIS dirty. And even so, saying “everybody does it,” isn’t much of an excuse, is it?
But, disgraceful… because he stated his opinion about the Republican Party’s tactics to stop people from receiving health care?
He’s disgraceful because he lies, because he distorts, and has no problem sliming and fabricating information about people on the other side of the aisle. His rhetoric isn’t simply “I disagree,” it’s “they’re terrible and evil.” He’s one of the folks on the left that Jon Stewart was talking about. He’ll say and do anything to advance his own political ideology… and do so in a way which violates basic human decency, let alone political ethics. He is a political bigot… and while that may make for interesting entertainment, we should demand better of our elected officials.
fritz3 Says:
October 31, 2010 at 5:34 am
Grayson has learned the simple fact that if you want to appear on cable news more than once you have say things that are outrageous. That’s why you see Michele Bachmann, and other flamethrowers on the air all the time.
How often do you see Bachmann on the air? The majority of the people who talk about her are on the left.
The big difference in the two parties is that there are only a few Graysons in the Democrats but the Republicans have literally dozens of Angles.
Uh-huh… liiiiiike? Please let me know who in Congress, on the right, is on par with Grayson. Heck, I don’t even think there are many other Democrats in Congress on par with him!
October 31, 2010 at 7:38 pm
^ Where’s Uncleararthur when you need him..?
October 31, 2010 at 7:43 pm
And of course, the other issue in the MSNBC/Grayson business is MSNBC giving him permission to use MSNBC footage of their people–Schultz and Olbermann–in his campaign ads. The clip from Schultz sounds very much like an endorsement of Grayson.
I don’t care if Schultz wants to endorse him (he’s an opinion host, except apparently on election night when he takes off his clown nose and puts on a reporter nose). But it is extraordinary that MSNBC lets Grayson use this footage to raise money and campaign.
And don’t get me started on Schultz doing an entire program today live from a Democratic campaign rally, two days before an election.
October 31, 2010 at 7:45 pm
joeremi Says:
October 31, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I don’t understand your reference.
October 31, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I don’t understand your reference.
You and Arthur used to get into battles of long multi-part comments.
October 31, 2010 at 7:50 pm
^ HA!
October 31, 2010 at 7:55 pm
joeremi Says:
October 31, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Eh… it’s just my ‘style.’
Maybe I should spend more time typing on my phone… then I’d have to type slower, and be able to say less.
October 31, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Blue, I’m just bustin’ your chops..I wasn’t trying to shut you up. Yak away mate, I got nothin’.
October 31, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Blue makes some excellent points. Don’t agree with all, but, I greatly appreciate the fact that he at least provides some depth to his thinking and he is willing to throw his “arrows” both ways. Conclusion: I like reading his posts, so, thank you and continue.
October 31, 2010 at 8:34 pm
joeremi Says:
October 31, 2010 at 8:02 pm
I know Joe… I was playing along. I type a lot because I’ve been typing since I was a wee tyke. And when you can type quickly, it’s a lot easier to talk and talk and talk and talk and talk. When I only type with my thumbs, I limit my words because it takes more time.
Anyway… you wouldn’t be the first to try to shut me up… but you’d have just as much success!