Ed Schultz Suspended by MSNBC for calling Laura Ingraham a “Slut” on Radio Show
Politico’s Keach Hagey writes about Ed Schultz getting suspended by MSNBC for comments he made on his radio show yesterday…
MSNBC has suspended Ed Schultz for one week without pay for calling Laura Ingraham a ‘right-wing slut’ on his radio program Tuesday.
“Remarks of this nature are unacceptable and will not be tolerated,” MSNBC said in a statement Wednesday evening.
Schultz will address the remarks on his television show Wednesday night, and begin his leave immediately afterward, MSNBC said.
“MSNBC management met with Ed Schultz this afternoon and accepted his offer to take one week of unpaid leave for the remarks he made yesterday on his radio program,” MSNBC said.
How many more Ed Schultz gaffes is MSNBC going to allow before it finally realizes what some of us have known for some time; there are bomb throwers and then there are bomb throwers. The former deliberately stirs the pot by saying provocative things but you can tell they’re in control of their environment. The latter deliberately stirs the pot and by saying provocative things but you can tell something’s not quite right and eventually they’re going to self-destruct in a blaze of glory. Ed Schultz falls into the latter category. He’s lucky this happened on his radio show. Had this incident happened on MSNBC’s air I think the punishment would have been even more severe, especially given his newsroom meltdown last year.
Update: There’s a three day weekend that occurs during this one week suspension so instead of missing five days on the air apparently Schultz will only be missing four.
Update 2: I forgot that Ed’s show doesn’t air on Fridays. So his one week suspension consists of only three days off the air. Three days doesn’t sound as impressive as “one week”.
Update 3: On his show tonight, Schultz termed the suspension “indefinite”. Was Schultz embellishing or has it really changed from one week (three air days) to indefinite? We shall see…
May 25, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I’m guessing we can all agree on this one. Is there a delay on his TV-show?
May 25, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Can’t wait till he torches the place. It’ll be epic
May 25, 2011 at 4:53 pm
The funny thing is more people will hear about what he said then actuality hear or watch Fat Ed on radio or MSNBC…..but really if MSNBC were really going to punish him it should be more than a week as it is this is just a phony punishment to save face.
May 25, 2011 at 5:03 pm
The Comcast era at MSNBC is showing promise.
May 25, 2011 at 5:12 pm
I’m guessing we can all agree on this one.
Good guess.
May 25, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Good job on MSNBC to suspend Schultz. It’s well deserved and his comments were completely inappropriate. He is a very bomb throwing commentator, but let’s keep in mind that he was on radio, not his show, where that word is extremely prohibited.
Some may argue that MSNBC shouldn’t have suspended him since what happened wasn’t on MSNBC, but he does work for the network, and deserves the same standards.
The funny thing is, Glenn Beck makes outrageous, many times abominable, comments on his radio show all the time, but doesn’t get in trouble for it by Fox News management. So, he has the luxury of getting away with what happens there as much as he wants. MSNBC is actually responsible in condemning its personalities for what happens inside and outside the network.
May 25, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Fox never suspends anybody for anything. I doubt they understand the word.
May 25, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Glenn Beck makes outrageous, many times abominable, comments on his radio show all the time
I see your post is littered with examples. Nice work!
May 25, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Beck hasn’t said anything as bad as that…but lets get real this isn’t a real punishment and we all know it.
May 25, 2011 at 5:33 pm
I watch very little Schultz so my interest is in seeing who subs for him while he’s away.
I sympathize with his POV most nights but it’s hard to take that talk radio anger in Prime Time.
His ratings are still good so I expect to see him stick around for awhile yet.
May 25, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Ed Schultz wouldn’t be in trouble if he chose a different (less offensive) word. He’s not in trouble for being a bomb thrower (I have a feeling MSNBC doesn’t mind that much, at least not the pre-Comcast MSNBC), but by throwing a bomb that contained a particularly misogynistic word.
If Beck called Stephanie Miller a $lut, he’s be suspended too. As long as the bombs don’t contain a bad word, he can get away with it. That’s just the way it is.
May 25, 2011 at 5:39 pm
You’re right, Josh, and it’s a shame, ’cause claiming the first black President is “a racist” and “has a problem with white people” was unbelievably vile, and Beck skated completely. After saying it on FNC.
You can say anything you want – including that Meghan McCain’s body makes you want to vomit – as long as you withhold a few choice words. Great.
May 25, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I agree that it wasn’t a nice thing to say and that it rightly makes Mr. Schultz a fair target for criticism, but it’s hardly worth a suspension of any length. If people like that stuff they’ll watch and if they don’t they won’t, at which time MSNBC can cancel his show if they see fit.
May 25, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I don’t see Ed apologizing, then doing a whole show. I think his suspension starts at 10:05, making it 4 days.
May 25, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Both CNN and MSNBC have allowed their anchors and guests to use the word “teabagger” and to state that Tea Party members and/or Republicans are racist.
May 25, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Calling some idiot a race-baiting douchebag is one thing, JR. Calling the President of the United States a racist is quite another. Beck should have been reprimanded for it.
May 25, 2011 at 7:04 pm
That’s how it’s done, people.
May 25, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Wasn’t KO’s suspension similarly shorter than advertised?
May 25, 2011 at 7:06 pm
And now we get Thomas Roberts. Great.
May 25, 2011 at 7:08 pm
I thought that was a very sincere apology. A lot longer and classier than I would have expected. Don’t expect something sincere like that to come from Beck or O’Reilly when they make their arrogant mistakes.
May 25, 2011 at 7:09 pm
-KO-
Yes, ’cause he wasn’t genuinely sorry about a damn thing, and threw a fit. It’s hard to tell what constitutes “a week” here.
May 25, 2011 at 7:09 pm
” Calling the President of the United States a racist is quite another.”
Are you saying that nobody on MSNBC ever called the sitting President a racist?
May 25, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I thought that was a very sincere apology.
That’ll really piss Olbermann off.
May 25, 2011 at 7:10 pm
“Calling some idiot a race-baiting douchebag is one thing, JR. Calling the President of the United States a racist is quite another.”
You mean calling a black POTUS is quite another. There was no shortage of people on CNN & MSNBC calling Bush a racist. But, that’s okay because he’s white. Remember, we have to treat people different depending on what color their skin happens to be. Or, so I’m told by the judge people by the color of their skin Left.
May 25, 2011 at 7:11 pm
I have no doubt that various guests called Bush a racist. I have EVERY doubt that any host ever did. Prove me wrong, or zip it.
May 25, 2011 at 7:12 pm
“Don’t expect something sincere like that to come from Beck or O’Reilly when they make their arrogant mistakes.”
http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/02/25/glenn-beck-apologizes/
May 25, 2011 at 7:19 pm
You mean calling a black POTUS is quite another. There was no shortage of people on CNN & MSNBC calling Bush a racist. But, that’s okay because he’s white. Remember, we have to treat people different depending on what color their skin happens to be. Or, so I’m told by the judge people by the color of their skin Left.
You, in particular, take every opportunity to dismiss any example of racism from your side, while turning it back on “the left” as if it’s all OUR fault. I’m sick of your apologist sh/t.
May 25, 2011 at 7:28 pm
“This President I think has exposed himself a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture, I don’t know what it is.”
To Hillary Clinton: “She is like the stereotypical — excuse the expression, but this is the way to — she’s the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?”
To Mary Landrieu: “We know you’re hookin’, but you’re just not cheap.”
Is that littered enough for you, farris?
May 25, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Hey Johnny, wasn’t that after a while of being condemned by the ADL and several other Jewish organizations? Compared to Beck, who had to be told how bad his comments were (as if he’s a 5-year old who doesn’t know any better), it took Schultz about a day and a half after a couple of blogs brought it up.
Thanks for the one example, though.
)
May 25, 2011 at 7:37 pm
I’m not surprised that a Fox hater would try to move the goal posts after having been proved wrong. But I consider it a compliment that you found such a tactic necessary.
May 25, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Didn’t Beck do that the next day, you know, kinda like Schultz did? A simple ”I was wrong” would suffice. I won’t hold my breath.
May 25, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Beck is about 20 “I was wrongs” behind at the moment. He still defends “racist” as “the wrong word, but I was trying to make a larger point”. That’s not an apology. That’s Ed saying, “Sl*t was the wrong word, but she’s…” I don’t think that would have gone over well.
May 25, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Move the goal posts? Is that what you kids are calling it these days? The last time I checked it was called the facts. I know you don’t introduce yourself to them very much. Good luck with that.
May 25, 2011 at 7:57 pm
– Don’t expect something sincere like that to come from Beck or O’Reilly when they make their arrogant mistakes. –
J$ gave you one. You were wrong. Next time, try some modifiers and qualifiers, don’t try to add them after the fact.
May 25, 2011 at 9:45 pm
“You, in particular, take every opportunity to dismiss any example of racism from your side, ”
If calling someone a “racist” is racist itself, then you’re entire party should don white pointy hats.
You can be sick of whatever you like but it’s you who holds people to different standards depending on the color of their skin. Somehow it’s okay to lob race bombs on a daily basis (without merit) about a sitting white POTUS, but if one guy does it about a sitting black POTUS, it’s suddenly “vile”. Puhhleeze.
May 25, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Uh huh. Just keep deflecting, son. I have no idea what “race bombs” against a white POTUS you are talking about, and you have no evidence that I tolerated them.
May 25, 2011 at 10:02 pm
For the record, Sparky, I was never a big fan of the “Bush doesn’t like black people” club. That was fringey idiocy. I was too busy with “incompetent, stupid, a little vague on where the War On Terror was centered”, but thanks for playing.
May 25, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Yeah, yeah, yeah. One guy calling Obama “racist” after the Gates controversy which came after a few other questionable comments directed towards white people by Obama is just awful. But, continually calling the other side, whether they be the POTUS or the average voter, “racist”, is just dern skippy. Got it.
You can’t get mad at one guy for one comment when your entire party does the same thing to others, daily…mostly without merit. It’s just a tad bit ironic to hear the left get bent out of shape over a person from the right calling somebody racist. It’s the definition of hypocrisy.
May 25, 2011 at 10:14 pm
^The point is Schultz said something wrong, he apologized and MSNBC suspended him for it. That’s all, these comparisons to Beck and others is an attempt to say “yea he screwed up, but look at this OTHER guy and what he did that one time where we criticized him as well”.
I’m tired of these attempts to rationalize situations like this. Beck or anybody else doing something wrong does not automatically make what Schultz did right. Beck has screwed up before, Schultz screwed up now. End of story.
May 25, 2011 at 10:22 pm
You can’t get mad at one guy for one comment when your entire party does the same thing to others
And I can’t keep debating someone who continuously travels back and forth between talking to me, and “the left”. You use the two interchangeably in a conversation, which tells me you’re not really conversing, you’re just using me as an excuse to make your little speeches.
These empty boxes are quite capable of holding stand-alone comments. Make your speech and be done with it, because you’re clearly not talking to ME.
May 25, 2011 at 10:36 pm
jackyboy Says:
May 25, 2011 at 10:14 pm
________________________
You’re right, I shouldn’t have got sucked into it. It’s what the left does. Something happens and they start firing from their racial super soakers.
–Schultz–
Ehh. Whatever. I doubt Ingraham gives a rat’s a$$. She’s a big girl, she can take it. It’d be different if it came from someone else, particularly someone not employed as a primetime host on MSNBC. This is who Schultz is. He’s the typical, angry name caller. Is anyone really surprised? I didn’t watch his apology but I read that it was “heartfelt”. Yeah, I bet. I’d be heartfelt too if I thought my job was in jeopardy. It’s what he traffics in. It’s unsurprising. The only surprising aspect that I’ve seen is that apparently one of the womens’ right’s groups got upset about it.
May 25, 2011 at 10:40 pm
I don’t think Ed meant to say what he said on a personal level. On a political context what he said was right on.
May 25, 2011 at 10:43 pm
“I don’t think Ed meant to say what he said on a personal level. ”
Of course he didn’t. He never makes personal attacks.
May 25, 2011 at 11:01 pm
No no no, we’re not going there. “He meant to say she’s a wh*re for the right” doesn’t change the insult. He called the woman a sl*t, it was wrong, he gave a straight up apology, the end.
May 26, 2011 at 1:39 am
d4rkn1ght Says:
May 25, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Personally, politically it doesn’t matter. It was low and wrong. If he meant it politically whatever to drone or shill or cheerleader? Sl*t was uncalled for in any context of the term and he was rightfully punished.
May 26, 2011 at 5:40 am
I never watch Schulz, but flipped to his show after the tribute to Haines; and, saw ES’s apology and he was so contrite, sincerely so IMHO. and good, too. The long arm of the pressure since it was apparently on his radio show where the remark was made.
May 26, 2011 at 9:33 am
My prediction…Ed’s contract will not be renewed by the new parent owners of NBCU when his contract expires.
Comcast does not like “bomb throwers”.
May 26, 2011 at 9:35 am
Laura Ingrham is a downright mean and hateful person. She and Faux News get away with anything they want to say. Hey, if Miss Ingrham did this, Fox would have awarded her with a salary raise!
For years we have been hearing her hate rhetoric and at last she was called out. Am sorry, Ed Schultz ws the one, but he will be back. I for one say she deserved this call.
May 26, 2011 at 9:37 am
Perhaps with Ed Schultz’s apology, Fox News will come to attention. Their hate bombs are slowly fading from the MSM so I have read. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh’s; ratings have fallen in recent months.
It is time to end ALL hateful rhetoric in the MSM!
May 26, 2011 at 9:43 am
This is a laugh.
Miss Laura once had her show on MSNBC.
No wonder she is like she is….in her early days she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
May 26, 2011 at 9:48 am
See, Joe, there’s the liberal cliche that you’re fighting. Good luck with it.
May 26, 2011 at 9:52 am
^
May 26, 2011 at 9:54 am
Ingraham totally disappeared from the AM radio dial in my city. I used to listen to her show until it became more effort to find a station that carried her in this week or the next.
The other disappearing act is Dr. Laura Schlessinger (sic) (who’s a Dr. in physiology, I believe). Is the conservative woman radio commentator getting picked off?
May 26, 2011 at 10:08 am
Bonnie…with all due respect, what point are you trying to prove? Please provide “specific” evidence that Laura Ingraham is a “mean & hateful” person. Saying something doesn’t make it true.
Also, please stop deflecting away from the topic. Ed Schultz has a history of verbal bomb throwing. Any attempt to rationalize Ed’s comments by making statements about her/Fox News makes your argument weak & insignificant.
What difference does it make that LI clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? The only conclusion I can draw is that she’s a very astute constitutional lawyer.
Yes, many television commentators had shows on MSNBC. Perhaps, it’s the terrible management @ the network that caused her to not be on the air anymore???
Bill Press & Phil Donahue both had shows on MSNBC. Should I equate them to be failures because they’re no longer on the air?
May 26, 2011 at 10:16 am
I don’t really care about anything that some of the folks above had to say but I must say that I’m dumbfounded as to what this statement means:
“No wonder she is like she is….in her early days she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.”
On a similar note, no wonder Ed is like he is, in his early days he had a paper route.
May 26, 2011 at 10:16 am
See, Joe, there’s the liberal cliche that you’re fighting. Good luck with it.
With friends like these..
May 26, 2011 at 10:50 am
Bonnie, don’t let that mean Joe intimidate you.
Say whatever you want.
By the way, have you met Harry?
May 26, 2011 at 11:06 am
YOU KIDS GET OFF O’ MY LAWN!
May 26, 2011 at 11:54 am
I think Bonnie is right on the money. Laura Ingraham is just a hateful person that had it coming.
May 26, 2011 at 11:56 am
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/laura-ingraham-responds-to-ed-schultzs-apology/
That’s what I thought. She doesn’t give a sh!t. Neither do I.
May 26, 2011 at 12:26 pm
d4rkn1ght Says:
May 26, 2011 at 11:54 am
Really? Is that supposed to be a joke?
May 26, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Trolls, Jacky. Ignore them.
May 26, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Don’t feed the trolls. Just spin them and watch their hair go crazy.
May 26, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Can we get some coherent libs in here, please? The Crazy Liberal Woman Haters Club ain’t cuttin’ it.
May 26, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Can we get some coherent libs in here, please?
They sure seem like good representatives of liberalism to me.
Hey, if I have to be linked with the birthers and the “Obama’s a Marxist” crowd, you can be grouped with these fine folks.
Fun, ain’t it?
And don’t get me started on global warming. Oy vey, it’s all a conspiracy according to my conservative allies.
One. Big. Conspiracy.
Yeah.
May 26, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Global warming is a sl*t. All fixed.
May 26, 2011 at 2:20 pm
^ Liberal idiot always looking for an easy fix.
May 26, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Looking for an easy fix is smart.
May 26, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Don’t know for sure about that, but it was certainly a smart response.
May 26, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Item: CNN’s Randi Kaye, while interviewing media critic Howard Kurtz, made the following observation:
“Yeah, but you know when you hear the word ‘sl**’ – I mean I hate to even say it on our air, to be honest with you – but there are mixed interpretations about the word.”
What is she Mrs. Noam Chomsky? Mixed interpretations?
So she thinks it’s possible Schultz meant it as a compliment?
Seriously, where is she going with this? To his credit Kurtiz waved over the idea and pointed out that Schultz knew what he was saying with the use of the word.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz1NV4eh1CM
May 26, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Randi is referring to “sl*t walk”, which, as Howie knew, has nothing to do with Ed’s slur.
May 26, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Here’s her quote again. Nowhere does she mention “walk.”
“Yeah, but you know when you hear the word ‘sl**’ – I mean I hate to even say it on our air, to be honest with you – but there are mixed interpretations about the word.”
Not “sl** walk” but sl**. I can understand a possible different interpretation of “sl** walk” but she said “sl**.”
“Mixed interpretations about the word” not the phrase.
You’ve been hanging around the liberal trolls here too much.
May 26, 2011 at 5:06 pm
You’re not paying attention to the news enough. “Sl*t walk” has gotten plenty of coverage on cable, and refers to a group of women attempting to “reclaim the term”, a concept Kirsten Powers has been attacking relentlessly on Twitter.
Cable newsers would be very familiar with the concept that someone is trying to make the term a positive, and Randi went off on a tangent with it.
May 26, 2011 at 5:11 pm
I already said Howie was right to brush it off, and I agree with Kirsten that it’s ridiculous. I can think of only one instance in which the term has any positive value, and that’s an “adults only” conversation, my friend. Ed was a jerk to call Ingraham that name, and Randi was an idiot to put her spin on it.
May 26, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I’m aware of the “sl** walk” matter and the attempt by some women to “turn” the phrase but she wasn’t referring to that issue in the exchange with Kurtz. They were discussing Schultz’s characterization of Ingraham as a “sl**”.
Please read the transcript and the exchange. Nowhere were they discussing the “sl** walk” issue.
May 26, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Geez, dude, you’re more autistic than I am. If you can’t see the correlation between a group “redefining” a word, and a journalist mentioning that the word may mean different things to different people, I don’t know what to tell you. It was a stupid reach on Randi’s part, but it’s what she was grabbing at. Or maybe she’s just a kinky girl. Pick one. Sheesh.
May 26, 2011 at 5:43 pm
joremi said a funny:
It was a stupid reach on Randi’s part, but it’s what she was grabbing at. Or maybe she’s just a kinky girl.
(Envisioning Randi Kaye as a kinky girl)…she’ll never seem the same reporter now.
May 26, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Wow. Hannity and Bozell praised Ed Schultz’s apology. I’d say more, but I’m bored already.
May 26, 2011 at 6:54 pm
He obviously flew off the handle; it wasn’t a premeditated diatribe against Ingraham. I used to listen to his radio show before he was on TV. He was a very up/down kind of guy. A super-hyped-angry day was usually followed by a calm, slow speaking voice the next, often lamenting that he “lost it a little bit” the day before (although he never did anything as bad as this).
I’m not at all surprised at his honest contrition, and I appreciate that most on the right accept it as such. He was wrong, he apologized. Profusely. He’s a good man.
August 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Cowardly Pricks! MSNBC my ass! Why don’t you just sell out to Murdock, your low-life hypocrites!