home

TPM: NBC Sexism Not The Important Part Of The Story

By Big Tent Democrat

Memo to our friend Josh - put away the shovel and stop digging your hole deeper. His latest explanation is perhaps the most damning of himself. He writes:

Some readers seem to believe that Clinton is saying that it's not about suspensions or apologies. It's about MSNBC's need to reevaluate its pattern of behavior.

. . . I give the Clinton campaign the respect of knowing that they're no slouches with the written word. And the words in this letter were clearly chosen with great care. The point of that passage was that merely suspending Shuster was insufficient -- that he needs to be fired. That's what they meant. And I have little doubt that Shuster and the MSNBC execs understood the meaning the moment they read it. I think it would be wrong to shy away from making that clear.

(Emphasis supplied.) It is damning of Josh that he can not imagine that the point of the letter was this:

I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.

(Emphasis supplied.) I agree with Josh that NBC might not see that that is the point - NBC's pattern of sexism is manifest and people oblivious to and accepting of sexism do not easily change their stripes. It is sad to see that Josh in this episode is one of those people too.

More . . .

Josh's journalistic standards here are also egregious. In what journalistic world is it accurate to write HIS interpretation of the letter as the words and desires of Hillary Clinton? What a REAL journalist would do is pick up the phone and ask the Clinton campaign if that is what they meant. Josh apparently refuses to do that. That is NOT journalism.

What is amazing is that TPM runs a link to Jake Tapper actually speaking to the Clinton campaign in which they make it PERFECTLY clear that Josh's interpretation is wrong:

After some conversations with folks at the Clinton campaign, I can offer some clarity -- maybe -- on what they're asking NBC/MSNBC to do.

And despite Clinton's letter, saying David Martin Shuster's apology and suspension was not sufficient, Clinton's goal is not for NBC to fire Shuster, he and his fans will be happy to hear. Until Thursday, the Clinton campaign had no issues with Shuster, I'm told.

The campaign says it has more to do with what it sees as a sexist, locker room, on-air atmosphere at MSNBC.

. . . Of course, others might think she is capitalizing on an ugly moment to galvanize female voters.

Even the awful Jake Tapper concedes that Clinton NEVER wanted Shuster fired. His uncharitable alternative, offered as a POSSIBLITY, not a fact, is that Clinton was trying to capitalize politically on an ugly moment. But even he accepts that Clinton NEVER wanted Shuster fired.

When Jake Tapper is head and shoulders above you, then it is clear that you are becoming that which you once criticized. This is clearly the worst moment in the history of Talking Points Memo.

NOTE: Comments are now closed in this thread.

< The Jefferson-Jackson Day Speeches: Viriginia | Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    He's just trying to spin this against Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:28:08 AM EST


    It's his story and he's sticking to it (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:35:03 AM EST
    It's almost as though he has a serious reading comprehension problem.

    This explanation is the most damning (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:38:46 AM EST
    In Josh'd mind, the pattern of sexism by NBC could NOT possibly be of concernt othe Clinton campaign.

    This is the malign acceptance of sexism that is pernicious.

    I note without comment that Josh seems to have no women writers on his staff.

    Parent

    TPM Headline: (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    "BTD Slams TPM as sexist!"

    Parent
    TPM Malignly Accepts Sexism At NBC (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    is the accurate headline

    Parent
    But Marshall has criticized sexism at MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:57:42 AM EST
    See this comment on TPM about Tweety:

    ... Nor am I aware that Shuster has any history of such comments -- unlike some other MSNBC TV personalities.

    Unlike pretty much everyone else on the chat shows he's a reporter who consistently does pretty solid investigative pieces. ...

    On the other hand, many have rightly criticized Chris Matthews for his repeatedly degrading, often sexist and consistently clownish comments about Hillary Clinton.

    Emphasis supplied Link

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:07:40 AM EST
    I critiqued that post for inaccuracies,. Shuster INDEED has a history of sexist comments.

    And to say Chris Matthews is the ONLY problem at NBC is to absolve the rest of the network.

    That post from Marshall was utterl inadequate and now coupled with this episode, it is fair to say that Marshall has a pattern of MINIMIZING NBC's sexism.

    Parent

    Read again (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    He does not say that Matthews is the only problem at NBC, he clearly references "other MSNBC TV personalities" in the plural.

    I agree that he is not strongly castigating MSNBC, but I suspect this is mostly because of his anti-Clinton and pro-Obama spin.

    Parent

    Oh please (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    He is minimiziong it. Indeed, he MINIMIZED Shuster's pimping comment, claimed it was not sexist, merely crude.

    Josh has utterly minimized the pernicious sexism at NBC.

    He has been "yes, butting" this entire problem.

    His behavior on this has been extremely troubling.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    I agree that he has minimized it, but I also think others have maximized it, and I suspect at least some have done so mostly for political motives.  I suspect his minimizing of MSNBC's sexism has more to do with his support of Obama, trying to spin this against Clinton.  I also suspect that he is a little bit blind to MSNBC's faults because they are giving him national media exposure.  But I don't think his "cause" is to defend sexism, either at MSNBC specifically or in general.

    Parent
    When it comes to being concerned about sexism (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    I prefer to be on the maximizing than the minimizing side.

    That Josh has chosen the minimizing side is his problem. I repeat, no women on staff that I know of.

    Parent

    I agree with that too (none / 0) (#50)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:40:51 AM EST
    but I'm not blind to the other motives likely at play here.

    Parent
    Whose motives? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:42:14 AM EST
    I was speaking about Josh being an Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    supporter and Clinton critic, not to mention his being 'promoted' by MSNBC as a nationally prominant blogger.  But I wouldn't be surprised if some Hillary supporters might want to turn this to her political advantage as well.  Politics is politics.

    Parent
    As someone (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    who took personal abuse, both in public blogs and e-mails, including insults from now prominent Obama supporters like Andrew Sullivan when I fought against the sexist statements of Lawrence Summers and the rsacist statements of Bill Bennett and Charles Murray, I hope no one dares question my motives on this.

    Unlike a lot of bloggers and others who took the easy way out and failed to call sexism sexism and racism racism, I have ALWAYS fought against these evils, from whomever it came from.

    Parent

    Are you now a HIllary supporter? (none / 0) (#63)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:54:24 AM EST
    No (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:00:52 AM EST
    But I am a supporter of Hillary's critique of NBC.

    Any progressive should be. Josh is an opponent of it. It speaks volumes regarding his malign acceptance of NBc's sexism. It is utterly despicable of him.

    I will call him out as long as this is an issue.

    Parent

    But I don't think it is his cause (none / 0) (#68)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM EST
    BTW, did you see the Rollign Stone piece about Democrats and the war.  Some offensive sexist language, but I share their cause.

    Parent
    My point is it should be (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    EVERY progressive's cause.

    I repeat, Josh is guilty of the malign acceptance of sexism.

    Parent

    Of course it should be (none / 0) (#74)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:19:55 AM EST
    What I meant above (none / 0) (#75)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:26:50 AM EST
    is that I don't think Josh's "cause" is to defend sexism, either at MSNBC specifically or generally.  I didn't mean to say that sexism was not his cause.  Maybe that's true also, I dunno.

    Parent
    You do not know where Josh stands (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:32:28 AM EST
    on NBc's sexism.

    What a condemnation you make.

    Thanks for making my point.

    Parent

    That is not at all what I said. Read again. (none / 0) (#79)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    I did (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    Not sure how that changes my point.

    Parent
    Just don't misinterpret and misrepresent me (none / 0) (#101)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:18:55 PM EST
    You tried to take one of my comments out of context to supposedly have me say that I didn't know where Josh stood on NBC's sexism.  Silly.

    I did a quick search on his site and posted where he stands.  I don't really know how militant or pure he is as a feminist, but it seems unfair to me that you question whether his journalistic "cause" might actually be to defend sexism at MSNBC.

    Parent

    So you DO know where he stands (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:23:33 PM EST
    on NBC's pattern of sexism?

    What is it and what is your evidence for that view?

    Parent

    All I know ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:55:46 PM EST
    ... is what I read on his site this morning, where he says he does not defend Shuster and did not seem to be completely satisfied with his apology.  He believes other MSNBC personalities have a history of sexist comments and I naturally assume he is opposed to such as he is with specific reference to Matthews, whom he singles out as rightly criticized by many for his repeatedly degrading and often sexist comments about Hillary.

    I also read on his site Ruth Rosen's article, from yesterday: Is Misogyny the Last Taboo?  She addresses sexism in the media and politics more generally and only mentions Matthews and Shuster briefly.

    Nowhere did I see reason to suggest that Josh Marshall's journalistic cause is to defend sexism at MSNBC.

    Parent

    No history? Shuster had to apologize (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:17:31 PM EST
    last fall, on air, to a member of Congress.  A Congresswoman, btw.

    More evidence that Marshall not only has lost his reading comprehension skills but also forgets how to do basic research, too.  

    Parent

    but the comment you (none / 0) (#67)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:02:27 AM EST
    highlight doesn't even prove your point.

    marshall says that "many have rightly criticized".  he does not say in his own voice that he criticizes msnbc for their sexism.  

    he has to acknoweldge "other msnbc pundits" because one has already been shamed into a public apology.  pointing to the fact is hardly a criticism on marshall's part.

    he merely passes his criticism off as reporting that others have "rightly" done so, which is hardly a serious criticism.  it's a rather weak one in fact.  

    Parent

    At least he says "rightly" criticized (none / 0) (#71)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:08:39 AM EST
    reading comp (none / 0) (#10)
    by eric on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:43:53 AM EST
    Yes, reading comprehension problems or forcing the words to fit into a framework that supports a conclusion that you choose in advance.  Is it being done on purpose or is it a mistake?  I don't know, but it is frustrating.

    Parent
    It's done because he hates Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    That's the most logical explanation. He can't reason logically about Hillary anymore, because he can't stand her.

    Parent
    huff po blocks comments about military in caucuses (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by nycvoter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    I put a simple response on huff po about Hillary supports just needing to get over the fact that people don't support Hillary in the caucuses.  The comment said people just needed to get their priorities straight and show up.  I said "like out service men and women who are in Iraq, they just need to get their priorities straight?" and it kept getting deleted!

    Grrrrrrrr! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:45:52 AM EST
    TPM and Huff po sort of losing their minds this primary cycle!  Being a military spouse meant that I couldn't participate in the caucus in my state of residence also because I'm with my spouse in a state 1500 miles away with a grade school child.

    Parent
    OT, but, MT, how do you like (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:12:55 PM EST
    this from AP article today?

    The Democrats' race was as close as the Republicans' was not, a contest between Obama, hoping to become the first black president, and Clinton, campaigning to become the first female commander in chief.


    Parent
    Heaven knows (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:01:28 AM EST
    that I am not a fan of Huffington Post.

    But perhaps the problem lies not in what you wrote, but in how it can be read.

    For example.

    If you are suggesting that the troops in Iraq are typically conservative and Republican and need to self morph into Left wing Demos, then no one should be offended by your delusional comment that this could ever happen.

    But your comment can also be read as suggesting that the troops refuse to follow orders and take other actions that would hurt the morale and good order of the military.

    If it is the latter that you propose, perhaps you should consider that in many societies, especially those centered in the ME about which you may be very uninformed, such a suggestion would get you a trip to prison, the lashing tether pole or the stoning yard.

    So the censorship of a private entity that has every right to do so should cause you no concern.

    Of course only you know what you meant. Perhaps you can clarify?

    Parent

    The meaning (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:39:22 AM EST
    is that one of the reasons caucuses are unfair is that members of our military located overseas cannot participate in them.

    Lord knows what you took it to mean, I can't make heads or tails of your comment.

    Parent

    Josh is running full throttle into (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    a TPM pie war.  Learn from those who went before you Josh and put the shovel down man!  TPM was pretty dry stuff in the beginning so I blogged elsewhere and glad of it now ;)

    i sent josh an email re:his lack of support (none / 0) (#113)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    for ladies this morning. i am waiting to see if i get a reply/or if it is rude as i have heard he treats others.

    if so, then i am gone never to return. if josh is blinded by the recognition and monies that go with being a "national" blogger? has he forgotten his roots?

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by eric on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:40:49 AM EST
    Thanks, BTD, for keeping on this.  It is very frustrating for a big fan of TPM like myself to see what is happening.  JM has never hidden the fact that he wasn't a big fan of Hillary, or more specifically, another Clinton in the Whitehouse.  However, reporting this story has revealed a skew that is troubling.

    I hope you stay on this.

    Josh might be winning (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:41:39 AM EST
    the Obamaniacs, but he is quickly losing support from the sane people who have kept his site going for years.  No matter who wins the nomination, he is in for a rude awakening.  

    So much for the Uniter bringing folks together.  If the internet is anything to go on, he is tearing them apart.

    It is simple: Josh Marshall is not (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by my opinion on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:53:23 AM EST
    and never has been a journalist. He just plays one on his website. It is a sad statement about our country and it's media that an all out attack against one candidate using sexism as it's root can be taken seriously by so many. On top of that the media also twists any defense made by her to defend herself into something bad, evil, underhanded, etc. We are a nation that has a big problem with sexism, which our media uses as a tool to get their desired result.

    bartcop has a great exchange (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    up where he copied the shuster/press dialogue but substitued carolyn kennedy's name with chelsea's.  

    suffice it to say the take away is that shuster would have never said what he did about anyone other than a clinton because he would have been fired in a heartbeat.

    That is part of it of course (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:15:15 AM EST
    The Clintons being involved makes the sexism ok, even for Josh Marshall. Disgraceful.

    Parent
    Is it really NOT (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:13:33 AM EST
    okay for most of the media and blogs to lower this contest into the demographics of the candidates! And even worse is to play the demographic game on a candidates spouse, child or other member of family.

    The Dem nominee needs to win without the bias. Why? To preserve the Dem Party. This type of tactics makes us the loser!!  All Dems should be screaming about the injustice just like BTD!!

    i read the letter, took it at (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by cpinva on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:30:01 AM EST
    face value. it was quite clear what it said, no further interpretation required; clean up your act msnbc, a mere suspension or firing isn't going to address the root cause of the problem, the deeply ingrained sexism exhibited by most of your talking heads.

    how anyone with even a marginally functioning brain could misunderstand it is beyond me.

    btw, when did josh marshall get a magic crystal ball, enabling him to read other's minds? i thought that was the job of the rush's and hannity's of the world?

    Fact is... (none / 0) (#136)
    by lectric lady on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    Josh is going to be the Limbaugh of the left.

    Parent
    If you want a laugh (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:33:45 AM EST
    go read the comments posted about today's virulently hateful column by Frank Rich about Hillary. It's hilarious. People are taking him to the woodshed, even some Obama supporters.
    Rich actually used the Hallmark town hall to make his case that the Clintons are so nasty! Methinks he is projecting just a tad. What a sick man.

    Or if you want a cry... (none / 0) (#107)
    by frankly0 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    You know the thing that gets me?

    Whatever criticism Rich may get over this vile column will absolutely pale by comparison to the vitriol Krugman would receive if he takes the slightest swipe at Obama, however well grounded in facts and logic.

    Personally, I just find the inability of media figures to detect in any way their own biased mindset, and pack mentality, pretty damn depressing.

    And Josh Marshall is every bit as bad as any of these. He's an A-list blogger, who's role, if any, one would think, would be to stand apart from the media as another independent point of view. Yet he as bad as they are, and even worse -- Jake Tapper shows balance on this issue, and Josh Marshall is arrogant, biased, and simply stupid on the point.

    Parent

    the word nasty applies to rich's attitude. (none / 0) (#115)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    Matthews is the real problem at MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    Matthews is the real jerk. Schuster, before this, was actually a good,  real journalist; that is, he try to discover the truth.

    NBC is the real problem (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    They condone all of it.

    Parent
    "All of it," yes -- attack on Elizabeth (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    Edwards on MSNBC, too, as a "ballbuster."

    It's not just about Hillary, or Chelsea.

    It's about women -- an entire sex.  It's sexism.

    Parent

    Matthews just the worst... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    MSNBC also gives a forum to Tucker and Scarborough. Both these men are long time Clinton haters. But when they talk about Hillary Clinton the sexism they may have hidden in the past is all too obvious.

    Parent
    See Shuster's career before MSNBC (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    I think he has reverted to his Fox years, when he hounded the Clintons.

    Parent
    In the End (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Sunshine on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM EST
    It should be just as important for the Obama supporters to straighten this out as it is for the Clinton supporters.. When the contest is over, if it was not a fair fight, you might not get the support of the losing side..  There is nothing as unfair as raciism and sexism, it is very hard to fight..  MSNBC has used sexism to badger Hillary from the beginning and if anything was said, it was whinning... And when racism was brought up in Nevada, Obama was accused of whinning...  We don't need this sort of fight..

    In the End (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:19:40 AM EST
    Frankly,  you'd  think   Barak  and Michelle  would    step  up  against  this, too:   THEIR  daughters  are about to be  in  the  same  limelight  Chelsea  has  already   survived.  

    Set  the precedent, Michelle:   Stand  with  Hillary  AGAINST  the media  verbally  abusing   any of your  daughters.

    Parent

    On the money, auntmo (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Camorrista on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:14:58 PM EST
    This, to me, is the most disturbing aspect of the whole mess.  It isn't surprising that hosts (and especially commentators) at sites such as HuffPo, or Kos, or TPM, or OpenLeft would defend Shuster (and by extension, MSNBC).  These are (or are becoming) notorious anti-Clinton venues.  What is surprising is the numbers of Shuster defenders here.  

    The point, really, isn't whether Shuster should be suspended or fired, or whether the network should clean up its act, but that a candidate for the presidency was--on the public airwaves--labeled a pimp and her daughter a whore (metaphorically or not); and the opposing candidate (not to mention his supporters) is more or less okay with that.    

    Try to imagine if Shuster had called Obama a pimp for exploiting his wife (and daughters) in his campaign, and Clinton's supporters had defended Shuster.  Try to imagine if a thread were filled with comments arguing that Shuster didn't really mean 'pimp,' it was merely an affectionate colloquialism (or high-school slang, or harmless rap talk).  And try to imagine--when Obama's campaign complained-- dozens of comments attacking the Obama people for their vidictiveness and thin skins.   Yes, please, try to imagine.

    I'm not a psychologist, so I can't begin to explain the motives of people like Marshall (or his defenders, or Shuster's defenders).  But I don't have much difficulty concluding that those motives are about as pure as those of the typical used-car salesman.  

    Parent

    true, some of the regular obama supporters (none / 0) (#117)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    have come out with their you over over reacting comments. but i go and look at the history of some of the other commenters backing obama and some of them have a very short history or in some cases where the people have a history of coming only at certain times and hadn't commented here since last summer. i just wanted to add this for consideration.

    Parent
    This is your idea of mitigation...? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Camorrista on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    Forgive me if I find this a less-than persuasive argument.  I don't know the history of Obama supporters who post here.  I don't know whether they're regulars, or whether they just dropped by to pee in the soup today.  

    And why should I care?  Are you suggesting that it's fine for them post their rationalized venomous sexism so long as they don't do it too often?  Or so long as they've only done it recently?  

    In the real world, this is the equivalent of, 'Please, your honor, let me off, I'm not a career criminal; this is only my first rape.'

    Parent

    true, some of the regular obama supporters (none / 0) (#118)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    have come out with their you over over reacting comments. but i go and look at the history of some of the other commenters backing obama and some of them have a very short history or in some cases where the people have a history of coming only at certain times and hadn't commented here since last summer. i just wanted to add this for consideration.

    Parent
    Michelle isn't going to stand with Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    She's too busy slamming Hillary.

    That woman is no feminist.

    Parent

    Marshall, bias and muddles (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by frankly0 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    Josh Marshall once again proves his inability to understand the plain meaning of English words, or to perform simple logical interpretation.

    Was Hillary's letter demanding that Shuster be fired? On the plain meaning of the relevant passage, it was not:

    Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.

    What is Hillary claiming here, in fact? Let's do the logic. It says two things, in fact: 1) a temporary suspension was not sufficient 2) a half-hearted apology was likewise not sufficient.

    Can one conclude from this statement that a "permanent suspension" -- i.e., Shuster's being fired, would have been sufficient? To begin with, there's nothing in the statement that requires that interpretation. All it says is that a temporary suspension is NOT sufficient. But there's a further obvious problem with Marshall's interpretation, that it's really calling for Shuster to be fired. Namely, if it were correct, one should every bit as well conclude from Hillary's statement that a truly sincere apology would have been sufficient. The two statements are exactly parallel. And this likewise shows how mindless is Marshall's emphasis on the importance of the word "temporary". The statement also talks about the "half-hearted" apology. Why not, again, take this statement as a demand for a genuine apology? Why claim bizarrely that the one and only thing it's demanding is that Shuster be fired?

    And there is absolutely nothing wrong with or remarkable about what Hillary is saying here. She's basically saying that the temporary suspension does not satisfy her (she obviously considers it too cheap a price, by itself). She's also saying that the half-hearted apology does not satisfy her (again, too cheap a price). Those were the two things MSNBC has done, and, from her point of view, neither one of them sufficed. How else is she to put that reasonable point, without confusing the likes of Josh Marshall?

    In fact, there is nothing in this particular paragraph that entails logically ANYTHING about what would, in fact, be sufficient to satisfy her. Perhaps even firing Shuster wouldn't suffice, or a sincere apology, or both. That is consistent with the logical meaning of the statement.

    And that is one reason that it's reasonable to interpret the real demand of this letter -- the real thing regarded as sufficient redress -- as being in the very next paragraph, namely,
       

    I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.

    It is quite reasonable to assume that what she's really requiring as "sufficient" redress is that MSNBC reform its behavior in precisely these ways.

    The conclusion that what this statement is "really" demanding is the firing of Shuster is simply the product of Marshall's biased and confused mind. Marshall is just once again letting his closet Clinton-hatred drive his "thinking".

    And Marshall's bias is only the half of it. As far as I'm concerned, you could take the two quoted paragraphs from Hillary's letter, put it in the SAT Reading comprehension selection, and ask the question, Is this passage demanding that the man be fired? All the smart students would say NO. The Josh Marshalls would say YES. It's that cut and dry.

    Let's face it. The guy just isn't really gifted with, let's say, analytical skills.

    Well done (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    Josh's behavior on this is nothing short of despicable.

    Parent
    Exactly right (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:33:20 PM EST
    I said yesterday that it was a critical reading problem. It remains one. And yes, it would be fun to put this on a standardized test:

    Which of the following most accurately expresses the main request of the letter?

    (A) David Shuster should be fired.

    (B) Steve Capus should try to understand that Hillary Clinton is a mother first

    (C) Steve Capus should "look at the pattern of behavior on [his] network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language."

    (D )David Shuster Should give a better apology.

    (E) Hillary Clinton is satisfied with the apology by David Shuster.

    Parent

    Well-done, yes. And . . . (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:48:37 PM EST
    what I read in her letter, having been on the receiving end of such stuff, too, is that she sees what Shuster coworkers see -- that he did not have to really apologize, that suspension with pay is not that bad (some of us call it a paid vacation:-), and that it could have as little effect on coworkers as did the Matthews apology . . . when Shuster and the rest of the boys leaped to defend Tweety.  So they learned nothing.

    Instead, Clinton clearly is calling for NBC to see that it has a systemic problem in its staff, not just a problem with one or two individuals.  So she is calling for a systemic solution.

    That TPM so resists reading that, or even reading what one of its links says to refute the TPM reading, it is a clue that TPM may have a similar, systemic problem, too.  Of course, that also is another clue that it has become what it claimed to be against, that it no longer is alternative media but has been co-opted.  Old story, and historical parallels tell us where TPM is headed.  Too bad.

    Parent

    Excellent. Thank you. (none / 0) (#138)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    So Marshall Runs Out and Finds A Woman (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by rosaleen on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:27:37 PM EST
    to write an article for his blog today. Hee hee. I'm sorry she bailed him out. I wouldn't have done it for all the money in the world and I doubt he paid her.

    His lies about HRC demanding that Shuster be fired, coupled with the ugly picture he chose to go with those lies are indicative of his desire to portray HRC as a castrating woman.

    Marshall is not a real Democrat or he wouldn't be making up lies and slandering a Democratic Presidential Candidate, giving ammunition to the Republicans. Because she just may be the nominee.

    He's a laughing stock now. As it should be.

    Mary Mary, you say (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by rosaleen on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:03:54 PM EST
    "If I were a Hillary supporter, I would steer waaay clear of calling out sexism. Why? People of good will might be alienated,"

    People of good will are not offended when sexism is called out.

    How sad... (3.00 / 2) (#12)
    by lennonist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:50:12 AM EST
    ... that you sink to this level of "criticism" instead of seeing this story for what it truly is.  If the HRC campaign didn't want Schuster fired, why did they write that "nothing justifies the kind of debasing language" and "no temporary suspension... is sufficient?"

    Instead of criticizing TPM's journalistic credentials, why not exercise your own and consider that a campaign which (1) uses this language and then (2) claims that it never called for Schuster's firing isn't playing straight but is instead simply attempting to keep this story alive as a distraction to yesterday's clean sweep by Obama?  

    Your comments that "in what journalistic world is it accurate to write HIS interpretation of the letter as the... desire of Hillary Clinton?" and that a "REAL journalist would... pick up the phone and ask?" sounds like you're closer to the Tim Russert school of journalism than to I.F. Stone's.  

    What part of "no temporary suspension... is sufficient" needs clarification and a phone call?  And if you do that aren't you stenographically doing what the campaign wants, simply repeating its talking points rather than utilizing your First Amendment rights to inform the public about what is true rather than what is simply claimed that way by an increasingly desperate candidate?  

    You adopt Josh's line (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:53:13 AM EST
    that Clinton could not possibly want ACTION on NBC's patter nof behavior.

    That NBC's sexism is the real concern.

    You are part of the problem imo.

    Parent

    It is not just the sexism (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM EST
    It is also the bias against the Clintons. The idea of implying there was something wrong with Chelsea working for her mother's campaign is bizarre. Shuster's excuse is that the campaign was keeping her away from the media. On Reliable Sources Gloria Borger also made a big deal about journalists liking candidates that allow them access. But then she went on to say that this is what candidates who are behind do. So how does that explain their love for Obama? I have the impression that he has not been extremely accesible to them. Also if you make yourself accessible when you are not a favorite, they will twist anything you say to use it against you.

    It is unfortunate that we only have a big uproar when journalists are sexist or racist. There should have been a huge outcry when Gore was so unfairly trashed by them, but it did not happen.

    Parent

    The bias against the Clintons (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    from NBC and Josh makes the sexism permissible.

    Parent
    exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    The rule is: If a normally unacceptable social boundary is crossed when disparaging Bill or Hillary Clinton, there will be no consequence.

    We didn't know until a few days ago that they were going to extend the rule to include Chelsea as well.

    Parent

    And Elizabeth Edwards, remember (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    whom Tweets called a "ballbuster."

    If he crossed the line about The Other of the Two Obamas, though, or their daughters . . . it would be amazing how many bloggers would suddenly see the light.

    Parent

    You prove BTD's point (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    In no world can there be any better judge about the meaning of a text than its author--unless you want to play mindreader.

    Josh obviously agrees with you on all point, and has a case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome that he's allowed to pass over his common sense.

    Parent

    I.F Stone, BTW, was an unabashed (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    ADOVCACY JOURNALIST.

    If Josh is playing I. F. Stone here, what is his cause.

    You damn him with your defense.

    Parent

    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:01:55 AM EST
    Oh, please (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    Read the whole letter and what TPM said about the letter.  TPM said that the point of the letter was not what the letter actually stated was the point--that MSNBC should examine the pattern of behavior.  Why would it make any sense for the Clinton campaign to simply want Shuster fired when that would leave Matthews, who is clearly a bigger offender--on the air?  The letter says a temporary suspension isn't enough...the pattern of behavior must be examined.

    Parent
    That interpetation requires (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    taking the actual words of the letter at face value.

    Parent
    I admit it (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    My bias towards literalism reveals itself!

    Parent
    You could never be (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    a "journalist."

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    What part of... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lennonist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    ... "a temporary suspension isn't enough" am I not taking at face value and what part isn't clear to you?  

    Oh, now I get it; you're saying that interpreting the statement depends on what the definition of "isn't" is, right?  And if you don't interpret "isn't" as applying to all of MSNBC and not simply to Schuster, you suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and lack journalistic credibility.

    And you're not being fair either.  I mean, shouldn't you have called me up before you interpreted what I wrote, to make sure I really meant it?  

    Parent

    If you refuse to read the whole letter (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    There is nothing more that I can say to persuade you.

    Parent
    I t's a short and sweet letter... (none / 0) (#61)
    by lennonist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:51:54 AM EST
    ... that's a little ambiguous regarding the campaign's wishes about what the consequences of the comment should be.  And, granted, the next line does describe the need to examine the network's pattern of behavior.  

    However, as Josh says, if they meant that the focus should be on the entire network's "pattern" why do they state that a "temporary" suspension isn't enough?  

    Parent

    You can use your crystal ball (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:53:07 AM EST
    or you  can assume that the letter means what it says: a temporary suspension isn't enough to correct systemic problems at NBC.

    Parent
    that's a mischaracterization of the letter... (none / 0) (#91)
    by lennonist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:04:33 PM EST
    .. and you know it. Look, we're not going to convince each other.  I say it's ambiguous and evidently you don't.  Let's let the readers and voters decide.  But mischaracterizing it is doing exactly what BTD and you all accuse Josh of doing. Pot calling kettle black.  

    [Watch BTD will miss the point and accuse me of racism, again, for using that phrase!]

    Parent

    You just damned Josh Marshall (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    because your BESt reqding is that it is ambguous.

    I deny that it is ambiguous.

    I have TEXT, EXPRESS TEXT, that supports my view.

    Josh has NOTHING. AT ALL. He reported it as fact. He claims to be a journalist.I make no such claim.

    Nothing here is reporting. We do punditry.

    If you cannot now admit that what Josh did is atrocious then I have no use for you. You are a blind partisan  . .  for Josh Marshall.

    Parent

    If the meaning is ambiguous (4.50 / 2) (#93)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    then you ask the writer. If the writer then tells you what the meaning was, and you still insist on some other meaning, then you're not practicing journalism.

    Parent
    It describes what was done (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:58:31 AM EST
    Yu and Josh are clearly of the view that addressing NBC's pattern of behavior is too trivial to be a concern.

    You and Josh PERSIST in trivializing NBC's pattern of sexism. It says alot about both of you. None of it good.

    Parent

    What if they had said (none / 0) (#65)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:00:10 AM EST
    That a "suspension" wasn't enough -- just eliminate the word "temporary."  TPM would probably still interpret it the same way--that they want him fired because the suspension isn't enough.  So I don't think that one word necessarily changes things.

    If it's ambiguous, call them up and ask what it meant.  I guess Josh didn't think it was ambiguous.  I didn't think it was either, but I came to a different conclusion about what was meant, so what does that tell you?!

    Parent

    well, if the meaning stays the (none / 0) (#100)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    same without "temporary", then Josh's argument is  invalid that way as well, because his entire argument rests on that one word.

    Parent
    Exactly. n/t (none / 0) (#108)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    What you do not take at face value (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    is what is required to BE ENOUGH.

    Clinton EXPRESSLY says  addressing the pattern of behavior at NBC.

    She does NOT say firing Shuster.

    Reporters who spoke to the Clinton campaign CONFIRMED that the EXPRESS ACTION they are calling for is addressing the pattern of behavior at NBC, NOT addiitonal action against Shuster.

    There is no "is" for you to interpret.

    What is obvious is that for you and Josh NBC's addresing its behavior it tooo trivial to be what she REALLY means. Let me read between the lines and assume without a single word to support it that and in the face of an EXPRESS DECLARATION that Clinton does not want Shuster fired that in fact she is demanding he be fired.

    There is no way that NBC's sexism could be ther REAL concern.

    This is the  malign acceptance of racism and egeregious jounralism.

    Only a Hillary Hater or someone who does not think NBC's sexism is a big deal could reach teh conclusions you do.

    Parent

    sexism not racism (none / 0) (#70)
    by hookfan on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:06:59 AM EST
    malign acceptance of sexism. . .

    Parent
    I couldn't sleep... (none / 0) (#76)
    by lennonist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:27:49 AM EST
    ... the night before so I got up early and switched on MSNBC in the morning.  I was so sickened by the tone of the conversations between the reporters and the anchor's perjorative question about whether McCain would be allowed to "finish the job"  in Iraq that I switched it off before Schuster made his infamous comment, thinking instead that I'd turn to blogs for my news as the smart alecky, elitist tone of this "reporting" made me think of Dylan's line about "How does it feel to live in a land where justice (or politics) is a game?"

    But then I come here and see you accusing a highly respected progressive blogger of lacking integrity simply because he doesn't reach the same conclusion you do about an ambiguous statement.  

    And then, when I dare to dissent from your vew that this ambiguity was actually crystal clear you call me a "Hillary Hater" and "someone who doesn't think NBC's sexism is a big deal."  

    Wow.  

    I don't hate Hillary and I'm sickened by MSNBC's sexism.  What I do hate is on the Constitution that's taken place over the last 8 years.  I was thrilled the other day to hear that, while the GOP is fighting amongst themselves, most Democrats are generally supportive of both candidates.

    But how big is your tent when you accuse someone like me, who interprets an admittedly ambiguous statement differently than you of sexism and Hillary hatred, or of lacking journalistic integrity?  

    Sounds to me a lot like the view that "if you're not with us, you're against us."

    Parent

    Correction: Not a highly respected (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    blogger anymore.  Not when so lacking in reading comprehension skills.

    Clinton's letter is saying, correctly, that an action (such as suspending with pay, which the rest of us call a paid vacation) taken against an individual will not correct a pattern of problems.

    Look how well that apology by Tweety worked there -- when Shuster joined the rest of the boyos in jumping to his defense and jumping the shark yet again by blaming not Tweety but those he had attacked.

    So -- do you see?  When a problem is a pattern of behavior by many, suspending one is insufficient to fix the problem.  That is what Clinton's letter said, clearly.  That is what the formerly respected blogger refuses to comprehend, even though it is right in front of his face.

    Parent

    You have a funny notion of journalism (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:30:27 AM EST
    Journalism is reporting FACTS, not opinions.

    TPM's original headline was an affront and its subsequent headlines have been outright lies.

    I do not care if Josh is a respected anything - when he misreport and then LIES about his misreporting, and all in an attempt to minimizde the rampant sexism of NBC, then he MUST be roundly criticized.

    You want to give this despicable behavior a pass.

    Your attitude is despicable to me.

    Parent

    I agree but... (none / 0) (#80)
    by white n az on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    you have to censor yourself because none of us would be able to call you despicable, you shouldn't do it to others.

    But I am in full agreement that MSNBC has been entirely unfair in its coverage and the sexism is but one very large aspect of the bigger problem itself.

    Parent

    I called his attitude on this issue (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:44:08 PM EST
    despicable and it is.

    No need to censor.

    Parent

    Maybe because (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:04:30 AM EST
    nothing justifies the kind of debasing language he used, and maybe because a temporary suspension isn't likely to fix whatever internally ails him and allowed him to ever think that using that language over the airwaves could be acceptable to well over half of the citizens of this nation.  See, if I wrote the letter those would be the facts that I had used to base my writing on!  Add to that that MSNBC seems to have a little pack of heman woman haters running the shows and now people obviously need to be getting fired because Tweety's spanking seems to have had no affect on the network's acceptable behavior!  And I have a foggy memory about nappy headed hos too!  This is exactly what Hillary as a Dem and woman needed to write in order to honestly say she supports women's rights in this fricken backlashing country right now!  Enough of MSNBC's BS......ENOUGH!  Patience fresh out!  Time to fire!

    Parent
    "temporary" adds nothing to the (none / 0) (#87)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:54:46 AM EST
    meaning of the sentence, because suspensions are temporary by definitions. The use of "temporary" is descriptive and emphatic: a TEMPORARY abeyance of the problem will not suffice; real changes must be made.

    Parent
    i read and comprehend very well, thanks (none / 0) (#114)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    hillary wants action on a pattern of behavior. why don't you write her campaign and ask for a clarification. huh?

    Parent
    Remember, this is a follow-up letter to (none / 0) (#8)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    a prior conversation.  Hopefully, Mr. Capus knows what Hillary meant.

    Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster's comments.


    Another "tell" of Josh's bias (none / 0) (#14)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:53:05 AM EST
    is that he is charaterizing those who read the letter differently as a logical "fatal flaw" -

    An odd choice of words since the current meme (via Peggy Noonan) is to compare Hillary to Glenn Close's character in "Fatal Attraction"

    I did not understand his argument there at all (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:55:39 AM EST
    The obvious reading of this was descriptive of what NBC had done - temporarily suspend Shuster.

    The other obvious, dare I say, unavoidable reading of the letter is that Clinton wants NBC to look at its PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR as the additional steps, not any additional steps about Shuster.

    Only people who do not think that NBC's pattern of behavior requires action could not see that.

    In essence, Josh and those who agree with him are willing to malignly accept NBC's pattern of sexist behavior.

    Parent

    the thing for me (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:01:27 AM EST
    is that their pattern of behavior extends all the way back to their trashing of gore and their active participation in the swiftboating of kerry.  and let us not forget that this is a network that rose to "prominence" with 24/7 coverage of the monica ordeal.

    that marshall is defending a network with a pattern of egregious behavior against democrats is the real issue for me.  yes they are guilty of inexcusable sexist bias in their coverage of clinton.  

    but the general political bias of msnbc against democrats has been obvious for years.  why is josh so resolutely in bed with them?

    Parent

    in this. I must ask then is defending NBC's sexism his cause?

    Parent
    Clearly not, see above where he does not (none / 0) (#29)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:07:12 AM EST
    defend sexism at MSNBC.

    Parent
    See my response to that comment (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM EST
    Er.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."

    What's more than a "temporary suspension"?

    And should a political candidate expect to control who a network hires and fires?

    More than a temporary suspension (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    is addressing the patter of behavior at NBC that leads to the awful comments from a Shuster.

    Indeed, that is the more the letter EXPRESSLY calls for.

    But when you hate Hillary and think sexism at NBC is a trivial issue, as you and Josh do, then of course the issue is Hillary wants Shuster fired.

    You show your colors, both of you, and those colors are very ugly.

    Parent

    If you continue reading the letter (none / 0) (#55)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    You will find that "what is more than a temporary suspension" is:

    "...look[ing] at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language."

    Seriously, read the letter.


    Parent

    No, a candidate shouldn't expect (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    to control who a network hires and fires but a feminist or humanist is going to make his or her case in such a series of instances.

    Josh Marshall and MSNBC (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:44:08 AM EST
    Maybe Josh thinks that this blame the victim strategy will help him get more "post-election analysis" gigs on MSNBC.

    Of course, the side benefit for him is that throwing red meat out like that increases his pull with the Obamas.

    Off-topic, I just want to say (none / 0) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    That I really love the conversations on this site.  They tend to get to the heart of matters, and they way everyone here tends to digest and interpret things is really enjoyable.

    And if my speaking the truth about this is hiney-kissing, then ---- GUILTY!!! ;-)

    So thanks to everyone, the site managers, the commenters, everyone.

    Alexa (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM EST
    It's always interesting to look at Alexa (a site that keeps track of site rankings of web sites).

    Here's an Alexa permalink that graphically compares TalkLeft, DailyKOS, TalkingPointsMemo, MYDD and MSNBC.

    Alexa Link

    One interesting point is that while neither MYDD nor TalkLeft matches the activity that KOS or TPM get, the trend is amazing!

    MYDD has grown from about a 90,000 ranking to about a 30,000 ranking in about 2 weeks.  I suspect that much of this is due to expatriots from DailyKOS.  TalkLeft even registers in the 70,000's, which is a pretty amazing feat considering that Alexa ranks the WHOLE WEB.

    And of course, if you look at February on the right of the graph, TPM has gotten quite a boost from lying about Hillary, and I think that says it all. The crap they're spewing is essentially about ratings.  Just like any other tabloid, they've discovered that lies sell.

    Hmm, quite a drop for msnbc.com (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    and that can lead to desperation tactics. . . .

    Parent
    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#139)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:18:07 PM EST
    that their web site is very much affected by their TV behavior.  But it might be.

    But thanks for reading!  I was beginning to think no one would.

    Parent

    I'm sure you are being read.. (none / 0) (#142)
    by lectric lady on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:35:06 PM EST
    .. just not responded to. I clicked on that site myself. Thanks for pointing to it.

    Parent
    Apart from what action Hillary's campaign (none / 0) (#83)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    believes is warranted, what is the prevailing view here about whether Shuster should be fired?

    He shouldn't be fired. (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:57:55 AM EST
    The person who should be fired is Joe S. for threatening to hit Mika B.
    I think firing Scarborough for that would send exactly the right message.

    Parent
    How about firing them all? Maybe give KO a pass. (none / 0) (#92)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:07:28 PM EST
    Imagine the reaction (none / 0) (#94)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    if Shuster had used that language regarding Michelle Obama

    Parent
    BTD, you should note that there (none / 0) (#88)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    was bad journalism involved as well, because according to Tapper's story---prominently linked at TPM---the Clinton campaign denies that they were demanding a firing.
    The inexcusably bad journalism, on top of the whacko interpretation, shows that Marshall is not simply in error.

    I discuss that in my post (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    and in previous posts.

    Parent
    Ok, thanks.. hard to keep up! (none / 0) (#98)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:15:23 PM EST
    Fire the Taliban! (none / 0) (#90)
    by 1980Ford on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM EST
    They are sexist, you know. All we need to do is fire them. I voted for Clinton in the primary but will not vote for her in the election. When an announcer said something about Tiger Woods being lynched in a back alley, he said it was a "non-issue" and went on winning. That's the kind of leader I want, one who "does" rather than complains or whines. Maybe I won't be able to vote for anyone for president.

    Yes. But that comment was not directed towards (none / 0) (#95)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:09:01 PM EST
    Obama and/or his family.  How about if the announcer had suggested that Obama be lynched or that his little daughters were "being pimped."

    Wanna bet he'd say something?

    Parent

    Since this is a law blog (none / 0) (#133)
    by 1980Ford on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:24:10 PM EST
    You're probably right, which is why wouldn't be able to vote for any president. But I just found a good reason to vote for Obama.

    Where candidates stand on crime, death penalty

    The conservative crime polices were always an attack on anything "liberal" - like common sense or evidence-based. Like the War on Terror, it was almost always fear mongering. Indeed, BushCo merely adopted the crime mantra and put it to use.

    So if Obama is willing to be rational, I'm willing to vote for him and give him that chance.

    Parent

    Throwing it Away (none / 0) (#109)
    by xjt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    I note without comment that Josh seems to have no women writers on his staff.

    I've noticed this for years, and have always been uncomfortable with it. However, I tried not to assume anything because he seemed like one of the more level-headed and professional bloggers around. But that is obviously not true. I was wrong. Apparently his sexist tendencies were always there, but nothing until now has pushed them to this degree of prominence.

    I'm a therapist by profession, and I have witnessed seemingly ethical clinicians toss their professional lives away by becoming involved with a client. One wonders what form of self-sabotage and lack of impulse management would permit them to ruin an entire career simply because they cannot get control of their emotions.

    This is a professional embarrassment for Josh Marshall. And when the dust clears from this election, I think he is finished as a serious journalist.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#110)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    I don't understand the relevance of therapists becoming involved with clients?  How is that related to Josh Marshall?

    Parent
    Not the worst, I think (none / 0) (#123)
    by NealB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:57:01 PM EST
    Josh, back in 2002 and 2003, was supportive of the Bush preemptive strike in Iraq. "Bamboozled" by their spin on the Iraq WMD threat. That was the worst and he's come a long way since then.

    This current misread is as troubling, though. How he can assert that the Clinton machine chooses their words carefully and read them wrong doesn't make sense.

    wow read this (none / 0) (#137)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:39:58 PM EST
    post about MSNBC and behind the scenes stuff..If true it sure is fascinating...

    Decrying sexism is a loser, politically (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    If I were a Hillary supporter, I would steer waaay clear of calling out sexism. Why? People of good will might be alienated, and people of bad will wouldn't vote for your candidate anyway.

    I would, instead, point out that because of a climate where it's OK to say anything about a Clinton, that people on the news feel free to use sexist language.

    If I were an Obama supporter, I would steer waaaay clear of defending MSNBC. Why? Because if your guy wins the nomination, he will become fair game as a Democrat after they don't have a Clinton to kick around anymore.

    Since I am not a Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    I feel quite conmfortable decrying sexism and racism and acceptance thereof wherever I see it.

    Parent
    Sure, that's what right for you in this context. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying do it smart. Especially in the context of a political campaign.

    You have the luxury of publishing opinions about sexism on a blog; if readers don't like it they might not come back. The stakes for the Clinton campaign are much higher and the needle is more difficult to thread.

    Parent

    Oops! I meant to say (none / 0) (#146)
    by rosaleen on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:05:15 PM EST
    People of good will are not
      alienated
    when sexism is called by its rightful name.