BS: Pimpin' Chelsea

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:22 PM

Well, Rig, in general, with very few exceptions, it's you that I have to avoid agreeing with. It's when I do that I have to really watch out. But fortunately, you're almost a perfect negative indicator.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:07 PM

But we still love each other...:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:00 PM

George - You seem not to be in agreement with Ron Davies.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:24 AM

I can't help thinking that we tend to read into this things that are not there, sort of projecting our own fears and dislikes. Let's go to the start of it all: Both male and female prostitutes have pimps; so, why is the statement "misogynistic"? had Chelsea been a son rather than a daughter, the statement would have applied equally - but would the outcry have been the same? I am not 100% sure it would have.

As a statement it may be crass and misjudged, it might even have been meant to upset, but was it "offensive"? Are we being a little too delicate here? If the Clintons took out a lawsuit for defamation, would it have stood? Again, I am not too sure it would have.

Note also the use of "sort of ...", where Shuster uses the expression to compare or clarify, but does not attribute it directly. I am sure any defense lawyer worth his/her salt would have had a field day with that.

I think therefore that there is a material difference between this case and the "nappy headed ho" one - the latter statement is clearly both misogynistic and racist, as no other interpretation could exist, and defamatory to boot. The former is intended to upset and taunt, but I don't see them in the same category. In fact, the real taunt here as I see it was the implication that Chelsea has no will of her own and little child-like she is being trotted out and exploited by her folks. Nothing to do with being a woman, of whatever colour or profession.

As for Chelsea's campaining for her Ma, well, she's a big girl and that's her business. Couldn't care either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:07 AM

It's just an opinion, of course, but anyone trying to describe Michelle Obama as a "trophy wife" would have to be blind, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:52 AM

No Charley, there is no need for me to re-examine what you term a 'mis-characterization'. Because, IMO, it isn't.

The media taking cheap shots at upstanding young women by referring to them as whores and prostitutes to prove their machismo is disgusting.

But so is Michelle Obama's attempts to claim sexual superiority to Hilary Clinton, and blame her for her husband's sexual infidelities by saying "You got no business in the White House if you can't take care of your own house."

That is a trophy wife mentality, plain and simple. You might not get that, but women do.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:45 AM

GG-

"In other words, the fact that it is Chelsea Clinton this time isn't the most relevant corollary here. That it is being done as a repulsive partisan attack against the Clinton campaign, by going after her kid, is what disgusts most people, including me."

Nicely put!

Now should you re-examine your own mis-characterization of Michelle Obama as a "trophy wife"? You don't have to love and respect her but your characterization in another thread was insulting and inaccurate.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:54 PM

I don't know of any candidate who has not employed family members to do some stumping for them. It's an old political game.

I think there is a healthy reaction though when people want to defend the rights of a young lady against obvious mysogyny. I think these dirty talk show hosts ought to be held accountable for their foul mouths. When you call a young lady a whore, then you need to be heard from.

As to free speech, well maybe we should all call everybody "whores" and be done with it. Lets put this on the media and see how it plays. This would certainly solve our problems. (sarcasm intended).

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:42 PM

*grin*...no doubt you switch the channel to Nancy Grace whenever Beck comes on.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 02:28 PM

Yeah, I can't watch Glenn Beck for more than 2 minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:18 PM

I cannot stand to watch O'Reilly that long...and I am close to refusing to watch Chris Matthews because of the way HE interrupts & talks over guests. ....and this Beck character! Lordy!

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 10:56 AM

Have you ever been watching Bill O'Reilly when the guest is saying something he disagrees with. He cuts off the speaker's mic and talks over him/her.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:28 AM

Our reactionary guest friend is right.

What right does the little child Chelsea have, at the age of 28, to support her monther's career choices.

It is simply shameful to pimp her out like that. Not only that Chelsea refuses to answer 98% of the questions shouted at her.

She won't even meet with Bill    O'Reilly.

yes this is a case of right wing perceived child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:35 PM

Janet--

"too rabid"--i.e. not fitting into your neat plan to call all Obama supporters hypocrites for not protesting Schuster's remark. Remember who started this thread--and obviously is feeling a bit "rabid" about Schuster's phrase.

Perhaps you could simmer down a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:12 PM

I think the news media is constantly paranoid about running out of things to talk about. That's why they put idiots in front of microphones to say dumb things. That way, they can carry on a debate for days expressing personal opinions about trivia without having to do any research or actual work needed to report the real news.

                The cable channels are full of these fools: Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly... There's no end to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:15 PM

This reporter is from the younger generation, and isn't a boomer. Honestly, I think he was going for the politico reporter hot shot thing--he was appearing as a guest on the tragically unhip Tucker Carlson show. Now, I know for Repubs Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter is as hip as it gets. Hence their tendency to use popular vernaculars of the youth culture inappropriately, in the same way Imus got caught up in using the nasty boomer racist vernacular inappropriately.

Bottom line is, the American public is fed up with the shock jock mentality, and the spurious and scurrilous attack game against some of the finest young women (who are perceived as innocents in both cases) in the country, as happened in the case with Imus, and with the 'well bred, well heeled' Chelsea case.

As far as I'm concerned, it is time to hoist the media by their own damn petard, and I think a lot of other folks see it that way too.

In other words, the fact that it is Chelsea Clinton this time isn't the most relevant corollary here. That it is being done as a repulsive partisan attack against the Clinton campaign, by going after her kid, is what disgusts most people, including me.

If that is the length the media is going to go to stir the shit pot, then, I think, people want the media to suffer the consequence, including their corporate network daddies who keep encouraging this sort of shock mock journalism for the ratings.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:57 AM

re: other uses of the word 'pimp'

It seems to me there is some confusion: there is the word 'primp' or 'primping' which was earlier used to mean "Dress or groom with elaborate care" ,,(I actually heard a woman use it about 50 years ago..)

I am guessing that something like a Mondegreen is occurring, and that 'pimp' has sort of slid sideways over the years and that 'primping' has become almost archaic.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:09 AM

Ron, again, I don't know if this will help you enjoy your time here or not, but I am giving you this wee bit of advice, in hopes it will help you calm yourself down a bit. You are way too rabid for this early in the game.

If I post something that doesn't apply to you personally, you really shouldn't take them personally. Really Ron, every post people write here about politics isn't about you. Honestly.

Maybe it's time to take one of those forum breaks, get away from the politics for awhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:50 AM

GG--


What, I'm not a "true blue"? I'm so hurt. But I have supported Obama pretty strongly, you will admit. However I believe this "Chelsea" issue should be addressed.

However since I--and some others--don't fit the stereotype you and Jim want to assert, you ignore our clear statements.

No surprise there.

Actually, it reminds me of Mr. Bush--ignore inconvenient facts.   Part of the reason the US is now in such wonderful shape--and repute.

Maybe that's why it's such a delight to debate you. Not much effort required.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:22 AM

Yeah Jim Lad, it is pretty sad that the True Blues have that attitude. But it is people like them that make this great two party system what it is today.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:22 AM

If I were Obama, as soon as I heard this remark by Schuster, I would make a very strong reply along the lines of: "I am not in charge at MSNBC. But I assure you that if anyone on my campaign or associated with it had made such a remark, I would have fired that person on the spot. It makes no difference to me that the phrase Mr. Schuster spoke has several interpretations. Just as what Mr. Imus said was totally unacceptable--and he paid the price--so should Mr. Shuster. I have zero tolerance for that sort of thing."

And I think it's important that he say something like this.

I think the only reason he would not is if he considers the whole thing a tempest in a teapot--or possibly doesn't hear about it. Obviously, his schedule is rather full these days. But I think it's actually something he should address.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Jim Lad
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 04:30 AM

Okay. I get it now. We were all a bit shocked at first but now that we've had time to cool off, it's not so bad.

Wow!

That about does it for me. It seems, anything goes if it helps Obama.

Wonder what's next!

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: freightdawg
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:59 AM

Here you go...from an article on MSNBC's web site - apparently taken from an interview with Clinton regarding the weekend's developments...

"The senator said she had sent letter to NBC in response to comments made by MSNBC's David Shuster about her daughter. "I am a mom first and a candidate second, and I found the remarks incredibly offensive. You know, I can take whatever comes my way. That's part of what I signed up for as a candidate, as an officeholder. But I think that there's been a troubling pattern of comments and behavior that has to be held accountable. So I have sent a letter to the head of NBC expressing the deep offense that I took and pointing out what has been a troubling pattern of demeaning treatment and I would expect appropriate action to be taken," she said."

Now that I've cooled off a little from my original rant, I can add these comments.

I would be absolutely livid if someone even remotely hinted that my actions or my daughter's actions related to prostitution. I will grant Clinton the right to state she is a mother first and a candidate second.

However, my earlier critique stands unaltered. As a candidate she had to know that someone, somewhere, was going to make Chelsea an issue if she (Clinton) used Chelsea as a surrogate speaker. And by placing Chelsea in that position she was certainly using her daughter. I should have made it a little more clear, but "pimp" is certainly an offensive term.

But Clinton cannot claim innocence, and her comments listed above only prove my thought - they knew before hand how to handle this "crisis" and the fact that it happened came as neither a shock nor a disappointment to the Clintonistas. She has sounded out the wounded mother routine to perfection. Where have we heard this before?

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:46 PM

Keep stirrin' that ol' septic tank there, GG.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:09 PM

But I heard Hilary had her chained in the basement in Chappaqua, dialing for celebrities!

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: mg
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:04 PM

Oh for heavens sake. Chelsea is 27 or 28 now. If Michelle Obama put her 9 year old out there campaigning I can see getting upset...but I would expect an adult offspring..such as Romney's sons, McCain's daughter..to campaign for their parent if they wanted to.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 05:51 PM

freightdawg - brilliant! I think your take on this is correct. We have seen the Hill-Billy mob execute sleazy PR moves before.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:56 PM

As Amos and McGrath intimated, 'pimping (up)' has become for many an acceptable slang phrase- I've heard a woman say it about herself while getting ready for a party, in connection with wishing to 'shine' as a representative for her husband. Like 'bling bling', it has taken on a life and different meaning of its own.

Holding this opinion, I could hardly justify hanging the reporter. His apology suffices, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: freightdawg
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:56 PM

Something else occured to me about this whole affair...

The Clinton machine had to know, I repeat, had to know that putting Chelsea out on the stump would draw attention. Amid all the millions of articles, and billions of words of commentary, with all the verbal hand grenades being tossed around, they had to figure that one of those grenades would land close enough to Chelsea to throw a little mud on her frock.

Bingo! Now we have an issue! They're attacking the senator's daughter! Woe, Woe! Righteous indignation boils over. We can rant and rave and posture and pontificate and every other over the top verbal assault. Maybe even we can coaxe the senator to conjure up some of those crocodile tears that bought so many votes in New Hampshire. We can even threaten to pull out of the debates.

Boy, now there is a good, mature reaction! That shows the kind of maturity I want in the White House! What's next? Do we throw a flute of champagne at the Prime Minister of England because he dissed the texture of the roast beef?

If I was running for political office, whether it be President or county dog catcher, you can bet I would put my daughter as far back off of the firing line as I could. That Hillary even *allowed* her daughter to campaign is despicable. She has nothing to add to the national debate. But by putting Chelsea out there, the Clintonistas had to know this was coming. I would even be willing to suggest that they anticipated it coming, and were more than ready for it when it did come. I would imagine their only surprise is that it came from a media outlet and not some part of the "vast, right wing conspiracy."

Does the word "triangulation" ring a bell? Guess who is left out of this national crisis? That's right, Barack Obama. No headlines for him. No righteous indignation for him. No crocodile tears for him. Everything now flows around the wounded Hillary, the only role with which she ever gets any traction. Poor Hillary. Picked on Hillary. Wounded wife Hillary. Now, wounded mother Hillary. Nothing about Iraq, or taxes, or the economy, or the housing crisis, or the health insurance debacle, or immigration. It's all about Hillary the emo.

If I was MSNBC I would tell the Clinton machine to put up or shut up. I would remind them that I disciplined an on-air personality and that the issue was over. Then, if Clinton still wanted to ride her horse of righteous indignation I would say, "Okey fine! We are going to give Sen. Obama an hour of uninterupted air time to express his views to the country without you having an opportunity to challenge him." End of debate.

The only issue that should be addressed here is why was Chelsea on the political stump circuit if she is not considered to be a part of the Clinton machine and therefore vulnerable to some verbal jousting.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:43 PM

A review (from Wikipedia) of the Fairness Doctrine's history:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.[5]
The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered. Without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court also concluded in a subsequent case (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241) that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."
[edit]Partisan Use

The fairness doctrine has been used by various liberal administrations to harass political opponents on the radio. Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, acknowledged that "Our massive strategy [in the early 1960s] was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." [6] Former Kennedy FCC staffer Martin Firestone wrote a memo to the Democratic National Committee on strategies to combat small rural radio stations unfriendly to Democrats:
The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule. [7]
Democratic Party operatives were deeply involved in the Red Lion case since the start of the litigation. Wayne Phillips, a Democratic National Committee staffer described the aftermath of the ruling, explaining that "Even more important than the free radio time was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these right-wing broadcastsÓ.[8]

In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364)[9]. The Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC).

In 1986, Appeals Court Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
[edit]Reaction

In June 1987, Congress had attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.[10]
Two corollary rules of the doctrine, i.e., the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.
[edit]Support for Reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine

Some Democratic Party legislators have been vocal in their support of a reinstated Fairness Doctrine.

Senator Richard Durbin has said "ItÕs time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.Ó[2]
Senator John Kerry has said, "Well, I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there..." [3]
Bryon York of the National Review has written that Media Matters for America announced a campaign to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine as early as October 2004.[citation needed]
[edit]Legislation

In the 109th Congress, Representative Maurice Hinchey introduced legislation "to restore the Fairness Doctrine". H.R. 3302, also known as the "Media Ownership Reform Act" or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.[11]

In the 110th Congress, no legislation to restore the Fairness Doctrine has been introduced.[citation needed] Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from "using any funds to adopt a fairness rule."[12]. It was blocked, in part on grounds that "the amendment belonged in the Commerce CommitteeÕs jurisdiction".

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:26 PM

It maybe a non news issue but it is a media issue. I agree he should be fired but what's really "MY-ISSUE" is that the news media is a cess-pool. It's bais reporting is an insult to the public, it's sense of fair play sucks, it's backbone is up to it's own ass in shit, it sells scandle, hype & spin but hardly the news worth reporting. For the past 7 yrs it's been politically white washed, it couldn't even ask an intellegant question about the how we entered the war or how the was was justified, it became a mouth piece for who ever welded a club (a club in many sences of the word). IMHO the news media isn't hardly worth a politican's oath & it's best that they should start a full scale revamping of it from top to bottom.
Otherwise they're just rats feeding from the same cess-pool that they wallow around in, in their search for something to print.

Is it obivious that I hold no high opinion of them? Does anyone?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:23 PM

Ah. It is non-news because Don Firth says so.

Best shut down the thread, mods.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:13 PM

For the most part, this whole thing is a non-news issue. Apparently, it didn't stir the septic tank quite enough to please the person who started this thread.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:12 PM

REPEAT: it is the pattern of misogynism we are talking about, and the need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

freightdawg, I would never suggest that networks be forced to censor political speech, even offensive political speech, especially in times like this (election year, during wartime, etc).

But right now, the government, through the FCC, regulates speech on the public airwaves, and does it quite unevenly, based upon the offense as it is perceived by a bunch of conservative Republican middle managers and political appointees (think Katrina & Homeland Security response).

If it was necessary for the government to become involved in legislation regarding hate speech regarding race, then it certainly should be involved re: hate speech regarding gender, because it is out of control.

I think the reporter should be fired. That is wholly appropriate in corporate marketplace, and the networks are the corporate marketplace.

What other response should be made? At the very least, if I were the Clinton campaign/Hilary Clinton, once the election is past I would seriously consider filing a lawsuit to force the issue into the courts. We may need another fight up to the Supreme Court to get a new Fairness Doctrine passed into law.

And don't forget freightdawg--the law does also require that networks comply with "community standards" regarding decency issues. No one at Mudcat is a legal scholar in media law, and I have no idea where this falls on that spectrum.

But like I said, even John McCain stood up for the Dixie Chicks. Lots of people "get it" (why this is a big deal) even if you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:00 PM

Leaving the kids out has been a fair & decent policy for some time now, & rightly justified. We didn't hear much about W or Jeb when Bush the 1st was in office or running & it's a shame we didn't cause if he had been outed back then he may not have come close to the White House. Other childern of the recently past administarations havve been left out, though Chelsea did take some flack early on. Even Dan Quale's kids (after the wimp's plea) were left alone.

This was a below the belt remark, as far as under reported, I can't say, I heard about it on NPR & was pleased with Hillary's thoughts on scrapping the debate. Give the debates over to a network with a bit more respect & control, after all is that what the public wants as a moderator whose network spouts those kind of qualifications. It would also send a message "hands & mouths off" & "fair play" for everyone. Smear campaining shpould be halted every trime it rears it's head it only leads to "swift boating".   

It bad enough that the public can't trust the reporting about the people running, actually the news networks have degraded themselves so much that they should be policing their own. The way this present administration manipulated the news media & how the news media allowe themselves to be manipulated from the out set they, tthe news media have a long way to go to make up for their past transgressions, a very long way & this was 1 way to make a start at rejustifing (is that a new word?) their role in society, They should can the ass, give over the debate to another newtwork, apologize widely & publicly & make a promise to uphold their place in society as an unbias news source/media & to bring back reporting the news to something more than acting like power-rats-ies.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:51 PM

I thought "pimp" these days meant give someone or something a make-over.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:41 PM

GG:

I dunno if you ever finished going and soaking your head when another 'Catter directed you too recently. But please rinse and repeat. I am not speaking from hatred and your aspersions are some kind of bitter projection on your part. I do appreciate your wisdom in that last paragraph, though.

The thought occurs to me that it is possible the Schustermeister may have been betrayed by his own generations wilful disdain for the traditional meanings of words and their fascination with rap. There may be many steps of differentiation between the word "pimp" as we understood it twenty years ago, and the easy slang into which he slipped discussing Chelsea-- so he may have been just as shocked by the reactions he got as his listeners were at the language he used. Not to excuse his ignorance or barbaric attitude in any degree, but it goes to show ya what happens when you take just any ole meaning for words you pick up in the gutter instead of the dictionary.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: freightdawg
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:40 PM

What's going on in America? I thought we had a guaranteed freedom of speech, a freedom that cannot be abridged in any way, so long as that speech does not incite violence or is in itself considered violence. Describing the Hillary/Chelsea relationship as "pimping" hardly crosses any line. It doesn't even get close to the line. You can't even see the line from that comment.

Making a comment about a senator pimping out her daughter might be considered stupid, and the network has dealt with the one who said it in an appropriate fashion. Heavy handed, I belive, but probably appropriate.

Look, there is no reason for Chelsea to be out campaigning for mommie dearest. The only reason for a spouse to be on the campaign trail is to give the populace a chance to see who will be in the White House should the nominee be elected. What can Chelsea say? "Vote for my mom because I have half of her DNA"? While "pimping" is a morally over-charged word, the concept is spot on. Hillary should be ashamed of using Chelsea as a surrogate, if Chelsea is not emotionally strong enough to defend herself and give a good enough reason for her to be begging votes for her mom.

Regardless, my main point is this - we in America have gotten so sensitive to "stupid" remarks that we have created a politically correct speech police department that is only inches away from the KGB in the old Soviet system. Let people make stupid remarks - who cares? They will pay for their own stupidity. We do not need thought police to go around and "fire" every moron that makes a ditzy comment. From "nappy headed ho" to "pimping" it is just speech.

Considering the venom that is expressed on this site directed to Bush, and even Bush's daughters, "pimp" is actually quite mild.

Whatever happened to "I will defend to the death your right to say it?" I think that quote was prefaced by, "Sir, I may disagree with what you say."

This is America, folks. Stupid speech or not, it is a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech that is under assault here.

Did I miss something?

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:31 PM

"But it was a transient blip on the radar....."

How many such blips does it take to form a pattern?

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:16 PM

But this, on top of the Matthews commentary, on top of the Imus shit...it all adds up, and if enough people go ballistic over it, and vox populi won't let it rest, we could effect some REAL bi-partisan change by getting the Fairness Doctrine reinstated.

See, here is where I part company with the not so terribly bright partisans. The Obama camp doesn't want a big deal to be made of this, because it could garner sympathy for the Clinton campaign.

We all know that the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys and Fox News apparatchik need to be reigned in. When something like this happens and the opportunity is missed because of bloody campaign politics, it just infuriates people even more, and alienates them even further from the political process.

The hatred that the Amos, Charley & Ron D show is so obvious. Their true concern isn't for everyman or democracy. Their true concern is winning at all costs.

I despise the politicians that the Clintons are, just as I do Bush/Cheney. But at the end of the day, I know well enough that hating and creating them as "the enemy" in my head and heart only binds me further to them, and blinds me and prevents me from seeing the world accurately. At the end of the day, even Hitler and Idi Amin were human. We should NEVER lose sight of that. Or of the need to fight for the rights of the people we don't like, to protect the rights of all people, not "just us".

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:08 PM

No question, the line was crossed.   I think Schuster should be fired. There's no excuse for that remark--and I wouldn't trust him down the road. Reminds me of Imus.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:55 PM

An attempt was made this past summer in the House to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

It was defeated, never made it out of committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:51 PM

mercy, GG! There's no way the **network** is responsible for stupid remarks by a reporter, except to to as they did and make HIM pay in some appropriate way! You betray an excessive zeal to inflate the whole thing far beyond its immediate relevance.

Wherever Schuster works in the future, I'd say he'll be more aware of his language.

If you MUST focus on stupid & hateful remarks by broadcasters, there's plenty of fodder over at FOX or on Rush Limbaugh's show!

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:34 PM

Your Obamarama True Blue colors are showing Amos.

As the parent of a politically active daughter just a bit younger than Chelsea Clinton, it hit a chord with me, as it has a few others here.

You are just trying to minimize it because you are cynically spinning it away from empathy for the Clintons. They didn't ask for this, though. And that's what any decent person can see when they see this story.

What should happen? How about an investigation by Congress into media bias and the need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? How about some hefty FCC fines for this? You can bet there would be fines for the network had they said the same thing about Laura Bush & one of the Bush's daughters.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:14 PM

Jim, et al:

It was uncalled for, a guttersnipe's remark with no class to it at all. Don't get me wrong.

But it was a transient blip on the radar in the flow of hot political salvos back and forth, the guy apologized and got suspended. How much of an issue should be made of it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:07 PM

Amos: There's a line, you don't cross. Maybe back off on this one a little. As a parent, I immediately felt for her father & mother. I would have felt the same if Obama's kids had been smeared in this manner and I'm sure you would.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: mg
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:26 PM

It was a disgusting comment and I certainly hope they don't give the debate time to them....Any parent would be horribly offended and she is apparetnly a strong young woman who I think should make a public statement. The more comments like that are let stand, the more of them we will see...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:16 PM

GG:

You want to elevate this incident into a Misogyny International rap shtick? Oy!! I think you can choose your battles better than that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM

David Schuster was about as good as they come when doing straight reporting and analysis, but a bit of a loose cannon when ad-libbing or trying to conduct a discussion and offer 'opinion'.
Keith Olbermann gave the incident and Schuster some pretty harsh remarks and added profuse apologies for the network last night.

I was impressed that MSNBC acted so swiftly and strongly.

I did see Schuster's 'apology' in an online video, and found it pretty weak. I'm not sure what they ought to do....and I doubt the network is either...yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM

GG-

Boring! You really want to raise this as a major issue for us to sink our teeth in?

Next thread.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:52 AM

The attempts to minimize this is the same thing men do all the time to marginalize women. The "no big deal" defense. Not surprising most Mudcat men take that position, as this is a pretty misogynist forum most days.

Imus' radio show was simultaneously broadcast on cable tv, so it was carried on both.

I thought the hoopla over Imus' remarks, and his subsequent firing, was right on and just as it should have been.

Why would it be more newsworthy for politicians to be slammed for making racist remarks, but when the 'commentators' do it, they do it with impunity?

BTW, Clinton's campaign manager is threatening to cancel all further debates on MSNBC, who won the bidding war against CNN to get the upcoming Ohio Clinton/Obama debate. Stay tuned.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:39 AM

The media outlets had declared Chelsae a "No go area" but in all other aspects, the Clintons would and have been be fair game.
Picked that up from CNN a few weeks ago.
Sorry to hear that one reporter didn't get that.
You want to see every parent in the country rise up to her defence then go ahead and slander her.
I'm waiting for the day either of my sons brings home a wee girl just like Chelsae.

If they ever get off their arses!

Please do not allow this thread to degenerate into a Chelsae bashing thing.
Seriously!

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:38 AM

If the occurence has been under-reported, I'm not so sure it's due to any media-wide desire to bury it. There's an old adage in media circles about there being no such thing as bad publicity. CNN is going to be reluctant to overexpose a story that gives free publicity to MSNBC, even if it's bad publicity. Remember, it wasn't that long ago when nobody on a televsision network would even say the name of a campetitor on air in any context, positive or negative. They were all just "another network".

As for the Imus thing, television doesn't really look at radio as direct competition. Giving free publicity to a radio station is no big deal. Most people only listen to radio when they can't watch TV, like while driving.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:20 AM

I wonder why my story of Chelsea snaking out after lights out to give a press conference in support of Obama didn't hit the national press. 'S up wid dat? Same for the breakthrough scoop on Hillary and Karl Rove's love-child. Not a peep out of the main-stream media. I am beginning to think GG is right. This game is rigged!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:59 AM

One day, Chelsea might be president of the U.S.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:56 AM

The story was widely reported when it occurred, but it didn't get a lot of legs, you're right -- it wasn't stretched out interminably and boringly, and it wasn't allowed to suffocate other news.

Not such a bad thing. It's not a very important detail, is it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:35 AM

Yeah, OK. Ya got me there.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:33 AM

That anyone who pushes television "news" for a living would imply that someone in politics is guilty of pimping or whoring is supremely ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:32 AM

But Rapaire, I think it is important to keep media bias on the front burner, not the back and filed under "same old double standard". With this sort of media bias being so blatant, the vox populi actually has a shot at reinstating the Fairness Doctrine under a reasonable administration.

Hell, even John McCain stood up for the Dixie Chicks, fer chrissake.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:26 AM

I think that ANY commentator or report who has to resort to slang in an attempt to make his or her point is so bereft of vocabulary that they shouldn't be in job.

The "Fairness Doctrine" of the FCC was repealed under the Reagan Administration (such as it was).

Talking heads will continue to blather until they are held accountable for their words. Sometimes I lament the decline of the Code Duello.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:16 AM

Put the shoe on the other partisan foot here. What if this jackass reporter would have said the same thing about Laura Bush & one of the Bush daughters?

Can you imagine?

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: meself
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:14 AM

There used to be something known as 'foul language' which was not to be used in public. Maybe there was a reason for that quaint concept ...

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:13 AM

The media reporters and commentators engaging in this behavior is what blows this up into a media event.

The point I was hoping someone might make was that it wasn't being covered because the media is covering for their own, at the expense of the voting public.

The FCC should be regulating election speech on OUR airwaves, IMO. Not going after the networks for Bono f-bombing the audience at the Grammys
and Janet Jackson flashing the same thing the Budweiser commercials show during their ads at the Super Bowl.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:07 AM

That's what I said...why shouldn't she campaign for her mother?

And the media should be held accountable.

But it's still distracting folks away from a discussion of the very real problems the US has: an antipathy to paying the bills, a "borrow and spend" philosophy that has put the great-grandchildren in hock up their eyeballs, a declining standard of health care, lack of any health care for far too many people, combat but inadequate funding for those wounded in that combat, a lack of a coherent and long-range energy policy, decline in education, a decaying national infrastructure, what seems to be a total dependence upon violence as a way to solve problems....

Chelsea should simply have slapped the guy's face for implying she's a whore, as would have been done forty years or less ago. Instead, it's being blown up as a media event.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:14 AM

"But considering the hoopla over the nappy headed ho comment, one wonders why this story is getting so little traction."


                        Chelsea is white. Al Sharpton won't make an issue of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:35 AM

Wives have long campaigned for their husbands. So have children for their fathers and mothers.

BFD. Another tempest in a teacup, distracting everyone from real issues.

Subject: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:26 AM

Not that the mainstream media is misogynist or anything. But considering the hoopla over the nappy headed ho comment, one wonders why this story is getting so little traction.

Just as with the nappy headed ho thing, the media made it about race, not gender. In other words, the offensive part of the nappy headed ho remark was the nappy part apparently, not the ho.

Now comes this statement from the Enlightened Ones at MSNBC:

By Peter Nicholas and Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
February 9, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Angered by an MSNBC correspondent's demeaning comment about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's daughter, aides to her presidential campaign said Friday that she might pull out of a debate planned by the cable network this month in Cleveland.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, cast as "beneath contempt" an on-air comment Thursday by MSNBC's David Shuster, who said Chelsea Clinton is "sort of being pimped out" as she intensifies her campaigning for her mother.

NBC News announced Friday afternoon that Shuster had been suspended indefinitely over the remark, which a release called "irresponsible and inappropriate."

Shuster apologized Friday morning on MSNBC for the term he applied to Chelsea. He issued a second apology on the MSNBC show "Tucker," where he had uttered his comment while acting as guest host.

Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has been critical of what it considers a hostile attitude toward her in MSNBC's coverage, and the Shuster incident brought matters to a head.

Last month, another MSNBC talk show host, Chris Matthews, apologized after suggesting Clinton owed her political success to her husband's philandering. "The reason she may be a front-runner [in the presidential race] is her husband messed around," Matthews said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Wolfson on Friday referenced that controversy, saying, "At some point you really have to question whether or not there's a pattern here at this particular network, where you have comments being made and apologies given," he said. "Is this something that folks are encouraged to do or not do? I don't know, but the [Shuster] comment was beneath contempt, and I think any fair-minded person would see it that way."