BS: Pimpin' Chelsea

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."