Letters to the Editor
Rocky57
Published Letters: 213 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Shuster V. Imus
[Read the article: The Shuster fallout]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I have not seen any defense of Shuster that would not apply equally to Imus, whose remarks were neither more nor less accidental, insignificant or part of an ongoing pattern of behavior. That said, I have enjoyed watching Shuster and have no desire to see his career damaged, provided that, unlike Matthews, he actually learns something from this and changes his act. Clinton's refusal to be mollified by his apology is probably based on legitimate skepticism that anything will change what goes on at MSNBC."
I wouldn't go that far. Prior to the Rutgers imbroglio, Imus had a history of racism and misogyny stretching back to his NBC radio days in the late 70's [I can remember Howard Stern, yes, Howard Stern recounting an episode where Imus gob-smacked a cleaning woman and a secretary with the N-word while berating both in a drug-induced haze, while running around in his underwear in the studio] and preceding right up to hiring Bernie to do "the N---er jokes" and calling the dark-skinned Gwen Ifill something akin to a scullery maid. Imus has a long rap sheet; Shuster's got no such equivalent record. Shuster's problem is that MsNbc, an also-ran as a cable news outlet, is on the make and thinks it can do that with commentators who come right up to the line separating snarky and irreverent from grievously, not-to-be-tolerated insult. Furthermore, David's been placed, from time to time, as a substitute anchor for Carlson, Matthews and Keith--a move that, in hindsight, would appear to place him in situations that are over his head. Additionally, it appears that he's been around Matthews too long and may have been in the nascent stages of infection re Matthew's obvious sexism, and enmity toward the Clintons [Chris should really get over the dis, real or imagined, that the Clintons allegedly dished out to his old boss, Jimmy Carter and the loss of that supposed job offer from Bill and Hil]. Shuster's a helluva reporter and, after the appropriate unpaid suspension and with nothing approaching the nonsense that surrounds Imus, should come back after having been suitably chastened.
-
Skylark
[Read the article: The Shuster fallout]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...He gave a crude imitation of Joy Behar of The View, complete with high pitched screechy voice....
Please. A "crude imitation" of someone's speaking style, especially if it is distinctive, is hardly sexism. Behar's a media figure and is fair game; just as O'reilly is for Keith's barbs regarding his idiosyncrisies. You've got to do better than that if you wish to advance the proposition that Shuster's got a history of a particular kind of behaviour. Sexism exists but you're not going to make the sale re Shuster, in this instance.
Now, if you have other examples of Imus type behaviour, I might be persuaded to buy your line regarding Shuster's "pattern" of malfeasance.
-
Sidebar re Jake Tapper
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sidebar: Was Jake Tapper a little weasel when he worked here? Or is he just trying to pre-negotiate a contract or something?
Ol' Taps pulled that "wiping the doorknob" thingy to make a [guerilla journalism] point about aids or something right around the turn of the new century--that was pretty much decried by the MSM so you can imagine my surprise when he managed to get that ABC gig.
-
Sorry, Pincus...
[Read the article: No Hail Mary for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...In effect, Sen. Obama did not make an informed decision. He made a flippant decision based on his gut and what he read about in the NYT. To say that the other senators "gave in to Bush" is to imply that senators should not believe the President of the United States when he tells them that the country and our allies are in immediate danger. Not believing the President and ignoring what informed people tell you because you want to be President one day is beyond stupid and partisan. It's also traitorous and a clear dereliction of duty..."
...anyone with a computer and fingers to access google and the CIA Fact Book knew enough to not buy that swill Bush and co. were putting out...not to mention common sense, Pincus. Absent any connection with al quaeda [and even those doctored "intel reports" Bush was serving up didn't push that angle too far], it was just plain stupid to call off the Posse in Afghanistan and make a right turn at Iraq. And, when you can explain why 23 senators actually read [something Clinton didn't do] Bush's dossier for war and voted the same way Obama would have, had he been in the Senate, I might actually think about ceding your post some credit.
She blew the Presidency when she voted for that abject bamboozelry of a resolution--without that, we would have started talking--on February 5th--about how McCain would match up with her in the general election.
-
Stop complaining, Rose...
[Read the article: No Hail Mary for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]("...SO EXCUSE US, POLITICAL PUNDIT CABLE PIMPS AND NASTY ZEALOT OBAMA-ITES, IF THE HRC CAMPAIGN JUST WON'T GO AWAY LIKE A GOOD LITTLE GIRL SO YOU CAN HAVE A BALLOON DROP....")
...your candidate should have run a better campaign. She fashioned a cumbersome, top-down brontosaurus of a political apparatus and was out-maneuvered and out-strategised from the git-go...by a leaner, more lithe velociraptor of a campaign machine fashioned, from the ground up, by a political newcomer.
How's she going to deal with the likes of Vladimir Putin [through his sock-puppet, of course], in light of that fiasco?