An Open Letter to MSNBC: Let the inquiring public have returned to it David Shuster

An Article by:

Russell Cole

David Shuster was recently placed on indefinite suspension by MSNBC, following remarks that were made by Shuster during an episode of Countdown, where he was substituting as the host for Kieth Olbermann. When discussing Chelsey Clinton’s participation in her mom’s campaign for the Democratic Primary, Shuster questioned whether Chelsy was being “Pimped out in some weird sort of way,” by her parents. The remark made by Shuster was in reference to the use of Chelsey by the Clinton Campaign as an agent who was charged with the task of campaign calling celebrities, on occasions, and, sometimes, to contact members belonging to the extra-democratic council of elders; otherwise referred to as Super-delegates.

I had actually watched the show in question, and – although I had, in fact, observed the statements made by Shuster – the incident failed to registered as anything apart from the ordinary and unremarkable. However, apparently, Shuster’s remarks incited furry on the part of the Clintons and the Clintonian Political Machine. Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a debate that is to be hosted by NBC if Shuster is ever to return to his employment at MSNBC. Accordingly, the executives at NBC capitulated and placed Shuster on indefinite suspension.

The problems exemplified by this course of events that involved Shuster; his employer, MSNBC; and the Clintonian Political Machine are more than apparent. Corporate journalism has capitulated to the pressures placed upon it by an agent that would, otherwise, constitute an object of its journalistic coverage, in order for the journalism syndicate not to lose access to its subject, who, also, sometimes, serves as a source. For a journalism syndicate to obey the commands placed upon it by those who are powerful in society tarnishes any claim by the journalism organization to be providing unfettered and unbiased reports of those who have acquired positions of significance whereby their actions can have an impact upon many others.

For this reason alone, MSNBC should rehire Shuster. In fact, it was later revealed that Chelsey was assigned to a Super-delegate – where she met with him in person during the course of a private breakfast – who happened to be close in age to the former First Daughter. However, rather than addressing the Clintonian use of Chelsey in this instance, and the implications it can have, lending itself for the comparison - not in all respects, but, at least, to some - with other more unsavory forms of exploitation, it is more important to point out that Shuster should be returned to his position because he is simply one of the best in the profession.

Of all of the relentless and self-assured chatter emanating from the Washington Press Core, David Shuster has provided an unique and refreshing voice, offering empirically based descriptions and evidentially supported adduction that contribute to a stream of informative journalism that certainly marks a high peak in the profession, protruding from a backdrop of low valleys that represent the utterly unprofessional and informatively valueless work generated by his counterparts. For the majority of instances, Schuster appears to actually conduct investigatory research; thus, adding to the empirically derived body of knowledge pertaining to American political affairs while failing to merely reiterate and help propagate the popular narration of events constructed by the group-think of Washington press correspondents.

The value of Shuster’s work should not be understated, considering the alternative options one has when searching for credible sources of cable journalism. Simply from observing the cable news analyses provided upon the Primaries, it is evident that the punditry is merely engaged in speculative indulgences; always insisting upon explaining processes – such as the deliberations of African American women, who, according to the quasi-journalistic expository prose, must make the difficult chose between two competing social identities – a black man and a white women; both with whom an African American women can identify. Are these conclusions offered by the chattering heads supported by research in political psychology or sociology? Sadly, and fairly amazingly, they are not.

With absolutely no support for their conclusions other than their own intuitions and looking-glass-selves, they, nevertheless, articulate their narratives as if such explanations should be considered more credible than an description that I, myself, could provide, taking into consideration that I have no resources or even contacts. Since these accounts proffered to us by the corporate press exist in some state of Limbo between reality and fiction, it is difficult to know what exactly to make out the quasi-journalism manufactured by the chattering class occupying the chairs in cable news. At best, I would describe it as a theoretically vacant and methodologically nonexistent form of armchair political-sociology.

As Jon Stewart has pointed out, the steady stream of empirically unestablished expositions distributed through the cable news medium can be tellingly referred to as newsac. Like musac, it provides an unobtrusive background to spaces that might be otherwise uncomfortable if left in silence. The pacifying character of newsac, however, only persists for as long as one neglects to make it the object of his or her attention, because, as soon as it is scrutinized, its blandish and hollow composition comes to the fore, and, subsequently, incites a vexing realization that what one is hearing qualifies as a commodity that is significantly less than news.

Nothing was more troubling than listening to the chattering heads describe how they were misled by their polling in the days leading up to New Hampshire. These people know nothing about the inferential statistics that go into extrapolating the frequencies of attitudes belonging to an entire population about whom such attributes are inferred. The majority of the buffoons we watch on cable news do not even understand the significance of the margin of error in statistical sampling, let alone the actual operations comprising the methodology of sampling. Therefore, to listen to them joke about the precariousness of their forecasting – a disposition of reticence garnered by their debacle in New Hampshire – smacks of incredulity, because, quite simply, they had nothing to do with the polling; and, their forecasting, rather, reflected merely reading the polls and making predictions based upon the level of support achieved by the various candidates. Therefore, they are giving themselves too much credit. Their contribution to this false prediction is better compared to a high school student who uses the Wikipedia as her or her sole reference when writing a report; never considering that the renderings contained in the Wikipedia might be derived from processes that are not entirely reliable.

Shuster’s work in journalism, however, is markedly different from the preponderance of chatter heard through media transmitting cable news. When covering the Libby Trial for Hardball, Shuster reported voluminous facts belonging to the reality of the unfolding drama. In fact, Shuster’s coverage of the spectacle achieved a degree of precision that was not even remotely attained by his journalistic peers. If one wanted to understand the actualities of the case – and assuming that cable news was one’s only recourse – he or she had no where else to turn other than Shuster. Popularized myths – such as the assertion that Plaine was never undercover – often made by conservative politicos and, then, distributed by journalists who were all too willing to package such manipulative attempts at public relations as actual news was routinely dispelled by Shuster, who, as a contrarian, would point to factual information: statements made by the judge and the prosecutor that indicated that Plaine was in an undercover capacity; telling utterances contradicting the claims dissembled by Administration apologists.

Quite simply, for those of us desperate for legitimate reporting, Shuster’s loss is a devastating blow. Furthermore, when journalism becomes subservient to the agencies of power it should be examining critically, there is certainly something amiss that is in need of correction.

For shame MSNBC. I would iterate the same to the Clintons; however, it has long been apparent that they have no shame.

Russell Cole

If you enjoyed this post,
Subscribe to the Free Midwest Populist Party Newsletter

Please consider a donation of $1 or more
to help keep this website active.