Becoming Somebody

It seems there is nothing new media loves to harass more than old media, and believe me I get as big a kick out of it as any in the blogging world. Call me biased — as you should know by now, I welcome the charge — but I honestly believe newspapers and magazines do a solid job, for the most part, the obvious exception being the industry-wide carte blanche given to the Bush administration after 9/11 and during the buildup to the Iraq War by every journalist other than those working for Knight Ridder.

Mainstream television journalism, on the other hand, is just awful and by far the most egregious in its tawdry coverage of news events and seeming inability to hire journalists willing and/or able to conduct real interviews and ask real questions. The worst part is that TV journalists know they do bad work. How obvious was their guilt when, in the wake of Scott McClellan’s charges that the media failed the American people before the invasion of Iraq, hacks like NBC News Chief White House Correspondent David Gregory got all twisted up and felt it necessary to defend the work he and his colleagues did at that time, over and over again? I think such defensiveness, and a complete rewriting of history, falls under the Whoever-Denied-It-Supplied-It banner.

However, I’ve had enough of media critics — mostly those who blog — ripping on cable-news pundits like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and, yes, even Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity for not upholding high journalistic standards on their programs. People like Matthews and O’Reilly aren’t newsmen. They’re not even in the business of reporting the news. They are commentators. They comment on the news. Their roles — which I agree are far too big and far too ambiguous — are to offer their opinions on politics and current events. They are allowed to have stupid opinions, to be base and obtuse, to be hardheaded, to be annoying, to be wrong, to be unfair.

The inability of the public to weed through all the hot air emitted by these blowhards is the fault of the public alone. There is real news readily available from multiple sources — those newspapers and magazines mentioned earlier, some websites, etc. The problem is people are either too lazy to look for it or too easily bored because it isn’t presented to them by a screaming maniac surrounded by bright lights and loud noises.

Instead of seeking out the news, most people come home from work, plop down on the couch, turn on Countdown or The O’Reilly Factor and take every word spoken during that hour as infallible, ironclad truth. It’s easier and more entertaining to listen to and then regurgitate whatever Olbermann or O’Reilly says than it is to read the facts of a probably nuanced story and form one’s own opinion. But that’s not Olbermann or O’Reilly’s fault, just as it is not Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert’s fault for being the primary news source of so many young people. It is Stewart and Colbert’s job to tell the joke, not to make sure the audience gets it.

Of course, it is fair to say that Stewart and Colbert admit they are comedians and little else, while those filling up space on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC stand by the assertion that they are actually journalists. But, again, just because they assert something doesn’t mean we, as viewers with brains, eyes, and ears, have to believe it. Yet no one blames the public for being willingly misinformed and easily fooled. Better not to insult your audience, after all.

I suspect the high-and-mighty journalists and bloggers who damn cable-news punditry as the plight of American journalism are just annoyed that the talking heads they hate are more successfully reaching the masses than their dying industry. If they were honest, though, and if they were really interested in telling the truth, they’d point their anger where it belongs and leave those of us able to distinguish news from entertainment alone so that we can not feel guilty for getting a kick out of another Worst Persons in the World segment.

Texas State Senator Kirk Watson will not make another televised appearance for Barack Obama’s campaign. This, of course, begs the questions, Who is Kirk Watson and why was he put on national TV in the first place? Click here for the painfully awkward video evidence in support of my not-so-outlandish claim.

Bonus not-so-out-on-limb prediction: At least one Watson underling — perhaps the one whose job it is to help the senator prep for interviews — is clearing his or her desk today.

Let me get a few things straight right off the bat. First, I have no problem with Chelsea Clinton working for her mom’s campaign, making phone calls to celebrities, looking all hot, quietly positioning herself as the guilty pleasure of political nerd-boys everywhere. Second, I think David Shuster is a tool, but it has nothing to do with any single comment he has made. Rather, he is a tool because he is little more than a prototype of a modern TV newsman — big white teeth, perfectly parted hair, a completely inauthentic, flavorless vocal cadence, the physical embodiment of the narcissistic caricature depicted to a T by Stephen Colbert. I went to journalism school with douche bags like Shuster, and, mark my words, they are all douche bags. Third, my interest in this has more to do with First Amendment rights than it does with any political allegiances I may have.

Now that those little caveats are out there, I can get to the real meat of this story. To recap, Shuster was suspended indefinitely by NBC for asking the following question to guests of the Tucker show while he filled in as host for the ridiculous Tucker Carlson¹:

Shuster: But doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?

The question was asked to two guests in regard to the Clinton campaign using Chelsea to make phone calls to celebrities and superdelegates urging them to support her mama’s campaign, this after Bill and Hill have for so long kept their daughter in the shadows, protected from media scrutiny and the prying eyes of television cameras. Many have credited the Clintons for this approach, sighting it as one of the many reasons for Chelsea’s having grown into an intelligent, grounded woman amid a publicity shit storm few could get through without healthy doses of booze and crank. The Clintons are so paranoid when it comes to their daughter that Chelsea must even refuse to answer nonsense questions from a nine-year-old reporter, replying to the kiddie query², “I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you’re cute.” But keeping their daughter safely under wraps is getting harder to do these days, considering Chelsea’s high-visibility role as mama bear’s main, less-embarrassing travel buddy during the campaign.

And that was Shuster’s point. He rightly acknowledged that the Clintons are now trying to have it both ways, that they are using their well-respected daughter to gain a political advantage while, at the same time, continuing to keep her off limits to anyone with a notepad or a microphone. As parents, the Clintons have every right to protect their child and defend her from comments made by frat-boy cable-news anchors. However, if they decide that Chelsea’s role as a political tool is more important than keeping her out of the media, then they forfeit the right to get pissed off when someone calls them on it.

In heated e-mail exchanges between Shuster and the Clinton campaign, Philippe Reines, a Clinton aide, wrote: “I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable language was never used on MSNBC’s air about Karenna Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex Kerry, Kate Edwards, the Romney sons — or any other adult offspring who chose to campaign on behalf of a parent.”

Reines might be right about this, but Al and Tipper Gore, George and Laura Bush, John and Teresa Kerry, John and Elizabeth Edwards, and Mitt and Ann Romney never bludgeoned people to death for asking any of their adult kids a question. And let’s not disregard the fact that Chelsea, as Reines acknowledged, is an adult, a capable and well-educated grown-up. It’s not like Shuster took a swipe at a child.³

Now, finally, to the real bullshit issue behind this whole story. Since when did “pimped out” get added to the list of banned phrases? Is is really that offensive and unacceptable? I looked it up in the dictionary and found that the word “pimp,” in its verb form, means, “to provide (someone) as a prostitute.” Being a savvy, thorough journalist, I then looked up the verb form of the word “prostitute” and found that the figurative meaning, the one Shuster’s comment most closely evoked, is “to put (oneself or one’s talents) to an unworthy or corrupt use or purpose for the sake of personal or financial gain.”

Whether or not Clinton’s run for the nomination is an unworthy or corrupt purpose is, at the very least, debatable. The claim that Chelsea put her talents — her respectable character, her polite and articulate disposition — to work for the sake of political gain is, however, without any doubt. Therefore, because they were rooted in truth, Shuster’s comments were in no way libelous. Had he said Chelsea was a whore, then OK. I could see why people would get upset. He didn’t though. He said, in effect, that Chelsea was being sold out by her parents for their own gain. Sorry, Chelsea, but if the stiletto heels and pleather mini-dress fit.

What the Clinton campaign, angry feminists, and NBC’s corporate barons are left with then, as grounds for Shuster’s indefinite suspension, is the puritanical, archaic, and altogether rudimentary notion that the mere utterance of the word “pimp” implies, in all cases, a forced sexual servitude. It is not 1953. For better or worse, “pimped out” is a common phrase nowadays, synonymous with “sold out.” Shuster lost himself for a second and thought he was slamming brews with his boys back at the Delta Kappa Sigma house. He forgot his words were being viewed by Mid-American bumpkins and campaign aides drooling for any chance to claim the big bad media wolves are out to get them. He came off looking like an ass on a network that is, with the exception of Keith Olbermann, full of asses. That should be penalty enough.

And can the Clintons, both of them, please get off their righteous thrones for just a second. Do they really need to get into a debate about anyone else’s misogynistic leanings? Note to the Clintons: Stay away from this topic. After all, I’m sure Bill treated all his ladies with the utmost respect and dignity. Nothing says “respect for women” like making one of them blow you while you’re discussing policy with members of Congress. But, really, it’s the cigars I worry about. Those poor, poor cigars.

_____________________________
¹ Does anyone else think he should go back to the bow tie?
² Anyone like that? I’m going after Maureen Dowd’s job at The Times.
³ That’s for all those thinking I’d be singing a different tune if the comments were made about Malia and Sasha Obama, who are nine and six years old, respectively.

** UPDATE (Monday, February 11, 3 p.m. ET): I never thought I’d write the following words. Right on, Barbara Walters. I feel dirty now.

** UPDATE II (Tuesday, February 12, 1:30 p.m. ET): Slate.com needs to quit stealing my material or just hire me and put me on the payroll. I kid, Slate.com. I kid because I love. Seriously, though, this article by Guy Branum speaks to the absurdity of the Clintons still protecting Chelsea. He also includes something fascinating: How in 1997, when he was a student journalist at UC Berkley, the Clintons sent Secret Service agents to search his apartment and quiet him down after he wrote some surly prose about the First Daughter, who was then a freshman at chief-Berkley-rival Stanford. I think this helps prove my point.