Other Pimpees: New York Times and Washington Post

Those who read their email know I am keeping my powder dry on the presidential candidates. Unlike a surprising number of partisans, I am prepared to vote with at worst a meld of tranquility and misgivings for whichever candidate the Dems manage to agree on.

But it is certainly disappointing how much press time and energy seems to be continually siphoned off on sideshow issues related to what seems to amount to bad behavior - by candidates, candidate staff, and the press.

The "pimping" comment by Schuster of MSNBC is just the latest ridiculous debacle of this sort. I will refrain from recirculating the original material here, as planned link will no doubt provide at least as much as you need. In short, foolish - no, stupid -, tasteless on-camera comment by mainstream media person. Demand for apology, semi-apology offered, demand for firing follows, followed by pretense that there was no such demand. Whatever!

But, with no intent of defending the undefendable Schuster, I think this post is more on the mark, namely that MSNBC as an organization (and far from the only one) is to a horrifying extent a community of misogyny (and racism), surprisingly also featuring Keith O, Rachel Maddow, and maybe a couple others who actually have feet on ground. Schuster went brain-dead for a moment and has been deservedly chastised - why do we still endure the drivel of Chris Matthews et al, routinely embodying misogyny and bigotry as they do? For that matter, why does Tim Russert still have any platform as a supposed newsperson at all, NBC? Britney with balls and facial hair? In reality, with few exceptions (several noted above), doesn't the concept of "pimping" seem to more or less define the vast majority of what goes on in the guise of "journalism" for most mainstream media these days?

Please help me get over my despair as to what it will take to get back to an independent media, critically monitoring government actions. Obviously having more than a handful of right-wing demagogues controlling the majority of the media, as is the case today, is important. I'm just embarking on audio of Cronkite's "A Reporter's Life." Doubtless that will be interesting, but I am braced for depressing comparison to the corrupt state of our media today. I believe self-induced pain will inevitably be required just to begin restoring the delicate balance between the three houses (one now of course poisoned by judicial appointees who are ideologues and do not actually do judicial work as conventionally understood, another toxic with overdose of hubris, and the third in the late stages of arsenic lacing) And then there is the fourth branch, where even the former hallowed mainstream NYT and WaPo have stumbled repeatedly in the last 20+ years in repeatedly serving as shills for (i.e., being pimped by) a corrupt rightwing thuggery. Shame on all of them. How in the hell do we fix it?

Speaking of masochism, Andrew Golis must have a cast-iron stomach:

I watch a lot of MSNBC. I watch Morning Joe every morning as I wake up and get my work day started at home, and the channel runs (usually on mute) non-stop in front of me at the office. On election nights (which seem to come a few times a week these days), it's usually on with volume for a few hours. I've watched hundreds of hours of MSNBC in the last few months.

So I say this with some level of expertise: David Shuster is the least of our problems.

I watch MSNBC because it's the cable channel that has the most straight-junkie political coverage. CNN seems to have gradually lost it's broader view of the world (when they flash over to CNN International sometimes it becomes quickly apparent how awful CNN US is), and has decided to mix Blitzer's beard, King's suspenders and Cooper's impeccable suits with fluff and flashing pictures. And Fox is, well, Fox. For a political junkie like myself, MSNBC is sadly the only real option.

But only a single day of viewing is required to notice how consistently misogynistic the station's leading men are. I've always been blown away that Don Imus in the morning was replaced by Joe Scarborough. Joe Scarborough, who regularly calls his co-anchor Mika Brzezinski his "girl," off-handedly dismisses her opinions like a 1950s husband who tells his wife how to vote, and generally embraces the George W. Bush/George Allen "good 'ol boy" political persona. Glad we fixed that Imus problem, eh?

And of course there's Chris Matthews. Matthews is practically a tragic figure to me because he's so fundamentally sexist that no matter how well-meaning he is he can't help himself. He repeats over and over in his conscious mind that he believes women should be equal and respected, but he just can't convince himself that what they really want isn't a John Wayne figure to pat them on the ass. And boy does he wish he could be John Wayne.

And let's not forget Tucker "I Beat Up Gay People" and "Hate Hillary's Shrill Lecturey Voice" Carlson and the bizarrely omnipresent paleocon Pat Buchanan. Or the fact that there are exceptions. Brzezinski herself, along with the network's real star Keith Olbermann and the thankfully more-often-present Rachel Maddow, are superb as cable news folks go (Brzezinski will forever have my respect for this moment alone). But, theirs is an uphill battle.

All of which is to say that put in the context of his un-punished colleagues, I find Shuster's suspension deeply absurd. Shuster, for anyone who missed the hubub yesterday, said that Hillary Clinton was "pimping out" her daughter Chelsea because Chelsea is campaigning for her. Stupid on the merits and an obviously gross and sexist metaphor. But worse than the persistent misogyny that comes from Scarborough, Matthews, and Tucker? Worse than, hour after hour and day after day, laying out a sexist worldview that might actually persuade viewers?

-clip-