Skip to comments.Shuster Snoots NatEnq Editor: As a Newsman, And I Use the Term Liberally
Posted on 08/08/2008 2:19:02 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
David Shuster, arbiter of journalistic standards? The MSM didn't bother to pursue the Edwards story, yet Shuster, he of "pimped out" fame, has had the chutzpah to look down his nose not once but twice on the National Enqirer during an interview this afternoon with Barry Levine, its Executive Editor. Levine laid out a number of open issues, including paternity and the source of funding for Rielle Hunter's living arrangements.
BARRY LEVINE: I think this story is far from over in that regard.
DAVID SHUSTER: And finally I mean, I mean, as a newsman, and I sort of, take that term, sort of liberally for some of your critics, in terms of how they would describe the National Enquirer, but nonetheless, you did get the story right, in your estimation, where is the next aspect to this story for the National Enquirer?
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Shuster looks down his nose at National Enquirer ping to Today show list.
Shuster and MSNBC would have to work hard to rise to the reporting standards of the National Enquirer.
NE has more credibility than Shuster or Matthews or Olberdork, anyday.
Somebody is feeling owned...
Isn’t this the same clown who was nutted by the Hillary contingent for observing that the Clintons had pimped out “little” Chelsea?
Is this the same David Shuster who gave us the “scoop” about Karl Rove being indicted in May 2006?
Fweh - and we used to think Shuster was a good guy. Way back during the Gary Condit-Chandra Levy mess, Shuster was working for Fox News, and doggedly pursued Condit all over the place, literally sticking his mic into Condit’s face, trying to get answers.
Didn’t the National Equirer or some other tabloid break the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers story? There too, the MSM was not interested in what a good Democrat such as Bill Clinton was doing.
Media bias exists when the stories are slanted or reported in certain ways. And media bias exists WHEN THEY DECIDE WHICH STORIES TO COVER, AND WHICH ONES TO IGNORE.
Was the Mark Foley story really worth two weeks of saturation coverage in the fall of ‘06 during the mid-term election campaign?
Was the Larry Craig story really worth the coverage it got?
We’ll see if this story peters out over the weekend, or if it has “legs”. I think they just wanted to get it out of the way. Then if anybody says anything next week, the Dems. will take a page from Bill Clinton’s playbook and say this story is old news and already dealt with. And their allies in the newsrooms may decide to move on from it.
Would a prominent Republican get the same treatment in a case like this?
If this is a story about my neighbor, or some entertainer, then I’d agree its a non-story. Leave people alone.
But this is a guy who wanted to be president, and probably still had a shot at being vice-president. His wife is very famously and tragically dying of cancer. This is relevant.
When you remember back a few years when the press went round and round endlessly trying to decide whether GW had ever used drugs back during his substance abuse days, their protestations of journalistic prudery are not very believable.
Am I the only one here who recalls Shuster doing card tricks on his last day at Fox?
Didn’t the National Enquirer also break the Jesse Jackson love child Scandal too?
Ah, yes, those were the days when the great news reporter David Shuster was being “pimped out” by the leftist frauds of Truthout...... Shuster swallowed their garbage without any real reporting or verification, then tried to spin the story in the direction he wanted it to go:
MSNBC’s David Shuster: ‘I Am Convinced That Karl Rove Will, In Fact, Be Indicted.’
BWA HA HA HA HA...... and David Shuster thinks that HE can look down his snotty leftist nose at the National Enquirer? In his entire life he will never prove worthy of reporting for the NE....... fwiw.
Guess I missed that. Did Shuster quit Fox, or was he canned?
Oh, yes, and in the 1992 campaign it was CBS and “60 Minutes” that allowed Bill & Hillary to do a puffball ‘interview’ staged PR event with no real investigation or serious reporting. CBS made itself the vehicle of the Clintons to save their campaign. The Clintons were in serious danger of being derailed by the Gennifer Flowers story, and CBS rode to the rescue.
CBS did not merely stay neutral or ignore the story, it turned its vaunted “investigative” TV magazine, 60 Minutes, into a propaganda forum for the Clintons. That was the last time I ever watched 60 Minutes or anything on CBS News, because I could see that they were so completely corrupt and in the tank for the Demagogues.
I would not have respected them if they had simply ignored the story at that point, but to actively connive with the Clintons in propagating obvious falsehoods, well that proved CBS News and 60 Minutes to be beneath contempt.
The pot calling the flatware black.
(Can I say ‘black’?)
He was fired if I remember correct
Of course not! You are guilty of thought crime!!!
To the gallows with you!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.