The Problem With Ed MSNBC demagogue Ed Schultz is taking some time out in the penalty box after referring to fellow radio host Dr. Laura Ingraham as a "right-wing slut". "On my radio show yesterday, I used vile and inappropriate language when talking about talk show host Laura Ingraham. I am deeply sorry, and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for and I recognize the severity of what I said. I apologize to you, Laura and ask for your forgiveness. It doesn't matter what the circumstances were. It doesn't matter that it was on radio and I was ad libbing. None of that matters. None of that matters. What matters is what I said was terribly vile and not of the standards that I or any other person should adhere to. I want all of you to know tonight that I did call Laura Ingraham today and did not make contact with her and I will apologize to her as I did in the message that I left her today. I also met with management here at MSNBC, and understanding the severity of the situation and what I said on the radio and how it reflected terribly on this company, I have offered to take myself off the air for an indefinite period of time with no pay. I want to apologize to Laura Ingraham. I want to apologize to my family, my wife. I have embarrassed my family. I have embarrassed this company. And I have been in this business since 1978, and I have made a lot of mistakes. This is the lowest of low for me. I stand before you tonight in front of this camera in this studio in an environment that I absolutely love. I love working here. I love communicating with all of you on the radio and the communication that I have with you when I go out and do town hall meetings and meet the people that actually watch. I stand before you tonight to take full responsibility for what I said and how I said it, and I am deeply sorry." (RealClearPolitics) Following his on-air apology, Schultz's MSNBC show went to intermission. Guest host Thomas Roberts took the reins, and will presumably hold them through Schultz's week-long grounding. Earlier today, Ingraham tweeted her acceptance of Schultz's apology, and discussed the issue on her show: She addressed the issue again on her radio show even though "she didn't really want to discuss it." Ingraham insisted there were more important issues - like Americans trying to find jobs and those in the Midwest reeling from deadly storms. "Stuff is always said about me," she said. "... I thought so little about it, I didn't even mention it yesterday." Ingraham called the comment "crude," but said Schultz's remorse seemed genuine. "It seemed heartfelt, it seemed like he really wished he hadn't said it, and I accept the apology," she added. (Shahid) Some liberals, myself included, find Schultz irritating because he is a concession to what we view as right-wing lowbrow broadcasting. This particularly ugly and embarrassing episode ought to remind quite clearly the dangers of appealing to the more brutal, ignorant, and self-satisfying aspects of humanity. I mean, I don't like Dr. Ingraham— The war of words started on Tuesday when Ingraham suggested it was insensitive for President Obama to be drinking Guinness in Ireland while Joplin, Missouri dealt with the aftermath of a killer tornado. Schultz hit back on his radio show on Wednesday. "They're not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They're just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday, but you know what they're talking about, like this right-wing slut, what's her name? Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she's a talk slut," he said. "You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama's doing it, they're working him over." (ibid) —but that is clearly beyond the pale. I mean, hell, she may be an actual slut, but I still cannot see what that would have to do with anything. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Via New York Daily News; raw totals unknown. While it would seem there is a twenty percenter club in this issue, it is hard to figure how the logic works. Okay, so: Ed Schultz was justified in attacking Ingraham because Ingraham attacked Obama. Okay, now, are there no better arguments than calling her a slut? I would think there would be some better response to addressing Ingraham's stupidity, hypocrisy, or whatever else we might want to call it—but just call it what it is. There is no reason to skip straight to the personal. And while Schultz's apology is a far sight more dignified than any number of non-apologies issued in American political culture through recent years, it is telling, I think, that he decided to go there in the first place. For one who postures himself as a willing participant, someone who will make a point of standing up for certain interests, one is now left wondering how much of that is genuine, and how much just market ego. Spider Man gets it. Ed should have been able to figure it out. ____________________ Notes: Real Clear Politics. "Schultz Apologizes To Ingraham: 'This Is The Lowest Of The Low For Me'". May 25, 2011. RealClearPolitics.com. May 26, 2011. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ham_this_is_the_lowest_of_the_low_for_me.html Shahid, Aliyah. "Laura Ingraham to suspended MSNBC host Ed Schultz: I accept your apology for calling me a 'slut'". New York Daily News. May 26, 2011. NYDailyNews.com. May 26, 2011. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...d_schultz_i_accept_your_apology_for_call.html
She's a ho. Maybe slut is too strong a word for TV, but "prostitute" or "whore" works equally well. I can't stand Ed's show either (tv or radio), but his heart is in the right place.
You are just saying that because you like goats, obviously! Ed has always had a bad temper and appeals to the more old school liberal methinks. Personal attacks is a big no-no for most liberals as they know by attacking the message not the messenger one can actually educate the listener to the policies and issues affecting them. On the other hand Maybe Ed was just trying to compete w/ the right wingnut radio hosts by using personal attacks!
I don't mind some personal attacks on a show like that, but when it's all just liberal cheerleading, it gets old. I want to learn something new, not hear the same old propaganda.
A woman called a slut? This is news? Happens all the time, and then we masturbate. I dont understand either. Men are always trying to get laid and when we do...one is a slut. Even when we dont get laid...one is a lsut. LOL, wtf?
The Intimate Insult Well, sure. But it's still a kick in the teeth, entirely out of line. I mean, if there was some specific and relevant line of logic that justifies calling her a slut in any context, that's one thing. But other than that? Still, though, the thing is that it needs to be relevant. That she is or isn't a slut has no bearing on what President Obama drinks, or when. That she is or isn't a slut might have bearing on some sexual moralization she preaches, but even then it's not appropriate to actually come out and say it on the air, on national radio, with your name in the logo. No. No. There is almost no reason in the world for Schultz to go there, especially given her exposure as a loudmouthed, unreliable wingnut. He might as well have called her a fatty-fat fat-fat at the smorgasboard of lies. There are a thousand million better ways to smack down Ingraham's brand of shit. "Talk slut" is still an intimate insult.
She's kind of a liar. Isn't Shultz all commentary anyway? Look. I don't like the negative discourse on the interwebs and gizmo-rays out there in society, but she's sort of fair game. Was it appropriate? No. The guy's just as much a jerk as her for doing that (which, of course, makes him a hypocrite), but MSNBC has long cast its lot with the more aggressive liberal-ish side of America, to pretend other wise is to. . . well. . . pretend otherwise. I say, let them duke it out anyway they want. Ingram used to have an MSNBC talk show back in the 90's (yeah, I used to watch it), so I wonder if she still has contacts within the management who felt obligated to protect her. ~String
It's the old rule, attack the idea, not the person. Had he stuck with pointing out that Obama can be in one place and command support in another, he would have been fine. But he lost when he made it personal...not even sure why he would do that. Maybe he should stick to a script if he can't self-censor himself in real time.
Mod Note: Gustav, take your complaint elsewhere. I, like Fraggle, have no compunction about suspending you. Take your pick.
And clumsy, at that Well, yeah, but that's the thing: Olbermann, at least, was smart about how he did his bit. Maddow, at least, is smart about how she does her bit. O'Donnell, at least, is smart about how he does his bit. Schultz, though, is as blatant and clumsy and annoying as O'Reilly or Hannity or any of those guys I might complain about. It's not that they're Republicans, it's that they're idiots. And Schultz—I accept Spidergoat's proposition that his heart is in the right place—just seems to be happiest wallowing with the idiots.
I don't watch MSNBC and kind of get my TV news from CNN and Fox, about 50-50. So I've never watched Schultz's show. Fox had a segment on O'Reilley or Hannity last night that played Schultz's angry rant and his subsequent apology, and featured Ingraham live, saying that she didn't consider it a big deal and accepted his apology. Everyone agreed that Schultz shouldn't be fired. I basically agree with that. I guess that Ingraham did take kind of a cheap shot at Obama. He and his people doubtless had that little moment in the pub carefully planned and choreographed weeks in advance. Everything had been carefully checked, snipers were posted on the rooftops and the unsmiling guys with shades, earpieces and guns were everywhere. It was about as impromptu and informal as the royal wedding. Unfortunately for Obama, the Joplin tornado struck and sucked all the pseudo-"charm" out of his quasi-Irish moment. But it was on the schedule and he went through with it. Leaving it a point-blank target for people like Ingraham to take shots at. That's a little uncool, but we all know for a fact what would have happened to George Bush had he been caught in a similar moment. There would have been no mercy in any of the liberal media. Obama got off easy. Schultz couldn't take it when he saw his liberal gang homie being dissed, so he stared flinging rhetorical bullets at rival gang members. And he shot himself in the foot. Kind of entertaining media-political theater for an Independent like me to watch, but there's nothing unusual or important in any of it.
This bs is getting old. W deserved everything he got, and more. Much more. (He had weeks of warning on the major hurricane Katrina, and was CEO in charge of the governmental preparations. Do you remember where he was and what he was doing, when it hit and caught his government flatfooted?) The fact that Obama didn't deserve it - and before him that Clinton didn't deserve it, that Bush Sr. and Reagan did deserve it and didn't get it - is the whole point, is what goads the Ed Schultz's of the media world (or, actually, the Ed Schultz - there isn't a list of them, on his side of the fence). But I don't see the hypocrisy - Ed has no big issue with mere crudity of expression, does he? He never struck me as some kind of crusader for polite language. He seems happiest in the trough, shoving in the mud - his particular advantages of simplistic accuracy and blocklevel reality based worldview work best at that level, anyway.
Ed forgot he wasn't Dan Akroyd. And talk about BS. Bush and Katrina? That was like trying to herd cats. They had buses and wouldn't leave. OTOH lots of folks ride out storms and play the odds. My grandfather did with tornadoes in the Midwest. They took a chance and guessed wrong. They just happened to live in a city built like a water soluble soup bowl. So what exactly was the miracle fix? Call Noah? Free trailers? Rebuild shacks below sea level? Move them into your house? And a lot of those "cats" went to Houston and stayed. Given where they were living in the first place, not a bad choice. Should they have all gotten fine homes built for them on the taxpayer's dime in hopes they would return? Have you ever been to N.O.? It was a dive. It was pretty much all about a couple of tiny sections of town, and they were tourist traps. Once you get out, you never go back.
You talking about the nursing home and hospital patients drowned in their beds? Or were you talking about the Superdome residents running out of water and food days after the storm? Do you recall where W was, and what he was doing, when his federal government was caught unprepared and incompetent by Katrina's two weeks warned arrival - and more than a thousand people died? I'm wondering whether any right wing news commentator was even officially criticized, let alone reprimanded, for their language in discussing the victims in New Orleans. Seems like I recall all kinds of bad language, worse innuendo, etc.
So, from now on when a Hurricane is coming we empty all the hospitals and nursing homes and take them 500 miles away. And what, put them in the corn fields? Do we have enough helicopters to airlift that many ambulances? Were there roads that would allow travel? Did we need to build more roads in that two weeks? Is it possible that even the mighty US government doesn't have the power to change the laws of physics? Pray tell, what should have been done? And should it be done every time? We'd spend all our time on the road during Hurricane season. There is a cost and a risk to living along the coast. Once in a blue moon something really severe happens. No safety net can stop it.
The response in the case of the Red River flood by Clinton's FEMA would have made a good model. They had national guard rescue boats and vehicles launched as soon as the levees were topped or broached, as soon as they could get to the flooding areas (they were watching them, having prepared in advance, identified the likely trouble spots, and established in advance their criteria for response). They had good maps, and all the gear necessary, and complete information about the number and locations of the vulnerable. Nobody was trapped in their beds in a nursing home and drowned after hours or days of rising water - they were rescued by competent and well organized federal efforts in plenty of time. The Canadian rescue guys got there second, not first - despite their being directly involved and right next door, the superior speed and skill of the US organizations beat them to the needful. And yes, that kind of response to emergencies should be expected, and normal, and part of the ordinary governmental landscape of the United States. And the kind of godawful Keystone Kops screwing up we saw in the wake of Katrina should be described forever as the macabre zoo story it was to live through.
