Okay...
I've read the letter. And I've read two Kossacks interpretations of what the letter means. Or rather...what Greg Sargent thinks that the letter means.
His entire analysis rests upon one clause and concludes:
She wants him fired.
And I'm wondering...did he have a Magic 8 Ball with him when he skimmed through the letter and jumped to the conclusion that because HRC said "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient" she was calling for his firing?
Cause that's not how I read it when I went through the entire letter.
Here it is...from the Post:
Dear Mr. Capus,
Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster's comments.
I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.
However, I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient.
I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.
There's a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Nothing in there calls for David's firing...unless that's where you stop reading and are digging for the implied rather than the explicit argument that Clinton sets forward. Of course, suspension and a "half-hearted" apology aren't enough. As has been illustrated by Chris Matthews's style of discourse, suspension/apology don't even start to address the larger topic involved. After all, Matthews was chastised...apologized a month ago and here's David discussing the "pimping out" of Chelsea.
And the paragraph that follows...the one in which she encourages Capus to take a look at the pattern of behaviour--not by David alone...but by the network--with regards to the use of degrading language in various dialogues.
Whether I agree with her positions, she's right...there is a lot at stake for our country this election. And I too think that it's damn well about time that reporters stand up and do their job rather than being White House stenographers or desk pilots trying to sound hip when they totally blow it with the wrong use of the phrase.
David and other reporters like him aren't stand up comedians trying to be the next Jon Stewart. Their jobs are to report the news. Jon's job is to make fun of the reporters trying to report the news.
Now Greg interpreted the clause as the end all with regards to the letter and appears to have ignored Clinton's actual call...not to fire David...but to get to the root of the problem and shift the standards at MSNBC up a notch or two.
Clinton's larger question to Capus seems to be:
What the heck is going on over at MSNBC that makes it acceptable to refer to Chelsea as "being pimped out" in addition to the other comments that have been made--and discussed--by MSNBC's punditocracy? Figure it out and deal with it.
A thing that we'd all love to see...high reporting standards with reporters who will dig for the full story rather than rely on half the story and a bunch of innuendo.
David's was a dumb comment. It would've been dumb had it been referring to any of the candidates' family members...many of whom are actively trying to help their particular candidate.
Indeed...it was a bad enough comment that Keith Olbermann himself, a bastion of higher standards, came out and apologized for the comment:
And no, I have not made up my mind with regards to a candidate. But I think that it behooves all of us to demand that the people giving us the news work towards getting the story right instead of trying to make the story more salacious, hip, au courant by tossing in phrases, statements, and attitudes that they wind up apologizing for later.
To me, this isn't about the candidates. It's about raising our level of expectation with regards to reporters reporting stories...and demanding that the reporters rise to the occasion rather than play for the cheap thrill.
[Update]: As was noted downthread, lipris points out in his/her update that:
Clem Yeobright made a great comment below -- instead of firing Shuster, the Clintons may be suggesting an overhaul in how MSNBC covers the news (and, presumably, them). That would be terrific, because they do have some big problems. Olbermann came on the air once to apologize for his team making fun of a woman's dress who was "standing by her man" after his affairs came out. That's not the kind of culture they should accept. I'm all for making them much more sensitive about the sexism of some of their anchors (Matthews), but I just don't want to see one person take the fall for the whole network.