What the hell happened to Ed Schultz? (excerpts from a National Review podcast)

[hlthe2b]

h/t to http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ed-schultz-touts-vladimir-putin-and-himself-in-bonkers-interview?ref=home

Speaking this week in a National Review podcast, hosted by Jamie Weinstein and published Friday, the TV host refused to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin for his troubling human-rights record, instead declaring that Putin is “viewed as a progressive Democrat” by the Russian people.

When confronted with his own past comments acknowledging Putin had a “nasty human rights record,” Schultz focused on the “tremendous friction” between the U.S. and Russia, and claimed that his previous remarks about Putin “might have been overboard.”

“Does he have a nasty human rights record?” Weinstein pressed further. “I think the United States has a nasty human-rights record,” Schultz replied.

“I do think that every super power on the globe has a very poor record on human rights.”

DUer oberliner included a link to a 2016 WAPO article that is excellent as well for any who might want to see the evolution of his controversial time with RT.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-ed-schultz-transformed-from-msnbc-lefty-to-the-american-face-of-moscow-media/2016/12/20/320713f4-c322-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.b40e5ca0c4c4

and from the Daily Beast article (link above):

The blustery anchor also refused to say whether Russia was a true democracy, instead insisting that there were “tremendous similarities” between American and Russian political systems.

“The American people don’t understand that what Russia is going through, not right now, is a big political experiment,” Schultz explained. “That Vladimir Putin is trying to make sure that this system of sovereign democracy works in Russia.”

The RT anchor got heated when Weinstein asked him about his own defense of Russia and Putin in light of him being a media operative of the Kremlin.

In response, Schultz emphasized twice that he was “unmuzzled,” and rejected the notion Putin had chosen him to legitimize the state-owned network in the eyes of skeptical viewers.

[gopiscrap]

1. sold his soul

[meadowlark5]

2. Maybe Big Eddie made some trips to Russia

Or because he broadcasts on RT, the Russians wanted to know who he is and have some dirt on him too.

[mchill]

3. Ed Schultz may in fact be a mercenary type

Before he was on liberal radio, he talks about being a Conservative and seeing the light. He has that fishing lodge to pay for in Canada, I guess.

[Wwcd]

7. Sold out for a freakin Lake House. RT is there to normalize Russia.

RT exists to further the Putin dominence against a free society.

[oberliner]

4. This article pretty much explains it all

How Ed Schultz transformed from MSNBC lefty to the American face of Moscow media

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-ed-schultz-transformed-from-msnbc-lefty-to-the-american-face-of-moscow-media/2016/12/20/320713f4-c322-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.b40e5ca0c4c4

[hlthe2b]

21. that is a very good article from 2016 I will add that link to the OP as well. Thanks

[oberliner]

22. You're welcome

His crossing over to the Russia Today universe several years ago was quite disheartening.

[mucifer]

5. Greed

[Wwcd]

6. Anyone appearing on Russia Today sold out against the future of American's

& their free society long ago.

No one appears on RT with an agenda against Russia.
NO ONE.

[dalton99a]

12. +1. RT is an instrument of the Russian state

Stanford professor Michael McFaul, the former American ambassador to Russia, calls RT “an instrument of the Russian state. Their mission is to advance the mission of Mr. Putin and the [Russian] government.”

[Wwcd]

19. Thanks for that bit from Prof McFaul. We witnessed the early days of 'the fall' in real time

The thinking of American minds had to be changed by a slow & subtle method, propaganda is a Kremlin specialty. RT brought on board American speakers who had at the time, no reason to be mistrusted.

Normalizing Russia was a full on gradual campaign of propaganda to influence & unsettle the American electorate.
Without the gradual propagandizing of free thinking minds by those we once trusted, the transition from Democracy to Trump would not have been possible.

Those enlisted to move the propaganda of the Kremlin, thru their appearances on RT, have since shown their true colors.

The election of 2016 was a full on coup to takeover the US govt.

Many were part of that mechanism.
Many were duped.

Professor McFaul reiterates this point perfectly.

Appreciate your post.

[dalton99a]

8. Putin is paying him well

They flew there on Schultz’s newly purchased jet, whose previous owner was golf legend Arnold Palmer.

[NurseJackie]

9. He's sickening.

[mucifer]

10. Thom Hartmann was on RT for quite a while. But, thankfully he left.

[wryter2000]

11. Obviously he's hungry

How much weight has he lost?

Kidding

[CentralMass]

13. He's been getting all the borscht that he can eat.

[wryter2000]

38. LOL

But that's all beets.

[peggysue2]

14. Schultz was a . . .

conservative talk show host back in the '90s, way before he was a MSNBC host. Now he's at RT? That makes him a hired gun, nothing more.

However, with this last shift he truly sold his soul. How could anyone pretend that a thug like Putin, former KGB and always KGB, is working a 'democratic' experiment?

The money must be astounding!

[Blue_true]

15. Eddie looks good. Has lost a LOT of weight.

Maybe his new diet is driving him nuts.

[UnhelpfulYoda]

16. What choice does he have?

We all know who has ultimate authority over the 'RT' news network, aka formerly known as 'Russia Today'

What Is RT? - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/europe/what-is-rt.html


I think it's a matter of choosing your battles. Ed Schultz learned the hard way that standing by your principles, even when those principles challenge powerful people, is a very lonely road, both personally and career wise:

Big talker - Columbia Journalism Review
https://archives.cjr.org/cover_story/ed_schultz_msnbc.php


Incidentally, a couple years later, MSNBC 'hired' Chelsea Clinton for no apparent reason, and serving in no apparent business capacity, at a $400,000....woops, correction, $600,000 a year salary, no problem at all....

Additionally, He's not all that young, and maybe doesn't consider new platforms available to him via the Internet, such as youtube or blogs to be am adequate replacement for old media ideas like a traditional news channel.

To me, it seems like he made a decision between having no voice or platform, and having a limited platform. Basically, he can say whatever he wants about US policy now, his only taboo topic, I'm assuming, would be Putin and Russia.

Obviously, he had no way of knowing this would be the only news story covered for the entire 2017 news cycle.



(With that said, I don't really watch his show on RT or ever see his youtube clips come across my feed, so I'm just guessing based on what I remember of his old show on MSNBC and how and why he was fired...)

[Takket]

17. a fraud who speaks on behalf of the highest bidder

i feel betrayed for the hours i wasted listening to him on liberal radio.

[MuseRider]

18. I tried to like him

even though every time I listened to him I was reminded of Limbaugh (his voice and occasional paper rattling). I met him later, with another old DUer, in Crawford. He needed a pen so I gave him one. He later found me and was angry because it had leaked on his shirt pocket. I think he is an asshole.

[UnhelpfulYoda]

24. I would be mad too.

I would probably be pissed about the pen as well. Was he genuinely angry, like it was your fault you gave him a crappy pen, or was it more like 'thanks a lot buddy, this pen of yours just leaked all over my shirt' type of thing?

[MuseRider]

30. I don't remember really caring.

He asked for a pen and then came back to me later to tell me it leaked. He was obviously not happy about it. Was this my fault? I could not care less, I gave him my pen. I would not have done it if I had known it would leak. It had not leaked in my purse so I never even thought about it. Pens leak sometimes. Whatever, I never was able to like the guy.

I liked much of what he said but he kinda always put me off. I was just mentioning a stupid incident that did not actually change the way I felt about him. I had always felt he was a bit of a jerk.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. I never cared for him.

First of all, I never trust former conservatives. I’ll take their votes/support for our party but I don’t trust them.

Second of all, I never liked his “Limbaugh of the Left” style. I appreciate he attempted to bring in a certain segment of the population. Not sure how effective it was but I had a couple conservatives in my office who liked “that guy who hunts and fishes and supports out troops.” So there’s that.

[patricia92243]

20. I remember when he went over to the dark side. Never did care for him.

[FoxNewsSucks]

23. It's a shame things turned out like that,

I don't think his years of doing liberal radio were a waste. I remember that at the time (2004) his show went national part of his ability to get non-liberals to not immediately reach for the dial was that he had a little of Limbaugh's style and was a rural hunter type. I think he was sincere in his liberal radio show and on MSNBC.

His radio show was very good, as was his book Straight Talk From the Heartland. Obviously Shultz was looking out for his career just like anyone else. I also liked his TV show. He was among the few willing to discuss TPP, net neutrality, the Keystone pipeline and other issues important to the working class.

But look what happened then. Corporations had already taken over radio, and squeezed his show out along with most other liberals. Comcast bought NBC and purged him, Cenk, and others.

This country is in its current state in large part because of near-universal corporate control of media. Corporate rightwing control. Obviously Shultz has bills to pay and that's the choice he made. If there were an actual liberal network of TV and radio, he'd probably be working there.

[Wwcd]

26. He had to gain trust in order to divide the electorate.

Its exactly how the Koch owned Tea Party replaced the once somewhat reasonable Republican Party with what they are today.

Same m.o.

[GoCubsGo]

25. He has always been an opportunist.

Shilling for Putin has been his most lucrative opportunity for the past few years. If "Media Whores Online" still existed, he'd be in their hall of fame.

[Wwcd]

27. + a million.

Yup. With a giant portrait of his grinning, fat, lying face mocking the gullible for feeding his big fat ego.

Traitor to the USA.
GTH Ed.

[Stellar]

28. I knew something was going on with Ed when he started to

...really bad mouth Obama shortly after he joined RT. I was through with him.

[Lil Missy]

29. I never did like him.

[guillaumeb]

31. This part: I do think that every super power on the globe has a very poor record on human rights".

Right on target. Every current or former empire has an overall poor record on human rights.

[hlthe2b]

36. Doubt anyone disagrees with the comment, but NOT in its use to DEFEND or equalize with RUSSIA

[guillaumeb]

37. I agree. Schultz' positions on a number of issues have changed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I never liked the guy. Check my posting history.

He was a rightie talk show host who became a leftie talk show host because he could never compete with the Rushs, Sean Hannitys, and Michael Savages of the world. Now that the left has disowned owned him he's become a Russian stooge.

[jalan48]

34. I never liked his delivery. I thought he was trying to sound like a Rush Limbaugh from the left.

[Vinca]

35. I guess some people will sell their soul if the price is right.