Does Schuster have different politics depending on which show he does? Gregory's or Olbermann's?

[Hamlette]

The last couple of days I watched 1600 PA Ave because Gregory is gone. Schuster was in instead but he acted just like like wing nut Gregory. Dissing on Obama non stop because Obama has not "addressed" his connection to the attempt to sell his Senate seat. Schuster acted like it was a given Obama was involved or at least knew about it which was as bad as having sold the office himself! I gave up and stopped watching him.

But tonight he sat in for KO and was...like Keith. He totally went off on Bush not letting Obama use Blair house. He genuinely acted outraged that they couldn't accommodate the new first family and their darling kids.

So odd, since yesterday, on Gregory's old show, he acted like Gregory and seemed convinced Obama was corrupt.

Anyone else notice?

Sometimes Olbermann goes too theatrical for me and Rachel can seem like she's trying to be too cutsie. But at least you know where they stand politically each and every night.

Matthews, Gregory and now Schuster seem to swing from wing nut to on our side depending on....well, I have no idea what makes/allows them to shift so easily. You'd think they would look at their ratings vs Olbermann's and Rachel's and join us. But they don't. What's up with that?

[Teh_Publius]

1. Schuster is a second-rate seat warmer...

He went absolutely crazy when he had Keith's chair for a full week.

[Unsane]

19. Lame. Shuster is great.

[EFerrari]

2. I noticed that, too. It's funny in a way.

The shows have different frames and writers working in those frames and it's funny to see Schuster operating in both. :)

[snowbear]

3. I think it's written in his new job description..

.
.

[ShortnFiery]

17. I noticed that old Schuster seemed "uncomfortable" criticizing the Bush Administration not

granting the Obama family access to Blair House in early January 2009. I think the script was pre-written in stone, yet he was tentative enough to give his Corporate Journalistic masters/owners the message that he was "preforming under duress." :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

4. I rather he just acted like a normal person

providing unvarnished information sometimes instead of sybil.

[napi21]

5. Don't you think the scripts are written for him by the show's writers?

Each show has it's own slant and tonight, I thought David actually pulled off a couple of the jokes pretty well, but I could hear the Countdown writers jargon in a lot of what he said.

[Saturday]

8. You nailed it, he's just reading a script from whichever show he's on. nt

[senseandsensibility]

6. He subbed for Ed Shultz on Air America and did the same thing

He was super liberal with a capital L. I did notice that when he subbed for Shultz he seemed to be extemely pro labor. He was the same on Countdown tonight. So I thoughr maybe that was genuine.:shrug: Also, both of his parents are college professors, as he said once on the air, so he probably does come from a liberal background.

[Clio the Leo]

7. Wasn't that funny. I think he was trying to make up for yesterday. NT

[firedupdem]

9. So they really are "talking heads", no journalism degree

required...just fucking read the teleprompter. Hell, I'm pretty decent looking...wish I could get a job doing that!....

Honestly, I would be fired on the spot as soon as somebody said something stupid! I couldn't sell my soul like that..especially reporting on things so important to our country. They are whores..all of them!

[angee_is_mad]

10. He's one of us

I believe 1600 Ave is suppose to be an un bias news show, while Keith, Rachel (and tweety to a certain extent) have a definite point of view (editorial).

This past summer he was on morning joe and scarborough attempted to give him a slap down for being left leaning. This was about the time when all Keith and tweety were going through their situation with msnbc.

ps.
I agree that Rachel tries too hard to be cute. It irritates the HELL out of me:spank: Guess it could be worst

[snowbear]

11. He was definitely "one of us" when he was on Big Eddie's radio show..

.
.



And he's been a guest on there a LOT. Not as much as Ed Henry.. but he's been on there quite a bit over the past couple of years.

With his big new show though.. he acting more like Chris Matthews with the good guy/bad guy bit..

Remember how much we all liked David Gregory when he was asking questions at the WH press conferences?


Man-O-man, did he ever change!!!

[ErinBerin84]

20. yeah

and Joe got so offended when Shuster said "your party" to Joe...and said in his faux offensive "I'm THE MOST down the middle person at MSNBC!" Um, Joe, you used to be a Republican Congressman....it's YOUR PARTY, take some ownership.

[bridgit]

12. First time I ever saw Schuster he was working for Foxnews, tenacious; some pol...

prolly a Dem I forget likely so, but he wouldn't answer his questions and just walked away and there went the fresh faced little Fox attack dog David Schuster shouting at the guy sticking his mic in the back of the guy's head with Schuster speed-walking like he was trying to hold a quarter between his butt cheeks so I hear'ya...he comes & goes, some targets Schuster hits spot on. Maybe its just me, and I do wish him all the best, but I take him with a grain of salt

[ErinBerin84]

16. I remember him

chasing Gary Condit down the street with a mike, Hard copy style, and being like "What the heck?"

[bridgit]

21. Gary Condit. Overall another 'investigative' Foxnews casuality...

[mwei924]

13. He probably just tries to not offend any of the shows' regular viewers.

He should just be an actor though..

[camera obscura]

14. Both shows are heavily scripted. He's more "himself" on Hardball and during the day.

[ErinBerin84]

15. I remember reading

an interview with Shuster where he said that when he worked for Fox covering Whitewater in the 90s, he thought "Wow, this network is REALLY letting me be pretty aggressive about covering possibile corruption in an administration." (heh) But he noticed that people at Fox would do sketchy things like take his reporting out of context, steal sources, and there were basically no clear set of ethics guidelines at Fox. And when the Bush administration started, he wanted to do the same kind of investigative reporting on Bush at Fox because that kind of stuff is his favorite, but Fox pushed back against it. I think he was probably just being a bit paranoid the other day on 1600 PA Ave, but I get the sense that he would be as paranoid if this had happened with a Republican too....I think he is aggressive, probably unfairly so at times, but he tries to be even handed with the parties. I think that his personal politics are more Democratic than Republican.....he would say stuff like that against the Bush administration when he used to blog for Hardball. Sometimes you can tell in his "straight reporting"...he will say stuff about how deregulation has been proven wrong, the hypocrisy of conservatives when taking about gay marriage, etc. The 1600 PA Ave thing was funny the other day just because he had all these different scenarios in his head, and all of the guests were like "I think you are getting a little bit carried away"...I like him a whole lot better than Gregory (who still claims that the press did a Fab job in the lead up to the war) and think he's generally a better reporter. He was really good at interviewing surrogates, calling them out this year....Gregory, not so much...he would just let Nicole Wallace rattle on and on without challenging her. And aside from Shuster's kind of over the top-ness the other day, I think he was a lot better the rest of the week on 1600 PA AVe, despite the horrid format of the show. Though maybe 1600 PA Ave just ruins people...I too think he is most "Hardball" style. I also remember hearing or reading from the director of The Control Room (the documentary about al jazeera) that when she was filming in Iraq, he was one of the few journalists who actually let her follow him around and he gave some of his opinions on camera, which surprised her because a lot of the other journalists were really paranoid about being fired for giving their opinions on the war.

Also, he tended to be more "liberal" when he covered for Tucker back in the day, (despite the unfortunate pimp-gate) instead of being more Republican like Tucker...remember when he got in trouble with Marsha Blackburn for the Move On thing, about her not being able to name the last soldier who died in her district? (and there was some question over whether he got the district right...he had to say he was sorry, but a later report said that he was actually right...don't know how that turned out. I remember reading on TV newser that Dan Abrams, who was general manager at the time, made him say he was sorry right away..and Shuster asked for more time because he was sure he had the district right. But he had to say he was sorry, and then it later turned up that he may have been right.)

[ShortnFiery]

18. You're right there, on balance, Schuster is better than most within our Corporate M$M. eom

[Berry Cool]

22. I think he is driven by a true desire to follow the traditional media role of watchdog on power.

If he seems to be looking for an angle as to whether Obama and Blagojevich can be connected, it's not out of a desire to tear Obama down but out of a desire to make sure there's nothing there so he can say "See? Nothing there." At the same time, he can understand the unfairness in denying the man and his family a transitional home in DC out of sheer political spite. He can also see the economic situation clearly and be honest about saying that the Republican senators voted against the auto bailout bill for their own petty vengeful reasons and not because they cared about serving the people--they just wanted to punish the people for voting Democratic.

This is actually a definition of good journalism. He wants to tell the truth, so he tries to make sure he doesn't back away from any possible story, whether or not he wants personally to like what he's found. If nothing is there, he'll be truthful and say so. If something is there, he'll be truthful and say so. No matter how it makes anyone look.

[Hamlette]

25. thanks for this post, lots of interesting stuff here

I do remember "the last soldier" episode and agree that Schuster is generally better than Gregory who turned out to be a huge disappointment.

I guess I expect all of them to be pundits in which case they would have opinions that would not change, you know, like Rachel and Olbermann and ever right wing nut job. It was so odd to see Gregory go all wing nutty when he got his own show after being so great at presidential pressers. And Mika on Morning Joe who doesn't strike me one way or the other UNTIL she starts talking about Palin then she is blinded by the right.

I think this whole right wing attempt to convince America of a different reality, starting with the lie that we have a liberal media has a bigger impact than we think. Maybe Mika and Schuster and Gregory are encouraged/ordered to trash the left so the station doesn't get hit with the liberal media charge.

Here's what I don't get: NBC was, and still is to a lesser extend, having financial woes. KO and Rachel save them with high ratings. (Have you ever noticed how different the commercials are from KO and Rachel to Matthews and 1600? Of course, The Daily Show still advertises Extenze every single night!.....oh dear, I drifted) So you'd think that MSNBC might say: to hell with defending against the liberal media charge, we can make money by allowing our pundits to be as liberal as they are or go out and get liberal pundits. I even let myself believe maybe they had told Tweety "you can just be you" which is why he was so great the last couple of months of the election. But now, on this Blago thing? He's back to nut job, wing nut, Tweety. (well not quite wing nut but "I'm a professional investigative journalist so I have to investigate this thing and ask Hardball questions because it must be Obama's first scandal because I ask Hardball questions (and then answer them myself and drown out my guest's answers)."

I wish Rachel would not try to be so cute with the "talk me down" segment. Name it something else. (My guilty secret? I like her ending segment even though I hated it when Olbermann spent half his show doing celebrity gossip. I think it's because the guy who does it with her is funny.)

[Honeycombe8]

23. KO's show is intentionally partisan. So guest hosts do the job they're hired to do.

Gregory's show is more bipartisan. So a guest host is expected to do THAT show, when guest hosting, and not be like a guest host for KO.

Get it? Just like you and me, they are hired to do a job.

I don't show up for my job, take a paycheck, and perform some other job than the one I was hired to do. Neither do you.

Gregory is not a wingnut, IMO. He is just not partisan. KO IS partisan, and intentionally so. Which is why I watch his show.

Don't confuse partisanship with being "good," while nonpartisanship is "bad." The two things are totally different. When I want ALL the facts, and not opinion, on a story, I do NOT tune in to KO or Fox for the facts. I tune in to CNN. Then I go over to KO for a "feel good" experience, and maybe some of the not proved totally yet down and dirty stuff. Then I flip over to Fox to see the right wing spin on the same story.

[ErinBerin84]

24. while Gregory may not be a "wingnut"

I think he has done a really shitty job as moderator on Race to the White House/1600 PA Ave, not that great or even handed at interviewing surrogates. I like Shuster at the role because he seems to give both sides an equally hard time (I think he did a good job at this this election season), whereas I don't really think that Gregory does that effectively anymore. I'll see how he does on MTP....

[Cha]

27. And, gregory's wife is or

was a VP at Fannie Mae. Wonder if that's any conflict of interest or skews his views?

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/09/david-gregorys-wife-beth-wilkinson.html

[Moderate Dem]

26. Isn't is conceivable that

Shuster could think that Obama needs to explain a little more AND think that Bush was mistaken about the Blair House? Aren't commentators supposed to question both sides, not just one?

[polichick]

28. He's mostly reading what the producers of each show provide him with.

[Karenina]

29. He's the first graduate of Tweety School.

:rofl:

[MarjorieG]

30. Olbermann affects his show's content, producers, 1600 has different team, agenda.

Schuster seems happier with the Countdown crew, point of view, but they read what they're given.

[AlinPA]

31. Yes. The producers decide which stance they take. Nothing original on their part. They are actors.