“In mid-late 2000, we hear Shuster was accused of erasing one of the scripts of fellow FNC colleague Rita Cosby. The story was about Pres. Bill Clinton potentially being disbarred, and Cosby had the scoop.”

Shuster was a liberal shill way back then.

How did he erase the script? Pencil eraser? Art gum?

I added a parenthetical to explain. In the computer system.

Ironic that both Shuster and Cosby both wound up at MSNBC.

(PS- Odds are, RRK… he deleted the file from the computer program.)

I see.

I really don’t like all this piling on that’s going on with Shuster. To be clear, I think he should have been taken off MSNBC dayside long ago because of his unobjective combative style he displayed with many of his interviews. He would have been better suited for the primetime talking head zone. But I digress…

Is it really newsworthy what Shuster did with FNC all those years ago? Sounds like some FNC insider decided payback was in order for a long ago crime. But is it that germane?

Seriously, how far back in one’s career do you go? At some point there should be a statute of limitations on these things because ones career is not summed up by incidents like this. I think Shuster’s on air behavior is a far more telling indicator than his behind the scenes shtick, which happens far more often in TV news than people realize.

If you are going to talk about Shuster with ancient material like this, you need to put it in context and note that there’s a lot of behind the scenes BS that goes on that never gets reported and this isn’t just David Shuster; rogue talent. It’s David Shuster, rogue talent, who got caught. Plenty of other BS never gets reported even though plenty of media writers know about them. For example, a network news president screaming at the EP of a newscast in the control room for the way they were talking to the star anchor during a breaking news event.

Wow, Rita Cosby…that takes me back.
She was way hot with a sexy, husky voice but she got too fat for Fox.

Good riddance to Shuster.

Happy Slavery Month, Righty’s!!!

Seriously, what’s next? An expose of Shuster’s parking tickets. Overdue library books? Forgot to cross his Ts and dot his Is?

Maybe Obama can appoint Shuster to some open judge position. The Shu seems pretty skilled at conducting speedy trials and delivering verdicts via Twitter

Big_F-ing_Deal is BHO still clean??

Steve, what does erasing the script from Avid mean? Are you saying that he sabotaged one of his co-workers? That’s what it sounds like, but I don’t want to jump to an unfair conclusion.

Avid is an video and audio production technology used in newsrooms.

out of curiosity, did that Bill Clinton story ever get reported?

Shuster was hardly easy on Bill Clinton back then, so anyone suggesting he was some sort of Liberal hack for him is being silly.
Rita Cosby has her own historic and histrionic relationship with mangling the truth, so if Shuster did the alleged “editing.” we probably owe him a debt of gratitude.

Big_F-ing_Deal says:
April 8, 2010 at 3:10 pm

Wow, Rita Cosby…that takes me back.
She was way hot with a sexy, husky voice but she got too fat for Fox.

And then she was picked up by MSNBC… and then fired.
Does that mean she got “too fat” for MSNBC too?

AnonymousFinch says:
April 8, 2010 at 3:51 pm

Here’s an example: http://www.avid.com/products/iNews/index.asp

That’s their most current system, but I’m sure the previous version (whatever they were running at the time) is still pretty similar.

ImNotBlue:

That’s helpful. So if this is true, Shuster was being a nasty S.O.B. to a colleague, no?

Seriously, how far back in one’s career do you go?

——–

I believe the poster was pointing to an established pattern.

Didn’t Rita Cosby have some “scoops” about Natalie Holloway, too?

I had known that Shuster was a petty and shrill little hack, but who know he was such a sleazebag?…

Give us a break! According to this alleged report, “But sources tell Mediaite the break from Fox News was not a clean one. In mid-late 2000, we hear Shuster was accused of erasing one of the scripts (in the Avid system used at the time) of fellow FNC colleague Rita Cosby.”

This is journalism??? Or rumor and gossip (or rumor and gossip “created” by Steve Krakauer)? He starts with an anonymous source (alleged) and then progresses to “WE HEAR Shuster was accused” of some sleazy misdeed or another. Who does this communal “we hear” refer to? Or does Mr. Krakauer think he’s the Queen of England and thinks of himself in the plural? And again, the anonymous, mysterious “source.”

As for the comments by right-wing readers, they already accept this rubbishy “news item” as gospel. But then, they probably watch Fox News with a similar willingness to believe.

“As for the comments by right-wing readers, they already accept this rubbishy “news item” as gospel. But then, they probably watch Fox News with a similar willingness to believe.”

ummmm…scroll up, Einstein. Most of the leftwing readers accepted the story as being factual well.

Bob. Great points, all.
It’s starting to look like this site is devolving (if that wasn’t the creators intent) into a grudge match, and another sounding board for FOX fans. What’s with treating Newsbusters as if it’s an actual legitimate outlet for media criticism?

“I believe the poster was pointing to an established pattern.”

An established pattern with a 10 year gap in it. What kind of established pattern is that? Furthermore this FNC incident really has no bearing on his MSNBC suspension. The incidents are totally dissimilar. The only constant is that he had a “talking to”. If the FNC incident was that big a crime, they wouldn’t have waited two years to dump him with a “non-renewal”. But what happened with his going behind MSNBC’s back to do what amounts to an audition with CNN is a whole different magnitude of crime which required immediate action, if one buys the argument that it was a “crime” (which I do).

My read on this piece is that this is someone’s long knives kick Shuster while he’s down agenda.

If you want to see a genuine “established pattern” look at what happened to Imus and MSNBC. Imus constantly crossed the line and MSNBC put up with it long past the point it should have. Finally he went “too far”, though arguably some of his past sins were much worse (like ridiculing Contessa Brewer on the air, which prompted Rick Kaplan to chew him a new one).

“For example, a network news president screaming at the EP of a newscast in the control room for the way they were talking to the star anchor during a breaking news event.”

That sort of dirty laundry tidbit equates to the sabotaging of a colleague’s work?!

However,you’re right, this incident would merely show Shuster to be a dreadful human being. It’s his tweets while covering the James O’Keefe story that sum up his work.

AnonymousFinch says:
April 8, 2010 at 4:30 pm

That is certainly what it appears to be.

Gary Stewart says:
April 8, 2010 at 4:54 pm

Probably during her MSNBC time.

Bob Amsel says:
April 8, 2010 at 5:02 pm

Wow… you’re an angry dude. It’s so nice out. Perhaps you should take a walk.

Gary Stewart says:
April 8, 2010 at 5:12 pm

Let me guess… you’re one of those guys who complains about sites like Newsbusters… but will readily accept stories being sources to Media Matters, Newshounds, KOS, TP, and the like… right?

Another person who can’t quite say what they mean. It’s not the sites you reject… rather, the opinion that’s different than your own. It’s not some high and might journalistic ethics complaint… just another, “Don’t use folks who don’t agree with me,” whiner. Oh well.

Thank you, Gary. David Shuster is my favorite anchor but he really deserves to have his own “opinion” show instead of being used by MSNBC as a sub. One of the funniest reports he ever did was on the teabagging movement and, for my money, surpassed anything that Jon Stewart has come up with on The Daily Show.

Before listening to the following comments on YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOinq_IeCyY&feature=related), bear in mind that the sexual slang definition of “teabagging” is the insertion of a man’s testicles into another person’s mouth. On a non-sexual level, David’s report comes across as a typical left-winger’s opinion piece. But consider this report on a sexual level. I’ll bet you can’t even count the number of sexual innuendos, double meanings, and puns David has skillfully managed to compress into a three-minute report. (Of course, this use of a staid news network to out-Stewart Stewart is undoubtedly more annoying to stodgy management than anything suggested in the phony article we’re responding to.)

If I had my way, David would get his own hour show on Comedy Central.

ChickaBOOMer: Spitzer Spritzer
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2010/04/spitzer-spritzer.html

“That sort of dirty laundry tidbit equates to the sabotaging of a colleague’s work?”

Hi Cecelia. No. It doesn’t equate but the point of noting it wasn’t to equate it that way. The point was to show it’s just another example of dirty laundry, like Shuster’s, which remains buried until someone brings it out, even though it was known for years.

Spud, it goes without saying that every collective will have its share of dirty laundry.

The ONLY significant aspect of that fact is that sometimes the dirty laundry is so serious in its dirtiness that it merits a public airing.

Bob Amsel,

I think you have exposed the very knob of Shuster’s talent, the meat of his skill, and it’s a hard fact well worth extending in lieu of David’s penal circumstances with MSNBC.

Yes, its not every Peter and Percy who has Shuster’s facility with dirty double entendre and among those inflated egos of journalism, David Shusters is the dick who does.

Nice try, Cecilia, but your doubles entendres are a bit heavy-handed (and that was not a masturbatory allusion). When David Shuster first aired the report on “teabaggers,” most teabaggers themselves didn’t get the sexual connotations at all and only picked up on the fact that David was not being complimentary. (MSNBC management didn’t get it either, but that’s hardly a surprise.)

More knowledgeable viewers, on the other hand, quickly put the commentary on YouTube, where it became a cult favorite. (I believe David was substituting for Olbermann at the time, which, as you know, is a left-wing opinion show rather than a straight news show, which allowed David to wear a different hat. Unfortunately, MSNBC management has never knowingly exploited his wickedly clever talent, since he’s much funnier than Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz, or Matthews, but then, who isn’t? Although I’m not a Joe Scarborough fan, due to his politics, Joe does has a wicked sense of humor as well, on those rare occasions he’s been allowed to express it.)

I realize your comment is meant to be sarcastic, but I’m quite sincere about my wish that David were given a slot on Comedy Central. I know people who have never tuned into a cable news show in their lives but devotedly get their news in satirical form from Stewart or Colbert. But I’d suffer through watching CNN regularly if David were given his own show. I already enjoy watching Fareed Zakaria’s show and, once in a while, Anderson Cooper.

And speaking of CNN, don’t you find it interesting that Christiane Amanpour did exactly what David did? However, in her case, there was no suspension when she moved from CNN to ABC. But then, Christiane wasn’t working for a dickhead like Phil Griffin.

As for “dirty laundry,” you’re still just commenting on rumor and gossip, possibly created by Krakauer, for all we know. We still haven’t been presented with any facts or and sources, and I’m not holding my breath that we ever will be.

Bob Amsel,

I’m not sure that the parody/satire hat is a hat that be taken off as if it had never been worn. To mix metaphors, it’s a hat that’s too close to the vest. It doesn’t have the emotional distance from a story that even punditry offers.

You were generous when you described my own attempts at dirty double as being heavy handed. I didn’t much enjoy them. I’ve seen endless replays of Shusters allusions to “Dick Armey(s)”… and such… and would hope that had I been watching the original airing of Shuster’s remarks, without a heads-up (oh, goodness, this stuff writes itself…) that his efforts would have gone entirely over my head (sigh). That I would have been oblivious to it as thoroughly as I was to the urban dictionary def. of teabagging.

I see no shame in that. On the contrary, as you can see, it encourages a callowness that fills me with shame.

As to Amanpour, I think there’s a distinct difference between being talks with a competing news agency and in actually working with them on a project. For example, you might survive having the boss learn that you had interviewed with a company, but probably not had she discovered that you had actually been vetted by attending a brainstorming session as to how best beat her product. It hardly takes an ethicist to know that one has stepped over the border between self advancement and sheer back stabbing self interest.

Regarding my dirty laundry, I do agree that at this point it is gossip, but there’s a particular irony in that. Shuster belongs to a profession that composes whole news stories around anonymous sources.

That doesn’t change the fact that there is no on-record source. I take your point.

To Cecelia (and I apologize for spelling your name with only one “e” before, but then, I recently wrote to a “Barbara” who spells her name “Barbra” and we know there’s only one of those. O.k., my eyes are going; I admit it):

I’m sorry, but I really didn’t understand your paragraph starting with “As to Amanpour….” From actual news reports (as opposed to Krakauer’s gossip mill), David did a pilot of what appears to be a variety-type news show along with a newscaster from NPR, Michel Martin. Such a presentation is alien to David’s role on MSNBC as either a strict anchor or a substitute host on other people’s shows, especially Olbermann’s. (Oh, and I don’t recall reading about Michel Martin’s suspension from NPR. Did I miss it? ) It’s quite a stretch for you to suggest that David was brainstorming ways to compete with the sort of work he did at MSNBC. Of course, all news networks by their nature are in competition with one another.

I disagree with your assertion that “Shuster belongs to a profession that composes whole news stories around anonymous sources.” Shuster hardly contributes to “The Globe” or “National Inquirer.” That’s called “yellow journalism.” Face it, if Hillary Clinton wanted to sue some rag that ran, “Hillary Clinton has Alien’s Secret Love Child,” she would win. She doesn’t bother because only morons believe such stuff. (Hmmm. Then, again, that’s probably about half the population.)

In actual Journalism 101, a reporter is trained to answer the questions “who, what, where, when, why, and how?” The source must be a real person whose statements can be verified. In many instances, the word of one person alone is insufficient to run a story, especially an important story. (That’s how Dan Rather was undone.) The editor has to know who the sources are to avoid lawsuits. The writer may be permitted to protect his source’s name from the public, as in “according to a source close to the White House….”, but he must nonetheless provide assurance to his editor regarding the source’s validity.