Stephen has an article up on the homepage on the economics behind MSNBC’s decision to suspend David Shuster over his “pimping” remark. Stephen’s conclusion:
Clearly, presidential debates are valuable opportunities for cable-news networks. Viewed in this light, the Clinton campaign’s threat to withdraw from a scheduled MSNBC debate in the wake of Shuster’s comments helps explain why Olbermann’s “pimping” analogy went unpunished while Shuster’s earned him a suspension: The debates are so lucrative to the cable-news networks, even star reporters aren’t safe.
Hillary, however, does not seem to be satisfied. TV Newser posts:
Barbara has asked. Some bloggers have begged. But Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to add fuel to the fire that is, what HuffPo’s Rachel Sklar dubs, “L’Affaire Shuster.”
Again today, Sen. Clinton threatened to pull out of the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, a debate she’s already agreed to attend, a debate that MSNBC continues to promote.
During an interview with Cleveland’s NBC affiliate, Clinton echoed what she has been saying for four days: “I’ve been very troubled by the behavior of that particular network,” she told WKYC’s Tom Beres.
Maybe it’s because she keeps getting asked, (she did, after all, do satellite interviews with 10 local stations today) that she continues to answer with the same refrain. But just what does Clinton want NBC to do? Fire Shuster? Insiders tell TVNewser that’s not going to happen. Another source tells us, the Clinton campaign doesn’t want that to happen.
Is she pitting the networks against each other? She told a reporter today, “I’ve accepted a CNN debate so there are a lot of opportunities for us to debate.”
When asked what might convince her to keep the Feb. 26 debate on her calendar, Clinton answered, without answering. “We’ll see how this plays out,” she said.
Here’s an idea for MSNBC: Cancel the debate. Why let Hillary continue to hold you hostage economically?