David Shuster has hurled a hand grenade in the direction of one of Washington's most venerable political reporters. The MSNBC "correspondent" has alleged that many people don't believe Robert Novak has "any credibility as a journalist."
View video here.
Shuster sat in as a "Morning Joe" panelist today. His comment came in the context of a discussion regarding the Novak column from over the weekend stating that "agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it."
Shuster's comment came at 7:03 AM ET.
DAVID SHUSTER: You now have the Clinton campaign saying the story is patently false -- it is not true. If Bob, Robert Novak has any integrity as a journalist -- which a lot of people would suggest he doesn't -- he would then say: "OK, here are the Clinton supporters who told me this." And if Bob Novak cannot do that, then I think the egg on the face of Bob Novak is clear.
Chris Matthews appeared in a later segment. The older and wiser head didn't seem particularly clued into the story, needing to have it recapitulated to him, but was willing to take Novak at his word.
View video of Matthews's comments here.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I think we have to assume that someone fed something to Novak from the Clinton campaign. I don't know how else you look at this, do you?
Shuster certainly had a different way of looking at it: questioning Novak's credibility. Matthews later went explicitly to bat for Novak's credibility.
MATTHEWS: Novak is for real. I mean, people may not like his personality, but in the end, he's generally for real. I mean, he is for real! He's a journalist, and he reports what he gets. And if somebody gave him something, whether it was casual or purposeful, he's [run] with it in his weekend column. Now, the fact that he put it in his "items" column on Saturday probably tells me he didn't think it was that big of a deal. He obviously needs to feed his column, but I take him for real: he got this from a Clinton person.
Matthews hadn't been part of the earlier discussion and didn't realize that by taking Novak at his word he was putting himself at odds with Shuster's intimations about Novak's credibility. It will be interesting to see how Shuster and Matthews hash this out if the "correspondent" turns up on this evening's Hardball.
In any case, expect Robert Novak to fire back. We'll see who winds up with egg on his face.
Aside: Come to think of it, in alleging that "many suggest" that Novak lacks credibility, didn't Shuster himself rely on anonymous sources? By his own standard, shouldn't Shuster name names?
Update 9:06 | Matthew Sheffield. If, according to Shuster, Novak should go public with his sources on this story in the hopes of restoring his credibility, surely Shuster will now go public with who fed him his incorrect information that former White House aide Karl Rove would be indicted. After all, isn't his credibility at stake, too?
Update 12:40| Ken Shepherd. I took the liberty of clipping a video contrasting Shuster's comments with those of Matthews, who noted that Clinton "has a very busy empire" of high-level staffers "who are very aggressive" in pushing talking points out onto the Web and ultimately to the mainstream media.
Video (1:55): Real (1.42 MB) or Windows (1.19 MB), plus MP3 audio (896 kB).
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hillary has dirt
November 19, 2007 - 09:05 ET by taterWow agents in Hil's court have dirt on Obama and are deciding not to use it...if anyone took the time to research her dirt they'd find a sand dune.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Ah, I have been speculating
November 19, 2007 - 09:40 ET by dscottAh, I have been speculating for months that Hillary was going to drop the dirt bomb on Obama just before the first primary in order to knock him out. Well looky, looky, talk about nuanced dirty tricks, Hillary is up to her old triangulating manipulation again by hinting she is going to out Obama if he doesn't back off and let her win the nomination.
Actually, Obama has made a good tactical move by publicly demanding an explaination of what this "dirt" might be. Hillary now has to shut up or put up. If she puts up, then the element of surprise is gone and thus BHO and company can spin away anything she might have. On the other hand Hillary seeing that her tactics have become public, exposing BHO will make her look sleazy (she is in IMO anyway), and a hypocrit if you will remember the self serving line at the debates about not engaging in Repub dirty tricks (a little Projection there on Hillary's part). Very clever BHO, very clever.
As a side note, BHO is known have also engaged in this sleazy tactic himself, that's how he got the Dem nomination for the senator's seat by knocking off his rival with inconvenient info. Actually, the more I look at the scene, BHO may have been involved in outting the Hsu affair... What goes around comes around BHO. You will need to do better to get through Hillary's teflon coating, try more heat.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Gonna Need A Nuke
November 19, 2007 - 09:50 ET by Jimbo"What goes around comes around BHO. You will need to do better to get through Hillary's teflon coating, try more heat."
I think he is going to need a nuke to get through that teflon coating. Maybe he can get one from Iran since they are manufacturing them and since he is so willing to talk to them.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
I'm thinking our leftist
November 19, 2007 - 10:15 ET by dscottI'm thinking our leftist friends at the DU and Daily KOS will supply ample heat on Hillary. They don't like Hillary to my understanding, so it's up to them to out her on her own pile of dirt. She is their problem and it's their responsibility to deal with her. There are two ways to take off telfon, burn it off or scrape it off.
If I were them I would be making a big deal of how CNN rigged the last Dem debate by de-selecting Dodd and the rest of the minor candidates. My strategy would be to hound the MSM each and every time Hillary's name is mentioned (quantity of airtime) and demand equal time for the other candidates under the FEC equal time provisions. Unless they do that, you can't negate Hillary's obvious PR campaign ally in the MSM. IMO, it's just too obvious that the MSM is giving Hillary free advertising to the exclusion of other Dem candidates, never mind Repubs. Secondly, I would be comparing the favorable press (quality of airtime) given to what is given to the other candidates and then file a complaint with the FEC on the premise single sided favorable press to one candidate to the exclusion of others is de facto free advertising and therefore an "in kind" donation to the Clinton campaign in excess of the $2,300 limit. Air time is very expensive, and in kind donations of airtime by the MSM constitute a huge oversight by the FEC than any activity of the 527s. At least with the 527s, they "buy" airtime, the MSM "gifts" it and as we have seen with the NYT General Betray US ad, they at times fully participate in the political process by "gifting" to the 527s.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Dscott, I don't know as DU,
November 19, 2007 - 11:28 ET by MikeBDscott, I don't know as DU, DailyKos, the Hufftard group, etc., would be all that effective at applying heat to Hillary!. You are correct that they could make lots of noise within their own little group, but would it be effective in the general population of Democrat voters? I mean, how effective have they been in taking out other Democrats that had voted for the Iraq war and voted to continue funds for the war? They have been somewhat effective in the primaries in some states (Connecticut, for example.) But were roundly spanked in the general election. (Connecticut, for example.) Are they powerful enough to deny the Democrat nomination to her Thighness? I don't know.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
They have been somewhat
November 19, 2007 - 11:40 ET by dscottThey have been somewhat effective in the primaries in some states (Connecticut, for example.) But were roundly spanked in the general election. (Connecticut, for example.) Are they powerful enough to deny the Democrat nomination to her Thighness? I don't know.
Exactly correct, their sphere of power and influence is really only during the primaries, but that's really all that's needed. They highly influence the Dem primary process and they have lots of money. The point is by controling the primary process, they de-select what we would consider the more rational candidates like Liebermann in favor of the far left loonies. They got suckered in the 2006 elections by the Dem party on the Iraq war issue, I suspect this time around, their money will have ropes, not strings, attached. Money talks, look at all the money pouring into BHO's campaign. My take is Hillary's money is coming from Dem pragmatists while BHO's money is coming from the far left. Both want to win at any cost, so I see a major slug & sleaze fest coming up here in the next month before the primaries.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
This could backfire on
November 19, 2007 - 17:59 ET by KevroyThis could backfire on Hillary. It's quite an ingenious little ploy. You put out the word that you have dirt on somebody but you aren't going to use that dirt.
Now, Obama's potential supporters say, "What's this guy hiding?", while the MSM gloats, "Hillary is showing a lot of class by not releasing the dirt she has on Obama."
The Clinton's are EXPERTS at this kind of dirty pool.
Journalism 101
November 19, 2007 - 09:14 ET by Gat New YorkSheister should first learn what journalism is and then practice it before lecturing respected and proven journalists. If there were no MSNBC would Sheister even have a job?
integrity is a big word
November 19, 2007 - 10:42 ET by TruthMongerintegrity is a big word for shiester
what he probably meant was Novak is too honest and true to traditional journalistic principles - therefore Novak has no credibilty as an atypical lying sack of MSM sh*t - like shiester is...
Shuster has been on
November 19, 2007 - 18:01 ET by KevroyShuster has been on Olbermann so many times, he now fancies himself as Keith Jr.
Won't be long before he starts having 'speshul comments'.
1) David Shuster ...
November 19, 2007 - 09:15 ET by drillanwr1) David Shuster ... Michigan alum ... glowing ass clown
2) Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it.
Well now, that's mighty "white" of Her Royal Czarina
3) If Robert Novak has any integrity as a journalist -- which a lot of people would suggest he doesn't -- he would then say: "OK, here are the Clinton supporters who told me this." If Bob Novak cannot do that, then I think the egg on the face of Bob Novak is clear.
Yeeeahhh ... Like when he finally confirmed that silly little name-dropper Richard Armitage as the Val Plame/Wilson songbird ... Like that really mattered or made a difference to the MSM ... to date.
Schuster's comments are clear...
November 19, 2007 - 09:18 ET by c5thenHe believes that anyone who prints or says what he doesn't want to hear is "not a journalist" or "has no credibility". It's also a pattently obvious ploy from the Hillary camp to try and tar-and-feather Obama whithout any shred of information. Schuster is obviously a Hillary supporter, just by his reaction to that story.
Excellent point that Scheister wants Novak to reveal his sources while he still refuses to name his about the false indictment story.
Liberal - just anohter euphemism for hypocrit.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
So I guess...
November 19, 2007 - 09:19 ET by Prester John....that Novak's mention of Valerie Plame's name was just a whole lot of nuttin'.
Ok, that's 2 postings in a
November 19, 2007 - 09:26 ET by motherbeltOk, that's 2 postings in a row that have the "some say" accusation in them. Looks like that is the MSM's "modus operandi" for today.
What Credibility does Shuster have?
November 19, 2007 - 09:29 ET by ChasvsWhen you have no credibility -- you have nothing to fear or lose! Since when has this Democratic Operative on MSNBC ever had any credibility as a Journalist? I'm sure Novak is quaking in his boots having such a disreputable jerk as Shuster questioning his creds!
This is rich!
November 19, 2007 - 09:32 ET by mattm"If Robert Novak has any integrity as a journalist -- which a lot of people would suggest he doesn't -- he would then say: "OK, here are the Clinton supporters who told me this." If Bob Novak cannot do that, then I think the egg on the face of Bob Novak is clear."
Well well well then, Mr. Shuster - if YOU can't name those people who "would suggest he doesn't..," then YOU are the one with egg on your face!!! What an oblivious and blatant hypocrite!
These "journalists" are so caught up in their Clintophoria that they can't even recognize it when they contradict themselves in the space of a couple sentences! Integrity, my eye!
STREET CRED...
November 19, 2007 - 09:34 ET by danybhoyDavid Shuster is questioning Bob Novak's credibility? What a joke, MSNBC has credibility issues with the likes of Spitball's Barny Rubble, Meltdown's BathTubBoy, Dan Abrams, & last & certainly least, David Shuster.
MSNBC is now Air America Television News, the only media outlets I've heard further left are the likes of the BBC, the CBC, & Radio Havana Cuba.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Jason Leopold
November 19, 2007 - 09:48 ET by P.J. GladnickMatt---My bet is on Jason Leopold as the source for Shuster's Karl Rove indictment story.
Who Was Jason's Source?
November 19, 2007 - 15:45 ET by Del DolemonteJason promised us last year that he would name his source if the story turned out to be wrong. He never has.
If Bob Novak cannot do
November 19, 2007 - 09:51 ET by SMGalbraithIf Bob Novak cannot do that, then I think the egg on the face of Bob Novak is clear.
Since when did the standard become that if a journalist is challenged about information from a source, that he or she must immediately reveal that source? Otherwise, the journalist has "egg" on his face?
Baloney. That has never been required. Never.
Whether we like it or not - and I think most of us are sceptical about believing anonymous sources - journalists publish information from sources all that time that is refuted or denied. Every day.
Yet no one seriously believes that they must burn that source in order to maintain their credibility.
"Some say" that Mr. Shuster is letting his ideology color his reporting.
"Some say" they're not surprised.
SMG
FYI
November 19, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Del DolemonteIt should be remembered that Shuster was one of the earliest people to hitch his wagon to Jason Leopold's star (see the other thread) in "reporting" the imminent indictment of the evil Karl Rove.
It should also be noted that at the time, Leopold said that if his story turned out to not be true, he would out his source. He never has.
I recall reading somewhere
November 19, 2007 - 10:50 ET by Interested and concerned CDNI recall reading somewhere that Bob Novak is the media rosetta stone to media bias. He was considered slightyl left of center early in his career and now is considered far right, near extreme, when in fact Bob hasn't changed at all.
when in fact Bob hasn't
November 19, 2007 - 11:21 ET by drillanwrwhen in fact Bob hasn't changed at all
Spot on.
It's the rest of the media that has pole vaulted far left, making Novak, and by that Fox News Channel, seem "far right" ... when they might be closer to "center" .
Stranger Than Truth!
November 19, 2007 - 15:50 ET by Del DolemonteShuster actually worked at the evil Fox News for 5 years, before moving to MSNBC.
When I was in college,
November 19, 2007 - 11:43 ET by MikeBWhen I was in college, someone by the name of "Staff" taught a lot of courses. Dr. Staff must have had degrees in a lot of fields, because he/she taught courses in all of the colleges in the University.
It appears that this "some people" is the same caliber of source that Dr. Staff was as an instructor. It seems that "some people" is a totally reliable, unimpeachable, thoroughly knowledgeable source. Or, is he/she?
"Some people" say the earth is flat, that the moon landings were a hoax, that global warming isn't happening at all, that global warming is happening but is not attributable to man, that global warming is happening, it is man's fault, but it isn't a problem, that global warming is happening, it's man's fault, and we're all going to die from it. "Some people" say a lot of things from all over the spectrum of human and liberal thought, and according to Schuster everything they say is unassailable. Just because "some people" say something doesn't make it true, or even believable.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Novak
November 19, 2007 - 11:48 ET by candanceI thought Novak was one of the few who had a good reputation. Why would he risk all that by lying about a rumor on his blog?
LOL Even Chris Matthews defended Novak. I wonder who all those people are whom Shuster was referring to.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
Candance
November 19, 2007 - 13:16 ET by IamTinmanDon't bother asking that question, they don't exist except maybe in Shusters fevered imagination or in the Daily Kos which is pretty much the same thing. Novak has a careers worth of credibility and the respect of his peers. Shuster's pretty much a nobody with very little credibility. Remember the "Rove will be indicted" prediction? The man's just another MSNBC shill for the dems, and not even very good at that!
I'm thinking BHO played
November 19, 2007 - 12:19 ET by dscottI'm thinking BHO played this well: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312153,00.html So when Hillary told the other Dem candidates at the debate that they shouldn't play by the Repub play book, was that a Freudian slip of the tongue or a clever way to prevent other Dems from doing precisely what she was doing????? It's been a long standing tactic of lib Dems to engage in Projection, accusing their opponents of doing what they themselves (accusor) in fact already did or was planning to do. How Nixon of you! LOL
This time Hillary, blaming the Repubs for your handiwork is not going to fly. BHO got you. Hahahahaha
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
This guy
November 19, 2007 - 12:50 ET by third eyeTo say Robert Novak doesnt have any credibility as a journalist isnt blashemy, but its pretty close. So, in penance, Im going to have to ask that you spend the rest of the 2008 campaign covering, in great detail, the Dennis Kucinich campaign. You can thank me later.
But...
November 19, 2007 - 18:27 ET by dervishwhat's he going to do after January?
Derv
November 19, 2007 - 23:28 ET by third eyeHe's gonna be a fry cook on Venus
and he shall be
November 19, 2007 - 23:38 ET byand he shall be levon
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Experts say that David
November 19, 2007 - 13:51 ET by fitzfongExperts say that David "E.D." Shyster has zero credibility and only has a job at MSNBC because he shills for the left. Some experts even suggest that if he had any integrity, Shyster would quit the journalism gig and take up his rightful position as Joe Wilson's house boy. And, like a journalist, I am under no obligation to reveal my expert sources.
Mark. "many people"-"Lots of folks" The egg's on Shuster's face
November 19, 2007 - 14:20 ET by Gary HallMark, et. all.
Have you noticed that "a lot of folks" (pun intended) in the MSM are using this technique more and more these days. When they want to attack an issue from the right, or a person on the right, they seem to have a laundry list of phrases to choose from. Notice:
"Many people" -- "a lot of people"- "people are saying" -- 'We heard that.."
We need a list.
I think that Shuster, well perhaps he said it best. OK, here are the names of these "many people" who told me that Bob Novak does not have any integrity as a journalist. And if I have not identified the names of those "many people," who told me this, then I should have egg on my face. OK, Chris. Throw the egg at my face, cause I have no idea who these "lots of people" actually are. I just say that, when I want to smear someone.
I just loved doing that.
David Schuster speaking
November 19, 2007 - 15:00 ET by nicksmith112David Schuster speaking about credibility??
Anonymous/unnamed/high ranking/inside the beltway...Sources Schuster????
BTW Schuster was the same guy that according to HIS sources Rove and Cheney would be arrested by the end of the day. That was HIS line twice a week for months during the Plame/Wilson propaganda parade.
Oh I love Novak for
November 19, 2007 - 18:11 ET by bigtimerOh I love Novak for releasing this info....most likely going to hit the smartest woman in the world right in the arse...
Back-fire Hillary, this is all cute by half.
It would be nice if Shuster had a memory about once in awhile...he has been wrong about everything all of the time.
Armitage anyone? (which they intentionally pretended didn't exist)
BT....Novak in 20 minutes
November 19, 2007 - 18:40 ET by BlondeIs going to be on Sean Hannity's radio show at the "top of the hour" (I was listening on the way home). Here's the link if you want to stream it live.
Hannity was talking about this...he's going to ask Novak about "Hillary's dirt". It ought to be interesting.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Thanks B... Unfortunately
November 19, 2007 - 18:52 ET by bigtimerThanks B...
Unfortunately it seems when I stream and try to post here at the same time my laser mouse goes nuts as does the talk on the stream..it sounds like it is stuck in a record groove, the words repeat over and over...it is maddening...plus it takes forever to bet to post with all the interruptions from my mouse not focusing, just wandering where it wants until the stream comes in good...
Any suggestions? I am listening now but it will be hard trying to post afterwards...plus I have to get dinner soon...so I will listen as long as I can until my guy comes home then I have to help get some wood in and pay attention to him doncha' know....lol.
BT.....Hmmm.
November 19, 2007 - 18:58 ET by BlondeBT,
Sounds like some sort of interference with the mouse receiver. My wireless keyboard & laser mouse at work have a couple of "channels"...does yours? You might try changing them if you do.
Other than that, I have no idea. Maybe you should post that on the Forum...I bet botg would have a suggestion too.
Well, I'll listen and post anything interesting.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Meanwhile,
November 19, 2007 - 19:38 ET by dervishNovak's not backing down.