The controversy has been raging since the Washington Post ran an editorial cartoon depicting the young daughters of Republican Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) as monkeys. Among the questions being asked are:
- Since Cruz used his daughters in a political commercial where he slammed Democrats, are they fair game?
- Would the reaction to the mocking of the senator's kids be different if Cruz was a Democrat?
Actuallym the answers to these questions are readily available, since a similar incident happened in 2008 when a reporter who asked if Hillary Clinton was exploiting her adult daughter was suspended for two weeks.
The offensive Cruz cartoon, drawn by Pulitzer Prize winner Ann Telnaes, (see below) displayed the Texas senator in a Santa suit turning a Jack-in-the-Box that made two monkeys dance. A headline said, “Ted Cruz uses his kids as political props”
In reporting the incident, most of the media rightly said that a candidate's children are off limits. But, then, in a passive-aggressive obscuration, they tried to soften the attack on the four and seven-year-old girls by questioning the senator's use of the incident for campaign fundraising - or by opining that the Washington Post cartoon was a gift to his campaign. Even the Washington Post, whose editor pulled the cartoon saying it was their policy was not to go after a candidate's children, ran a column explaining the incident away as a gift to Ted Cruz.
The reaction to the 2008 incident involving Hillary and Chelsea Clinton was very different.
MSNBC political reporter David Shuster was guest-hosting on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson show on February 7, 2008, when he mentioned how Hillary Clinton was using her 27-year-old daughter to make phone calls and pitches for her presidential candidacy. Shuster asked his guests, "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" (video below)
The reaction was harsh and immediate.
Though not his intent, critics accused Shuster of calling Chelsea a prostitute. A few hours later, Shuster appeared on the Morning Joe program to apologize. He apologized again later that day when he continued guest hosting the Carlson show.
Two days later, Howie Kurtz (now of Fox News) discussed the reactions of the campaign and the network in the Washington Post
Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications director, called Shuster's remark "disgusting," "beneath contempt" and "the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network." Wolfson appeared to suggest that Clinton is reconsidering an agreement this week to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 in Cleveland, saying: "I at this point can't envision doing another debate on that network."
Even though Shuster, at the time, was a big part of MSNBC's political coverage, and apologized twice on-air, the network announced an indefinite suspension of the reporter, saying:
In a statement, MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines called Shuster's language "irresponsible. . . . NBC News takes these matters seriously and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks." As for the scheduled debate between Clinton and Barack Obama, Gaines said network executives were talking to the Clinton camp "and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned."
Actually, it could have been worse for Shuster since, as reported by Newsbusters, he almost got fired:
Big Head DC has learned from sources inside the MSNBC camp that Phil Griffin, senior vice president at the network, “screamed” at reporter David Shuster for not agreeing to immediately apologize to Chelsea Clinton for saying on-air she had been “pimped out” by her mom’s campaign. Griffin threatened to fire Shuster “on the spot,” and it was only with intervention from Tim Russert that Shuster didn’t lose his position.
Shuster was suspended and almost fired for his faux pas, even though Chelsea Clinton was an adult, two weeks short of her 28th birthday. While the words Shuster used were out of line, at the time Chelsea was acting as a campaign surrogate for her mother, a role she also undertook two years earlier during Hillary's campaign to be reelected to her Senate seat.
Both Shuster and Telnaes disagreed with their bosses' characterization of their work, but Shuster's objections almost got him fired. Two days after the cartoon was pulled, Ms. Telnaes was still objecting to her editor's decision in the public forum of Twitter. Those continued tweets are an indication that her objections will face no consequences.
Of course, the biggest difference between the two incidents, and probably the reason for the different reactions, is the fact that Ted Cruz is a conservative Republican and Hillary Clinton is a liberal Democrat.
Interestingly, in 2009 while still at MSNBC, Shuster made a comment that was incredibly more sexually-charged than his Chelsea comment, but since it mocked conservative Americans, there was no controversy.
For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15, will be Tax Day, but . . . it’s going to be Teabagging Day for the right wing, and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals. They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.” Shuster went on to say that Fox News personalities were “looking forward to an up-close-and-personal taste of teabagging.” Etc., etc., etc. All the while, MSNBC was picturing Republican figures, and the following words were on the screen: “TEABAG MOUTHPIECES.'
The difference reactions to the Cruz cartoon versus Shuster's Chelsea statement are a clear indication that the children of Republican and Democrat candidates are treated different in the mainstream media. Some may believe that the Chelsea reference received a harsher penalty than the Cruz one because it was sexually-charged, but when the same reporter on the same network made a comment that was more sexually-charged - but, directed at conservatives - there was no consequence.