The Loathsome Ed Schultz


It is not the first time, but MSNBC’s ugliest Angry Left spokesman just completed a cycle of conduct demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is deceptive, dishonest, cowardly, and incompetent—in short, loathsome. This is Ed Schultz, the most unethical of the stable of unethical anchors and commentators intentionally assembled by MSNBC—you could not possible get such an awful group by accident—for reasons best known to its chief, Phil Griffin. Having left-leaning views doesn’t make one loathsome by itself (no matter what Mark Levin says), but I do wonder what to make of fans of the likes of Martin Bashir, Keith Olbermann, Alec Baldwin  (all of whom became so openly loathsome that even MSNBC had to jettison them), Melissa Harris-Perry, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell, Al Sharpton and especially Schultz. A viewer admiring an unambiguous jerk on the level of Ed Schultz because he applies his jerk-ness in support of the viewer’s favorite ideology is itself a strong indication of flawed character. In the matter of unethical pundits, it doesn’t take one to know one, but it takes one to tolerate one. If a job applicant tells me she’s never misses the Ed Show, I’m not trusting her with the combination to the safe, I’ll promise you that.

Ed’s moment of self-revelation came as a result of some nakedly partisan Obamacare cheerleading in December. Ed then crowed,

“I’m going to make a prediction tonight. It`s going to hit 5 million by March 1st. That’s right. Five million people signed up by March 1st. Get your tapes rolling at home, folks, because it’s going to be a big “I told you so.”

Well, Ed was wrong, and did not get his “big ‘I told you so.'” But because the man has the maturity of an 11-year-old and the integrity of Newt Gingrich, he couldn’t level with his audience about the fact that his prognostication didn’t pan out. When his March 1st deadline came and went, Ed got into Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine and changed the past, saying on March 12 as the sign-ups languished well short of his prediction:

“Well, I predicted five million people are going to sign up by the end of this month. We`re closing on it on that number.”

On websites that have commented on Ed’s Obama-like sleight-of-mouth (recall that the President initially re-invented his infamous promise that “you get to keep it—period” after it was proven false, adding a previously unrecorded “if…”), loyal Democrats have rejoined with “Who cares?”, itself a telling response. Why does it matter?
  • It matters because it shows that Ed Schultz will lie to his own audience rather that admit facts that suggest that a progressive policy may not be succeeding as swimmingly as projected.
  • It matters because Ed Schultz refers to the government as “we,” which should disqualify him or anyone in broadcast journalism as a trusted source of information or opinion.
  • It matters because is shows that he is stupid man who has no respect for the public’s intelligence, and stupid people should not be permitted to make their viewers and the American public more ignorant and uninformed than it already is. Ed’s show is on TV, and is memorialized in transcripts. Lies like this will be discovered, and any journalist withe the IQ of a snowglobe will realize that. The statement is smoking gun evidence of how unqualified Ed Schultz is to inform anyone about anything.

Eric Wemple, a good liberal writer at the Washington Post but no meathead, was evdiently insulted to be sharing ideological space with a doofus like Schultz and decided to tweak Ed by pointing out that the MSNBC host was “confused about March”:

“Schultz now appears to be attempting to amend cable-news history, saying that his prediction held true for “the end of this month.” March 31, not March 1. Perhaps that’s what he meant to say back in December. But it’s not what he actually said.Proof that he’s a bit confused about the beginning and end of March comes from previous transcripts. For instance, on his Feb. 11 show, Schultz held forth, “I said that there would be 5 million people who would be affected and signed up with Obamacare before March 1st, and we are closing in on that number, are we not?” Two days later, he said this: “I predicted on this program back in December that it would be 5 million would be signing up by March 31st.”

Wemple still couldn’t help throwing a life-preserver to Schultz—Ed’s still a progressive, after all—suggesting that “Schultz may have predicted 5 million enrollees by the end of March. Perhaps he floated that prediction to his colleagues, to his family, and perhaps to his viewers at some point or another.” I’m surprised Wemple didn’t endorse the deceit excuse: after all, if Ed promised that there would be 5 million enrollees by March 1, there would be at least that many by March 31, right?

Never mind—Ed was royally ticked off to be caught. Thus he responded with a wretched non-apology that only one so loathsome could author:

“You know, I’ve got to apologize. Hold it right there. I said some months ago that it was going to be five million people by March 1 and the Washington Post really took issue with that and I apologize tonight. There’s another apology here. I missed it by 14 days. Damn. Close. I know the Washington Post never really held anybody accountable for the Iraq war, all those billions of dollars in predictions and all that stuff. But I missed it by 14 days. I apologize.”

Why difference does this make, Faithful Ed Fans?

  • He’s vain, nasty creep. Ed’s angry he was caught. He’s annoyed that his attempted after-the-fact editing of his prediction was called out. He’s ticked that he didn’t get away with a lie.
  • He doesn’t apologize for lying to his audience, or not having the integrity to admit he was wrong, or changing the facts so he wouldn’t have to mention that Obamacare’s rollout was still beneath expectations, all of which a real journalist or honorable pundit would want to apologize for. He apologizes for making a prediction that didn’t pan out, which is itself a dishonest deflection. Nobody needs to apologize for not being able to predict the future. So Ed, not having a smidgeon of integrity, apologizes for the trivial in order to pretend he has apologized for his real, non-trivial misconduct, lying, which he doesn’t even acknowledge. He’s not sorry he lied. He’s sorry he was called on it. In short: loathsome.
  • Ed doesn’t stop there, however. He misrepresents Wemple’s criticism saying that the Washington Post “took issue” with his original prediction. That’s lie #2. Wemple took issue with Ed’s intentional editing of his predication after the fact. Then he pulls out Rationalization #2, the revolting “They’re just as bad” Excuse, because Ed just doesn’t get this ethics stuff. If the Post—and Eric Wemple isn’t really “The Post,” he’s Eric Wemple—“never held anybody accountable for the Iraq war,” it wouldn’t make Ed’s lies more acceptable, wouldn’t make Wemple’s critique of Schultz less justified, and wouldn’t constitute hypocrisy (another concept Ed doesn’t grasp) on the Post’s part. Is he really arguing that because (he says) the paper “never held anybody accountable for the Iraq war,” it is barred from flagging untruths in the media forever? The decision to invade Iraq was made ten years ago! Ed’s rejoinder is at the playground level of “Yeah, well, your mother is fat!”
  • And it’s still another lie, because the Washington Post, whose Bush-bashing credentials were and are unassailable, absolutely held specific individuals responsible for the Iraq war, though it didn’t assign sufficient accountability to Russia, France, a perfidious and cowardly U.N. and, most of all, Saddam Hussein…but I digress.

In summary then: Ed made a partisan prediction, openly aligned himself with the government, lied to his viewers, refused to point out that enrollments were behind his own projections, refused to apologize or acknowledge his lie when exposed, gave a faux, sarcastic apology, again attempted to mislead his viewers, characterized both Wemple’s criticism and his paper’s coverage of the Iraq war, and embraced an invalid rationalization, one of the worst, to excuse his own conduct and attack responsible journalism.


I know I’m spending a lot of time on a cable low-life, but having prominent media figures who are so vile and untrustworthy does real damage to public comprehension, and I suspect that repeated viewing of loathsome blow-hards like Schultz rots the conscience over time. A responsible network wouldn’t tolerate an extended display of dishonesty, bias and churlishness like this.
MSNBC, however, is not responsible.
Pointer: Newsbusters

7 thoughts on “The Loathsome Ed Schultz

  1. Spend as much time as you like pointing out when journalists fail us. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the two CNN “producers” who tried to bully their way onto the WTC 1 in order to prove lax security.

    It will, however, be interesting to hear what Ed has to say on 4/1/14 if his amended prediction doesn’t come true.

  2. “I do wonder what to make of fans of the likes of Martin Bashir, Keith Olbermann, Alec Baldwin (all of whom became so openly loathsome that even MSNBC had to jettison them), Melissa Harris-Perry, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell, Al Sharpton and especially Schultz.”

    They are running a contest to see which loathsome “journalist” can hang on the longest. I predict Al Sharpton will win because raaaaacist. And I’ll gladly admit it if my prediction fails to come true and Sharpton is the next to go.

  3. I’m torn here. As much as it wouldn’t surprise me if it were a total lie, I wonder if it’s not a product of self-delusion instead. I could never have been WRONG, I must have said something that isn’t wrong. March 1st would have been wrong, so I didn’t say that. Besides, beign wrong would mean the ACA isn’t the success I want it to be, so I wouldn’t have been wrong.

    Delusional, sycophantic, and self-aggrandizing- but a plausible alternative to a calculated lie. Of course, it still makes him a piss poor journalist. I just generally assume most people won’t deliberately tell a blatant lie so easily checked up on, they’re more likely to have convinced themselves they couldn’t have made the original incorrect statement.

  4. It matters little to me that Schultz got caught lying. What horrifies me is his unapologetic political and emotional connection to the current Administration and his ability to find an audience as a so-called “journalist.” There is no objectivity in the news business now. None. Facts are twisted, at best, or not reported at all, worse, if those facts don’t square with the “journalists'” ideology.

    I have ranted before about the need for an informed electorate, and how lazy Americans are for voting by name recognition, or hate-mongering advertising, but really, where now are the American people to get the facts? It would be a full time job. And our current journalists, news readers, and those currently in power are counting on the fact the most Americans work, produce things, manage things, create things, and don’t have time to spend their every waking moment looking for the truth. The current Administration is bad enough: at least there is an end in sight. The death of our republic, when it really happens, will be laid right at the feet of the news media.

  5. Actually, I think Ed Schultz accurately represents the thinking and character of a not inconsiderable segment of the population to whom crassness and nihilism are a watchword. You see his clones all over the internet. Some people- be they young college radicals, old hippies, political opportunists, hate-filled atheists and anarchists, etc.- simply enjoy anything that attacks America or traditional concepts of decent behavior. We saw these back in the 1960s; their shrieks, their chants, their public profanity and their hate in the name of “love”. This is just a modern incarnation and Schultz is its would-be guru.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.