Freedom of the Press? Shuster Suspended for Chelsea Comment

Media matters has just posted the following press release

NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:

On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.

Link here.

Well. I'm pleased and sad -- in short:  I'm ambivalent about this. On the one hand it's good that there are consequences for outrageous conduct by media figures.  But on the other hand, it just seems to confirm the Bush paradigm that if you threaten the media enough, they will cave.  

UPDATE: I mean, what about:  We, the Network, disagree with his comment, but stand behind his right to say it because we here in the USA have a free press?

Now, don't misunderstand me.  Shuster should never, ever have commented as he did about Chelsea Clinton.  And our media should never, ever have reached the nadir that it has.

And I suppose it is encouraging that the Media can be smacked silly into being fair to Democratic candidates, even if they don't like them.

But it is not comforting that the media can buckle so quickly and so easily when pressured by a major political figure who makes open and naked threats.  

UPDATE:  What is discocnerting is the complete absence of any vocal support for freedom of the press in the face of obvious political pressure.  

I'm not defending hsi comment, which was reprehensible, but I would have expected some support for the notion that he has a right to say it.

UPDATE AGAIN:  Let's just entertain the notion that a free press means more than a press that is free from government intervention.  It seems germane to keep the narrow legal meaning of press freedom out of this.