One of a dying breed
Who would have thought that Greta Van Susteren would be one of the last journalists with integrity? It’s all the more surprising because she’s a lawyer, too:
I never used to watch Greta’s show when it consisted of interminable yammering about interminably sensationalistic court cases. But I noticed that, throughout this long and sorry campaign, Greta was one of the few journalists that seemed to hold to some journalistic standards.
[Hat tip Ace.]
I’ve always enjoyed her analysis and reporting.
I have also begun to watch her show regularly…precisely because she demonstrates standards.
Same here.
When I first ran across her, my reaction was, “Who’s the bimbo with her mouth wired shut who’s always doing the National Enquirer bits?”
But the more I see, the better I like her. Not only has she got standards, but she appears to be a genuinely sympathetic and warm person. At times (e.g. Republican convention), she can be almost kittenish. At this point, she’s probably my favorite tv journalist, though that’s not saying much….
During this election cycle Greta became watchable.
She was fair.
She was a better journalist than 99% of the people out there.
As much time as Greta has spent with Palin, and the access she has had, it seems she may not be as objective as she could be. It is obvious that Greta likes the Palin family very much. (And who, but a deranged Kos Kid, wouldn’t?) I watched last night and found it to be more like an advertisement for Palin than anything else. Not sure if this is good “journalism” as much as it’s just good television. Nothing wrong with that, but I think a less Palin friendly venue would be more helpful in putting the furor over Palin’s capabilities/non-capabilities to rest. In spite of his opinon, I don’t think O’Reilly qualifies as that venue.
Admission: I admire Palin very much. Her major attractions for me are that she is not an ivy league educated elite, a quick study, and courageous. She has a lot to offer as a person who sees government as serving the people and not the other way around. She will be a formidable candidate for any office she chooses to run for in the future.
At this point, my reaction to any media report based on “anonymous sources” is to assume that that the journalist made the whole thing up. Sorry, but the news media have lied to us too many times in recent years. Their credibility is gone. Any report based on “anonymous sources” is an implicit request for us to trust them, and I will not do that anymore.
So Van Susteren is right. Carl Cameron says insiders gave him a bunch of dirt on Palin, and he wants me to just take his word on that? Sorry, but he’s a journalist, and that means he’s a liar. End of discussion.
@Jimmy J:
1. What was Greta supposed to do in that interview? She brought up uncomfortable subjects; she gave Palin time to respond; she didn’t edit Palin unfairly. That’s a good interview. Palin’s public speaking has been constrained by the McCain Campaign. Palin calling her own shots in an interview is something worth seeing.
2. I disagree that Palin needs more college boards type interviews to establish her legitimacy. Barack had exactly one such interview: O’Reilly. The nation needs to see and hear Sarah Palin speak without McCain Campaign restrictions on her. The nation will then intuit things for themselves. They do not need to see her submit herself and prostrate herself before the hoity toity snakes of D.C. media – with their ego-driven needs to prove their own vast superiority to her.
3. It’s notable that Greta got the biggest “get” which was available. There’s no doubt Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer were pulling all available strings and pushing all available buttons to “get” Sarah Palin. Greta beat them. Way to go Greta.
gcotharn,
Your observations are slightly different than mine and probably more valid. I am somewhat of a dinosaur.
Unfortunately, the rap on Palin lacking “gravitas” will stick at least through this news cycle. I believe she has the “right stuff,” but her detractors (the MSM and dems) have managed to plant the seed of doubt. I predict that she will be a force in the future.
How I would love to see her one day go toe to toe with Brokaw on Meet the Depressed and leave him astonished at her charm, wit, and depth of knowledge. They (MSM) are not going to let that happen anytime soon. So, the doubts will remain. But she has time to hang in there and eventually be a force in national politics if she desires.
Jimmy,
She went toe to toe.
The editors edited and left out key parts to her answers.
The negligent journalists wrote what they wrote in error – picking up the cue.
I think you don’t give Greta enough credit.
So why do you judge people so negatively? When did you stop beating your wife?
Baklava,
AAARRGHH!!
Somewhat below the belt old boy. I like Governor Palin; I really, really do.
You’re right about the editing of the interviews. But that is not my doing, that’s the doing of the MSM. We can’t control them, nor should we try. They must be bypassed the way Reagan did, by going directly to the people. The Governor has that ability. But the MSM is so afraid of her they are not going to give her the opportunity.
Greta’s show tonight was very good. When Palin talked about Alaska’s oil resources and why the country needs them she was talking over Greta’s head directly to the people. However, my guess is that 90% of Greta’s viewers are people who don’t need convincing about developing Alaska’s oil. She would never be allowed to get that out on the major networks without a great deal of counter point. We will also not see headlines trumpeting that the Governor of Alaska believes Alaska’s oil could help our energy needs and national security.
Just the way it is.
Now I’ll quietly slink away and let my poor wife mop my fevered brow.
Please read the reader emails to Greta and her response
Bill O’reilly is a foo foo head. He was one when he coped out on Iraq by continuously repeating “it is a mess” and he was one when he coped out on the sexual harassment episode in which he was acting tough and saying they didn’t know who they have picked up, then folding with excuses about protecting his family (from what, the truth or evidence or lawsuits?)
O’Reilly is right, Carl Cameron is not a rumor monger. The person that is a rumor monger is Bill O’reilly. Bill is the one that is ostensibly doing news reports and counting on his credibility and using his credibility to inform his listeners and viewers.
Bill has done stories on child molestation and what not. Are we supposed to believe that Carl Cameron’s stories are no less newsworthy and validated by journalistic standards than those stories?
Bill cheapens real stories and real truth and accurate sources by peddling in things Bill has never verified for himself. Bill counts on the word of Carl Cameron, just like any rumor monger that says “I heard it from a valid source, my brother’s uncle’s father’s best friend’s inlaw”.
Does Bill think being separated from the source by one step is good enough for his show? Does Bill think just agreeing to have Carl Cameron on to say his piece, relying upon Carl Cameron’s face to face talks with his anonymous sources, is good enough for Bill O’Reilly’s standards?
O’Reilly’s standards have been going down ever since he caved into the Obamanation for that interview.
The fact that O’Reilly was begging Greta to “talk to Sarah Palin” just about proves that. O’Reilly is desperate for access and people desperate for access tend to compromise and when you compromise with Democrats like Obama, you ain’t never going to be the same again.
I wouldn’t put it past Bill that he peddled these rumors partially to get Sarah Palin to come on his show. Bill is not that complex of a guy.
She went toe to toe.
She didn’t have nuclear missiles and an army at her back then.
As much time as Greta has spent with Palin, and the access she has had, it seems she may not be as objective as she could be. It is obvious that Greta likes the Palin family very much. (And who, but a deranged Kos Kid, wouldn’t?) I watched last night and found it to be more like an advertisement for Palin than anything else. Not sure if this is good “journalism” as much as it’s just good television.
Do you then approve and prefer journalists taking a stand off approach when they are imbeded with US troops that have died to save the lives of the journalists in their midst? They aren’t sympathetic to the United States and prefer to cover the Taliban for “objectivity”.
Objectivity means the truth, Jimmy. When the truth is best served by supporting Sarah Palin, do you need to make it more “objective” by sympathizing with Sarah’s enemies, Jimmy? I want you to look at the logic of your arguments and not just the foo foo implications of what is known as “objectivity”. It’s not exactly a good thing. It is only a good thing when objectivity supports the truth, justice, the law, and so forth.
Greta was pretty sympathetic to Natalie Holloway’s family. Should she have been more objective by showing warmth to those Dutch colonial incompetent nepotists in Aruba, Jimmy? I think not.
Greta went hands on and admired the work of her family to trying to bring her back, dead or alive. That is not “sympathy”, that is upholding the search for truth and justice.
That is my own judgment and I won’t call it objective. What I will call it is that it is the right judgment.
Jimmy,
I read that you like Governor Palin. I was making a point that I think you got but only a little.
You insist she should go on Brokaw but recognize the hatchet job the media did on the previous interviews.
I and 1% of the population READ the COMPLETE Charlie Gibson transcript on Mark Levin’s site. She was butchered and Charlie Gibson didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was. Palin’s answer was beautiful.
So…. Please stop insisting that she go do something that wouldn’t do well for her. Conservatives in general should stop propping up butchers and negligent journalists. If they don’t do the due diligence their job requires why recognize them? They’ve been lazy and with agenda.
The governor only has the ability to go directly to the people on shows like Greta’s, Hannity’s, talk radio, etc. Greta’s interview was NOT a puff piece. It was letting Sarah define Sarah. It was the ultimate in journalism. You decide based on Sarah’s answers as opposed to answers that were mangled by the editors….
I’ll admit. I’m EXTREMELY negative about the state of journalism and the dominant legacy drive-by media. So we both are negative – how about that? 😉
I think a less Palin friendly venue would be more helpful in putting the furor over Palin’s capabilities/non-capabilities to rest. In spite of his opinon, I don’t think O’Reilly qualifies as that venue.
Nothing will put the “furor” over her controversy to rest except her talking to the American people without interlocutors.
And you just knocked down that very effort when you made complaints against Greta’s reports of Sarah.
My point exactly. You said it better Ymars
Aha! The light bulb just went on. Well, I’m glad to finally get your point. See, dialogue can clear up misunderstandings. Heh.
Suh weet