Greta and Sarah: BFFs

(Photo from Fox News Channel)

Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren had beef with this portion Howard Kurtz’s Nov. 13th column for The Washington Post about her latest interview with Sarah Palin.

[Balitomore Sun TV Critic David] Zurawik calls the Van Susteren interview "beyond friendly," saying: "Greta Van Susteren is totally sympathetic to her and makes no secret about it."

In the blog post (which was removed shortly after it was posted, here is a screenshot), Greta complains that Kurtz didn’t give her the opportunity to defend herself against Zurakwik’s criticism, even though Kurtz had called her about another topic the day before. Fox News’ mantra “fair and balanced” must be going to her head. Kurtz is under no obligation to provide all sides of every single assertion in a column and should feel free to quote a prominent TV critic without the journalists reference complaining. 

If his column had been specifically about Fox News’ treatment of Palin, then she would have had a point. Kurtz doesn’t give her a chance to respond to 64 words at the tail end of a 1,000 word piece and Greta feels betrayed!? That’s ridiculous. It’s no surprise she took the blog post down, realizing she’d made a mountain out of a molehill.

Zurawik’s characterization of Van Susteren’s interviews as sympathetic is self evident to anyone who has seen any of them. In her latest interview, Van Susteren spent the first half of the interview letting Palin address rumors about her $150,000 wardrobe and whether or not she insisted Africa was a country. The interview is so pedestrian and accommodating in these ten minutes that Palin herself looked bored. In Susteren’s previous interview with Palin shortly after her nomination, she played to Palin’s strong suit asking her about sports and Title IX, hardly relevant for someone who’s a heartbeat away from the presidency.

In the rest of her blog post Susteren goes on to defend her treatment of Palin, insisting that “you can get a lot of information out of guests by being polite” and that sympathetic does not equal ineffective. But it does equal useless.

When she’s asked general and open ended questions, Palin never has to venture far from her comfort zone. Anyone can speak generally about anything. Palin needs to be driven off her talking points so she can prove to American that she actually understands the issues and has the ability to think critically about them before there’s any talk of 2012.

Greta Van Susteren’s interviews are like meet and greets when they should be obstacle courses.

Fake expert leaves reporters feeling shameful and looking biased.

Photo of phony McCain adviser Martin Eisenstadt.
Courtesy of Eisenstadtgroup.com


As the post-election hype rolls on, the Palin-coverage took a twisted turn, which left viewers scratching their heads.

According to NYT, a pair of filmmakers pulled an elaborate Internet hoax by impersonating a McCain adviser.

When Fox News reported that an unnamed McCain adviser said Palin did not know that Africa was a continent, no one thought to ask the defendant whether or not the fact was true. Instead, the anonymous source's Palin/Africa story spread like rapid fire. Well, because, on top of her infinite foreign policy widsom, it was another Palin-fumble, right? Soon after, MSNBC anchor David Shuster reported Monday that it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who leaked the claims.

The only problem is, Eisenstadt is a made-up character.

Dan Mirvish and Eitan Gorlin admitted to creating created Eisenstadt and convincing blogs to pitch a TV show based on the character.

Shamefully, MSNBC reported a retraction, saying, "Eisenstadt should not have made air." But also, they claimed, "someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out."

Had exposing everything negative about Palin become so routine that no one remembered to fact check their sources? You would think after the Stephen Glass fiasco, reporters would be more careful...


But while right-wing supporters pointed the finger at a liberal-biased media who was too "anxious to report any negative reports on Sarah Palin without first confirming the information (Michael Calderone's Politico blog), Howard Rosenberg argues otherwise in his article.

With the 24-hour news cycle they (today’s media) rush into anything they can find,” Mirvish told The New York Times. (NoTimetoThink.com)

Rather than accuse MSNBC for possessing a liberal slant, Rosenberg says, "it was rushed on the air because MNBC–as do so many in the media these days–was moving Too Fast to Think."

But my problem , however, is how easily we were dooped by bloggers, who got an even bigger voice through careless news broadcasters. Should we consider Gorlin and Morvish abusers of the Internet for its impacts and benefits of an open forum? Or have they just opened the media's eyes (big media, like Fox News and MSNBC, for that matter) to rely less on the Internet for sources and more on reporting, next time?

Judy comes Home

Judith Miller
Courtesy of www.gawker.com

It’s the tragic tale of a conservative cheerleader who lost her way in the deep dark pages of “liberal media”. Judith Miller, who on September 8, 2002, published an exposé in the New York Times, detailing the interception of “thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes” in Iraq, thereby legitimizing the threat of WMD’s. Her sources were the following: “Bush administration officials”, “American officials” and “Iraqi defectors who once worked for the nuclear weapons establishment (who) told American officials”. Judith Miller, whose favorite high profile source was Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted criminal, who made false confirmations of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons laboratory. Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail to protect the identity of her source who outed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. Judith Miller, who after “resigning” from the New York Times joined right wing think-tank Manhattan Institute.

On October 20^th, dear Judy joined…get this…FOX News, as an on air analyst. According to Fox Senior VP,"she has a very impressive resume," – a resume tailored for Fox it may seem. Fox news isn’t picky about sourcing. Reporting that strays slightly from the truth? Fox doesn't mind. Right-wing propaganda and Fox go together like peanut-butter and jelly. Fox is just as responsible for spreading misperceptions on the war in Iraq - its viewers have higher support for the war.

Judith Miller can finally join the esteemed ranks of Hannity and O'Reilly. It is nothing less than a match made in heaven. Judith Miller is finally home.

(My apologies for any "liberal biases". I tried to stay as fair and balanced as I could.)

The Predictability in Presidential Post-Debate Analysis

After Friday’s debate between the two presidential candidates, I wasn't sure what to make of it. I thought it was a fairly even performance, both candidates had their "gotcha!" moments. I wondered what the broadcast media would make of it, so I flipped back and forth between the post-debate coverage of MSNBC, CNN and Fox News.

The structure of the coverage was remarkably similar: First the "anchors" gave a fairly mindless regurgitation of the "dramatic moments" and biggest bones of contention. Then they checked in with the spokespeople from each campaign, who both claimed that the debate was a real momentum shifter in their candidate’s direction.

On CNN, Wolf Blitzer muttered something interesting under his breath. While introducing an Obama spokesman, he said something to the affect of “And here’s so-and-so from the Obama campaign. I wonder who they think won.” This offhand sarcastic remark got me thinking. Why would you put someone on the air when you know exactly what they have to say to keep their job? What’s the journalistic value of a sound bite like that? Who cares what the ultra-partisan spin-doctors think? They're not expressing an opinion.The anchor might as well say, “The Obama and McCain camps both think their candidate won.” That takes care of it.

After the spokespeople performed, it was time for the network commentators to duke it out. Maybe it was naive of me, but I was really expecting an intellectually honest discussion to help me make sense of the remarkably even debate. But no such thing happened. It was like campaign spokespeople all over again: the conservative commentators on MSNBC claimed McCain "won" and gushed about how well he showed his experience and his "real life" examples. The liberal commentators said they thought McCain under-performed and Obama "won" citing the attention he paid to the middle class.

Where’s the intellectual honesty? This isn't amateur boxing event with judges tallying points after each question. Listening to the commentators was like listening to fans of rival sports teams yell at each other. Everyone stayed steadfast in their ideological groove. There was no analysis whatsoever, I was pissed.

Debates aren't for people who have already decided who "won" before it even begins; they're really for undecided and swing voters. I think journalists often forget that, especially in this polarizing election like this one. Journalists, anchors and even commentators should be decoders, not cheerleaders. It's fine to have an opinion as to won did better in the debate, but be intellectually honest about it! Provide a public service instead of servicing each candidate publicly on television.