Monday, September 19, 2011

We got ANOTHER one: Mediaite Reporter Joins Carlson In Justifying Salacious Reporting

I have to weigh in on this Tucker Carlson/Greta Van Susteren war when I read Mediate's Frances Martel write the following:

"bringing up a comment Carlson made months ago on Twitter that he apologized for and were irrelevant to Tyson"

Of course it does. Just as the "rumor" of Bill Clinton's pre-Presidential indiscretions turned out to be relevant to the embarrassment of our country and his family.

"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."  Greta's point is that this is not the first time the publisher of a political editor pushes a sexually explicit, tasteless commentary on a female politician.  HOW IS THAT NOT RELEVANT to the question of whether Tucker Carlson did not use judgement in running this article?  He has shown a history of doing so.

We know from the overwhelming number of studies that first time sex offenders are likely to have previous offenses in which they were not caught, and are certain to have been fantasying about it long before their first act. Now I'm not calling Carlson a sex offender - only using the parallel that what people say, and what they do are indicators of continual internal dialogue and a pattern of future behavior.  Even with his inappropriate comment about Palin previously, why would a political journalist think the commentary of a mentally incompetent rapist on an unsubstantiated rumor be of ANY interest?

Perhaps Frances is fine with the objectification of professional women. Perhaps she believes it is fair game to throw anything that anyone says "out there," although I have yet to see a story from her on the rumor of Obama's gay lover.  It is the hypocrisy of "journalists" like this that confound Van Susteren and many others like myself.

All Carlson had to do was admit the story, while accurate, was in incredibly poor taste.  That it was glorifying the worst of our culture.  Was there really a need to describe EVERY graphic depiction from the mouth of a convicted rapist?  And EMBEDDING (not just linking) the video of the incident no less.  Now there is great reporting.  For Penthouse or the National Enquirer maybe.

Let's talk how relevant this story was.  First, it was unsubstantiated rumor.  Second, we learned before this article ran that Glenn Rice was never even ASKED about the incident. Finally, the source of the story had only commentary and no personal relationship or knowledge but either Mr. Rice or Ms. Palin.  Tell me again why it was so 'just' to run this story?

Van Susteren is right in her depiction.  Merely printing every single description - much less using the most offensive term in the headline - is salacious. It is juvenile.  I WOULD BE ANGRY IF THEY DID THAT TO A DEMOCRAT! 

And it is not just disrespectful to a former head of state who has done NOTHING to invite these charges like a Rep. Weiner had done, it serves as an instrument to demean a very good person.  But Ms. Martel somehow thinks Carlson heroic?  What a screwed up person she must be.

I was a little shocked that she would not defend a professional woman of accomplishment like Palin until i learned of her dust up with conservative Dana Loesch.  The moderator of the debate said that Martel had told him many times that only people who studied politics should be allowed to run.  (She tweeted Loesch that "As a woman who chose to study politics instead of procreating for a living (?)) It seems that Martel might be an elitist snob since MOST of the leaders of our country were not poli-sci majors.  In fact the only one I know who did was Bill Clinton.  We might be on to something here.  

Or maybe she is intimidated by women like Palin who are able to be successful in their accomplishments AND raise a family?  

I am NOT a supporter of any candidate yet although I like Palin.   But it is offensive to go on to say ,

" also a particularly clear litmus test for conservatives: those who adore the cult of personality around Palin more than any ideology will side with Van Susteren, while those who adhere to ideology before populism will undoubtedly side with Carlson."

This isn't the first infraction of Carlson's adolescent glee. He's like the embarrassing nerd from high school at the 20th year reunion who wants to roll a dube in the bathroom. I get the sense he has never grown up.  Mature journalists - make that mature men - would have never even THOUGHT to publicly tweet a disparaging comment like the MILF one.  To me it explains why he felt the need to not just cover the Mike Tyson comment in vivid detail but also had to put the vile term in the headline.

I think he probably is a slimeball in his own thought life that doesn't quite understand the sensibility of most conservatives whether they like Palin or not.  He certainly doesn't care much about his wife and children to drag them into this discussion as human shields.  Although I am sure both he and Ms. Martel would defend the right of someone to 'report' similar comments by a rapist about them.

Martel's comments exposes an obvious glee at in her statement,

"Carlson has been willing to challenge the sacred cow status of Sarah Palin in the past..."

Sacred cow status? Palin has been the most vilely persecuted public figure in the past 3 years, enduring not only depictions and false accusations about her children and family, but suffered a financial onslaught of coordinated leftist attacks.  In these lawsuits (all of which have been dropped) the accusers openly admitted they didn't care if the charges were true or not.

And within the GOP it has been only marginally better.  Within one week of when Perry announced she was called a "glory hound" and not a serious candidate.  Somehow it was fine for Perry to not only wait until September, but strategically avoid a critical debate in Iowa.  And despite Reagan and others not getting into their campaigns until much later, Palin was illogically hounded while these seem political operatives and journalists pleaded for Chris Christy to jump into the race.

No, Ms. Martel, many of see the error of not doing more to defend her because she IS 

Ben Howe of Big Hollywood got it right in his review of THE UNDEFEATED.
I pride myself on my ability to know when something is baloney, almost instinctively. On Sarah Palin, I was so incredibly hoodwinked that the one word that my wife and I agreed described how we felt after watching it, was shame. Yes of course invigoration, satisfaction and all the other things you experience when watching a good film, but about how we had handled our vetting of Mrs. Palin, shame was the word that best described it.
Shame for not bothering to look up her record. Shame for not reading her story. Shame for turning the channel when she came on the tv. Shame for not listening to people that we had a great deal of respect for like Andrew Breitbart, Tammy Bruce, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
As Breitbart points out in the film, the greatest shame is that while this woman was savaged to degrees you may not even realize yet, some of us sat back and let it happen. For me to buy into the media template and not defend someone who’s only offense was being a conservative, is the absolute antithesis of what I stand for, and something that I shall never allow to happen again.
Unfortunately, Ms. Martel has shown she is as poor of a journalist as she is a moral human being. You can read her piece here and watch the video with Carlson/Van Susteren:

Sarah Palin Greta Van Susteren Mike Tyson Tucker Carlson Video | Mediaite:


Full disclosure: Im not a Palin supporter, though I used to be her supporter but w/out fanatic worshiping that you see running rampant on the internet. After I dumped her, that is when I finally realized the difference between "supporters" and "followers".

Now about Greta & Carlson. Carlson is a conservative republican thru & thru. Greta - dont think she ever declared, but I dont think she's conservative. Carlson readers/viewers are the conservative crowd. Greta, due to being on Foxnews, gets the republican crowd by default.

You mention something about good & poor journalism. I beg the differ w/your assessment. Just because 1 does not like the the provocative content or find it offensive or dislike the author's morals, does not make the journalist work "poor" or good. My test of good journalism is this: does the reader or visitor keep coming back? Does it provoke reviews, comments & readership, link referrals, etcc.. Apparently, Tucker's boys must of did a great job because it was enough to provoke Greta & Palin "followers". So these factors are the judge. By Greta initiating a slug fest w/Tucker, it only marketed or brought more attention to his media. Like him or not, the free advertisement did not hurt him.

BTW, everybody who has a blog, talk radio or post their OWN works on youtube is a journalist. I will go so far as saying that twitterers are journalist (somewhat). Some better than others. Look at Wikileaks & Limbaugh & even Howard Stern. Love em or Hate em, they are good journalist for reason I just mentioned.

Lastly on this note, every body has a following.

Can anyone explain to me how reporting/quoting the vile things Tyson said is 'promoting violence against women' or 'repeating filth' or any of the other comments made here to explain why it should NOT have been reported???

Was reporting the disgusting anti-Jew/Pro-Nazi rantings made by that famous designer earlier this year 'promoting violence against Jews' or 'repeating filth/nastiness'?

Was reporting the racist rant made by the former Seinfield comic a couple of years ago 'promoting violence against blacks' or repeating ethnic slurs?

Was reporting the Bin Laden audio/video tapes promoting violence against Christians or repeating blasphemy?

This whole issue seems so ridiculously overblown I'm beginning to wonder if the whole thing isn't contrived -- THEATER for your viewing pleasure.

How many blogs has Greta posted on this subject in the last 36 hours? Whipping everyone into a FRENZY.... and for what reason??? Surely it couldn't be about RATINGS...... breaking a RECORD in the timeslot?

I don't like being 'played', yet I'm beginning to think that's what's going on -- for whatever reason.

KEEP IN MIND that the following is my personal opinion. I want to respond to the sacred cow stuff. What Mediaite said on that was spot on, as I could not had said it better.

It's like folks who follow her are acting just like the ones who follow Obama. Same mentality & behavior. Obama is the sacred cow of the liberals & to most of the democrat party. Difference between Palin & Obama on that matter is that Palin is not the sacred cow of the GOP, BUT she is the sacred cow of a SMALL portion of folks that had been carved out of the teaparty movement. Contrary to what folks will admit, a lot of teaparty folks are not Palin supporters.

In contrast to Ron Paul followers: The harsh reality is that there is 1 major striking similarity between Palinistas & Obamanites, that has been developing within the past month or so:
1. NEW N-WORD: If you dare challenge Palin, her followers will call U a Liberal. If you dare challenge Obama you will be called a Racist (or in my case, I will be called an uncle tom). These are the things one will be called even if the challenger is in the same party as Palin or Obama. Ahhh... yes, "Liberal" is the new N-word & its being spewed out a lot here lately.

2. DRAMA: With both Palin & Obama, there is non-stock drama. This drama is a distraction. It makes no difference if they created it or not. The only difference between the drama is that Obama-Drama is more developed, as its been going on since he got elected. Whereas, Palin-Drama is trying to get a firm footing.

I hear you ArleneArmy - but let me give you a few different perspectives.

First - regarding "journalists," Greta (and many of those arguing the point this was out of line) do not consider the writer for their high school yearbook a "journalist". "Journalism" is a profession, craft, discipline and even art. But it has parameters that separate invective and gossip from something that used to be called "reporting". I grant you that bloggers and even rags like the National Enquirer have done more to expose and investigate political issues than most main stream media and the lines blur

But I would disagree with you that ANYONE who writes, reports or publishes could be considered a "journalist" striving to maintain integrity in reporting.

On this matter - merely repeating COMMENTARY (not news) about an accomplished WOMAN with whom the commentator has NO relationship to the ongoing story - ISN'T EVEN NEWS WITHOUT THE VULGARITY.

When you add the broadcast (not just indirect mention of) of a LIGHTHEARTED tone about abusive violent rhetoric against women you add another dimension that goes far beyond journalism into civility, morality and maturity (or propriety).

It is my contention that those that argue this is somehow "inbounds" says more about the morality and ethical of the person who is defending it than it does Mike Tyson. Take that how you will.

Yes. I agree with you that there are SOME who bristle at any negative comment about Governor Palin or Ron Paul. (Same with other comments but with the exception of Perry, the rest fall underneath the radar either because they are a lack of threat or just lacking sheer numbers of proponents I suppose).

But once again - this has nothing to do with Palin except with the Tucker Carlson's obvious disrespect and disregard for Ms. Palin.

I certainly wouldn't be arguing this point if Carlson had said Palin was "fearful" of entering the race or some other negative analysis of strategy, policy or politics.

But if you can't defend Palin - or ALL CONSERVATIVE WOMEN, hell ALL WOMEN, from this kind of callous, insensitive pornography (look up the definition - you are not a good person.

Unless you want government policing speech - you will have to learn to govern it yourself.
(that is a very famous quote from PolitiJim).

Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More