Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Is Greta Van Susteren Delusional?

Reported by Nancy - July 27, 2005 -

FNC's Greta Van Susteren took time out from her busy schedule of "reporting" on Natalee Holloway to give the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz a couple of quotes for his Monday (7/25) column. In the process, she provided readers of that column with a couple of real howlers.

Kurtz's column, The Supreme Challenge: Zero Visuals Times 9, was about why the legal programs on cable news networks aren't covering John Roberts's nomination to SCOTUS &, more broadly, why they don't generally cover SCOTUS.

Here's Van Susteren on Roberts himself:

"He's distinguished himself in his career, but there's no novelty associated with him," Van Susteren says. "We've had white men who've gone to Harvard and been at the top of their class and are smart."

Comment: So, according to GVS, a SCOTUS nominee who has no "novelty" associated with him isn't worth covering. Let's assume she's correct about Roberts being un-novel. Isn't that interesting in & of itself?

But wait! It gets better! Here's Van Susteren explaining why the Holloway case continues to get big coverage on her program while Roberts's SCOTUS nomination is virtually ignored:

"I see it as a lesson in how we collect evidence," says Van Susteren, whose ratings have soared since Holloway's disappearance in late May. "Far more people are going to be touched by trial courts and police investigations than by Supreme Court decisions. I would not be so arrogant to think that only the Supreme Court matters. More people now know about Aruban law than they ever did before."

Comment: The idea that trial courts affect more lives than SCOTUS is utterly laughable. SCOTUS interprets the law of the land -- its decisions affect the rights of every American every day. As for "More people now know about Aruban law than they ever did before." -- perhaps Fox viewers would benefit more from some lessons in AMERICAN law (such as, say, discussion about a SCOTUS nominee).

(Thanks to alert reader P.A. who brought this article to our attention!)

NOTE TO READERS: Please stay on topic (van Susteren's comments, her coverage of SCOTUS vs Holloway). O/T comments will be deleted. Thanks.