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 ,

"...is 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:

Posted in: daily caller,mcginniss,mediate,mike tyson,PALIN,tucker carlson