Posted on 01/29/2002 11:31:12 AM PST by Utah Girl
She wants her close-up on another network because her feelings are very, very hurt.
As my old friend Glenn Garvin once counseled me, if you're going to quit your job every time the bosses violate one of your deeply held journalistic principles, make sure to update your résumé daily. You'll need it.
Although Garvin was mute about what measures to take if your bosses hurt your feelings, I'm sure that his advice would be the same. Quitting in protest? Make sure you have a soft place to land.
I don't know if Garvin has been counseling cable TV legal affairs chatterer Greta Van Susteren, but she seems to be following his advice to a T. According to a story in today's New York Times, Van Susteren left CNN for Fox News earlier this month not for more money (Fox offered less), but because the network hurt her feelings.
Van Susteren's emotional damage is inventoried in a letter she and her husband/lawyer John Coale sent to CNN's chairman, Walter Isaacson, and which was "shared with the New York Times by several people who have seen it." Did Isaacson and Co. leak it to the Times to humiliate Van Susteren and Coale as silly and petty bastards? Or did Van Susteren and Coale leak it to the Times to publicize what they think are valid grievances?
Van Susteren had no comment for the Times reporter, but Coale said, "We're disturbed that it got out because it's a private thing. I had committed to CNN and others that this is private." Sounds more like an attorney's massaged sound bite than a denial.
What soft sensitivities did CNN's beastly behavior violate? CNN underpromoted her, she and Coale complain in the letter, giving a bigger spotlight to newly hired "stars" Paula Zahn and Aaron Brown. Even if CNN did hype Zahn and Brown over Van Susteren, wouldn't that make sense? The network didn't want viewers to land on CNN and see Zahn and think that they had tuned in to Fox, Zahn's last gig. Likewise, the network didn't want viewers to see Brown and think they were watching ABC. Van Susteren, on the other hand, has been haunting CNN since the birth of Christ.
But if CNN's treatment of Van Susteren constitutes abuse, I can only hope my bosses start looking to the network for inspiration. As Zahn and Brown joined CNN, the network gave the TV diva her own show, titled The Point With Greta Van Susteren (Note to Kinsley: Can we change the name of this column to "Press Box With Jack Shafer"?) and programmed it directly after Larry King's show, which is CNN's No. 1 show. This cushy lead-in made Van Susteren's show No. 2. Oh, the indignity! [Erratum: In fact, The Point was the lead in to Larry King Live, an equally advantageous slot.]
Other hateful, hurtful acts by the network: Coale's letter alleges that CNN treated her like a "second-class citizen" by failing to get her an invitation to the White House Christmas party. (She should consider herself lucky.) It also claims that the network slighted its female journalists when it ignored Van Susteren's complaints and those by Judy Woodruff and Christiane Amanpour about the departure of a key female executive?even though, as the Times reports, CNN is well-stocked with female execs. It also decries the lack of CNN's on-air diversity, noting that Bernard Shaw (African-American) and Joie Chen (Asian-American) had left the network. Of course, that complaint is precisely nullified by the recent hiring of Connie Chung and Fredricka Whitfield, making CNN as diverse as it was when Van Susteren worked there (a point noted by the Times). What tears, if any, has Van Susteren shed for Old White Male Roger Cossack, her former co-host on CNN's Burden of Proof, who was let go in December and the show ash-canned?
As the Times points out, leaping to right-wing Fox probably isn't the best way to protest the lack of diversity at CNN. Fox's top white guys Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Tony Snow, Brit Hume, and Fred Barnes are not charter members of the affirmative-action vanguard.
So Van Susteren didn't quit for the money. She didn't quit because the network ignored her needs. And she didn't quit to advance the employment prospects of women and minorities. My best guess is that having worked for CNN for a decade, she quit because she hated her bosses.
And everybody, Glenn Garvin included, can relate to that.
Miss Van Susteren distinguished herself during the O. J. Simpson trial by muddying the waters of Simpson's crystal-clear guilt by picking at procedural nits. This was a clever marketing tactic — if every intelligent person in the world thinks X, television producers will seek out and exalt someone who argues for Y, all in an effort to provide "balance." Miss Van Susteren became a passionate advocate for Simpson — although she often denied it. She was masterly at importing a courtroom technique into the television studio: the moral equivalence of facts.
It's amazing! SHe must have gotten her entire face, bags and all, ripped out and replaced. Wait til you see this...I've never seen anything like this, save for the wierdo Jacko.
I didn't actually watch the segment, but I read about it. But, I did catch the promotional commercial for the show, and let me tell you she looked markedly better than before. I didn't even recognise her. From what I could see, she looked good. AND, the promo said "Greta, tough and independant". So, (I think) that Fox has not only given her appearance a make-over, but perhaps her political outlooks as well. They probably laid down the conservative law!
It's amazing! SHe must have gotten her entire face, bags and all, ripped out and replaced. Wait til you see this...I've never seen anything like this, save for the wierdo Jacko.
Eyelift I heard.
Okay, the mystery is solved. That's why she took a pay cut to go over to Fox. She wanted that Fox makeover!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.