Greta van Susteren's fair and balanced attack against Gwen Ifill's journalistic integrity

This is a comment I left in Greta van Susteren's blog over her concerns that Gwen Ifill won't be objective in the VP debate tonight. Seems Ifill wrote a book about the rise of black politicians and changes between generations of minority activists. That, at least, is what I gleaned from the quote provided by van Susteren herself in an interview with "The Politico"'s David Mark. To make her point, Ifill uses Obama as an example and this, van Susteren says, shows the potential of conflict. If Obama wins in November, then Ifill's book might sell "like hotcakes". So, wouldn't a reporter of Ifill's "terrific reputation" (as stated by van Susteren) want to slant the debate in favour of Obama and the almighty dollar? Of course she would. That's why she works for PBS. Here's my response:

Come on, Greta. This is a pretty hard slam against someone whom you call a talented journalist. Of course this is about her reputation. Stop dancing around it. Your concern is that Gwen Ifill will moderate the debate with a slant towards Obama inorder to sell her book. That is the very essence of calling her reputation into question. The headline on the Fox News site is "Can Gwen Ifill Be Fair and Balanced?" Do you mean, can Gwen Ifill cop to the Fox News standard and toady up? This is yet another play against Ifill that so many conservative pundits like yourself like to make. Her book is about Barack Obama's rise to being a front-runner in a presidential race. To being the leader of one of the only two parties in America that ever have a chance to make it to the Whitehouse. This is obvious even in the quote you provided in your interview with David Mark from "The Politico".

In it she says she's "taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it to talk about a whole new generation of black politicians who are doing very similar things in very different ways. They are younger, they are more likely to get to power not by marching in marches the way their parents did, or by leading protests. They have decided to do it by getting educations, basically walking through that the doors their parents opened and choosing public service in a different way."

It's no different than John McCain standing up on the night Obama accepted his nomination and congratulating him on an historic victory. This is a partisan attack and you know it. How often do you actually watch Gwen Ifill? Because it strikes me as odd that you fire off at her over a book instead of looking into record as a journalist. Don't you think, as you say, having "a terrific reputation as a journalist" should weigh heavier than a book that is only minimally connected with Barack Obama? She used his story as a jumping block. Wouldn't you do the same? How can you expect a journalist to ignore a sea-change in political activism when we're right in the heart of the swell? Obama is news and Ifill had something to say about it; not about him being president but about him and others being successful in mainstream politics that had previously frozen them out.

Honestly, Greta, how much do you expect Ifill to make off her book if Obama wins in November? Wouldn't you think that if Obama wins, she might write another book? Won't you write one? This issue is a non-starter and your claims of only wanting "fair and balanced" moderating in the debate are reprehensible. This is an attack on her reputation, calling her integrity into question. I'm certain that your inbox IS flooded - with outrage from your devoted veiwership. That doesn't make this as newsworthy as you're reporting it to be. Book or no, shouldn't we always be looking out for breakdowns in journalistic integrity? Gwen Ifill knows this and is cognizant of this in her duties as a journalist, as most journalists are. Give me one example where she comprimised her integrity while doing her job. If you have a problem with Ifill as the moderator, then come out with it but look at her entire career, not one book. McCain trusts her. Palin said she's "not going to let it be a concern", even though she seems to worry with you that Ifill won't be objective. (That's good company. Ask Sarah Palin if she's ever watched Gwen Ifill.) The problem with the Media isn't in trying to spin the public trust. It's in journalists trying to eat each other alive.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431613,00.html
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/what-do-you-think-61/