Nothing will put the “furor” over her controversy to rest except her talking to the American people without interlocutors.

And you just knocked down that very effort when you made complaints against Greta’s reports of Sarah.

You insist she should go on Brokaw but recognize the hatchet job the media did on the previous interviews.

I and 1% of the population READ the COMPLETE Charlie Gibson transcript on Mark Levin’s site. She was butchered and Charlie Gibson didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was. Palin’s answer was beautiful.

So…. Please stop insisting that she go do something that wouldn’t do well for her. Conservatives in general should stop propping up butchers and negligent journalists. If they don’t do the due diligence their job requires why recognize them? They’ve been lazy and with agenda.

The governor only has the ability to go directly to the people on shows like Greta’s, Hannity’s, talk radio, etc. Greta’s interview was NOT a puff piece. It was letting Sarah define Sarah. It was the ultimate in journalism. You decide based on Sarah’s answers as opposed to answers that were mangled by the editors….

I’ll admit. I’m EXTREMELY negative about the state of journalism and the dominant legacy drive-by media. So we both are negative – how about that?

Do you then approve and prefer journalists taking a stand off approach when they are imbeded with US troops that have died to save the lives of the journalists in their midst? They aren’t sympathetic to the United States and prefer to cover the Taliban for “objectivity”.

Objectivity means the truth, Jimmy. When the truth is best served by supporting Sarah Palin, do you need to make it more “objective” by sympathizing with Sarah’s enemies, Jimmy? I want you to look at the logic of your arguments and not just the foo foo implications of what is known as “objectivity”. It’s not exactly a good thing. It is only a good thing when objectivity supports the truth, justice, the law, and so forth.

Greta was pretty sympathetic to Natalie Holloway’s family. Should she have been more objective by showing warmth to those Dutch colonial incompetent nepotists in Aruba, Jimmy? I think not.

Greta went hands on and admired the work of her family to trying to bring her back, dead or alive. That is not “sympathy”, that is upholding the search for truth and justice.

That is my own judgment and I won’t call it objective. What I will call it is that it is the right judgment.

She didn’t have nuclear missiles and an army at her back then.

Bill O’reilly is a foo foo head. He was one when he coped out on Iraq by continuously repeating “it is a mess” and he was one when he coped out on the sexual harassment episode in which he was acting tough and saying they didn’t know who they have picked up, then folding with excuses about protecting his family (from what, the truth or evidence or lawsuits?)

O’Reilly is right, Carl Cameron is not a rumor monger. The person that is a rumor monger is Bill O’reilly. Bill is the one that is ostensibly doing news reports and counting on his credibility and using his credibility to inform his listeners and viewers.

Bill has done stories on child molestation and what not. Are we supposed to believe that Carl Cameron’s stories are no less newsworthy and validated by journalistic standards than those stories?

Bill cheapens real stories and real truth and accurate sources by peddling in things Bill has never verified for himself. Bill counts on the word of Carl Cameron, just like any rumor monger that says “I heard it from a valid source, my brother’s uncle’s father’s best friend’s inlaw”.

Does Bill think being separated from the source by one step is good enough for his show? Does Bill think just agreeing to have Carl Cameron on to say his piece, relying upon Carl Cameron’s face to face talks with his anonymous sources, is good enough for Bill O’Reilly’s standards?

O’Reilly’s standards have been going down ever since he caved into the Obamanation for that interview.