"Greta Van Susteren Calls Tucker Carlson ‘A Pig’ Over Sarah Palin Post"
Susteren — a “chief defender” of Palin — called Carlson “a pig” for advertising such remarks on the front page. In a 900-word rebuke, Susteren suggested that such a “disgusting” post is not only “smut” but also “violence against women” and an inexcusable attempt to keep his failing website afloat:
I keep asking myself, why would Tucker allow this to be posted on his website? I am suspicous [sic] his website is not doing well and this is one quick last breath to create buzz to keep it afloat. I wish Tucker had not allowed this to be posted on a site associated with his name because Tucker and I have been friends (and even colleagues) for years. I have always liked Tucker and I assume you can tell that when I introduce him and greet him on air.
I don’t like it when I see that my friends do disgraceful things – but we need to start calling out even our friends to stop this. Tucker has daughters and a wife and I would think he in particular would not want to be a purveyer of smut (and this is actually more, this is violence against women) and allow this to be posted on his website. There is nothing funny about violence against women and repeating what a thug (I thought – even hoped – Tyson had outgrown that) says on a radio show is also not news. I know he loves his wife and children and would never want this said or reported about them….so why is it ok to report about another? This is not news.
Responding to Susteren, Carlson later added an editor’s note to the report, calling the remarks “offensive, indeed repulsive” but “newsworthy.” “Had Tyson used this language to attack virtually any other person in public life, he’d be vilified on the front page of the New York Times. But you won’t read these quotes in the Times,” he wrote. “We believe they deserve public scrutiny and condemnation.”
But perhaps Susteren is on to something when it comes to Carlson’s pleas for web-traffic. Using one’s face to censor parts of actress Scarlett Johansson’s naked photos is also a practice not usually found at the New York Times. But perhaps he just felt his ill-placed face deserves “public scrutiny.”