Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Is Greta Van Susteren bulimic?

Today's Gretawire, Nov. 28, bothers me. I am trying
to put together the mentality of someone that
admits to no self-discipline with respect to her
eating habits yet maintains the same weight she has
had since she was 16 and the need to hear confessions
from her overweight audience about how many pounds
overweight they are. It just does not all fit so
nicely together. There is a piece missing in the puzzle
and it is not so much missing as it is being hidden
by Greta. Like a cry for help sort of. Is Greta Van
Susteren crying out for help? Could the missing
piece be something like bulimia? Would she tell us?
Can we trust her to tell us the truth? Personally, my
confidence in her giving a truthful answer is about nil.
Not that she has anything against obesity. She is married
to a very obese man. Apparently happily married to an
obese man. Oh, how fun that must be. He cooks too. And
Greta indulges with no self-discipline yet maintains her
weight that she reached at the age 16.

She does acknowledge obesity as a problem in her blog
yet condones it in her immediate lifestyle. Condones
and focuses on the role the government plays in the
problem on a national level. One of today's e-mails I
liked pointed to the government's control over advertising,
yet belied the extent of its influence with respect
to smoking at least. Most of the e-mails took the conservative
perspective to keep government out of the obesity problem.
But what about the FDA? They took all the appetite control
supplements off the market. Europe has a mere fraction
of the obesity problem our country has because the EU
allows its citizens to take appetite pills. Well, there you go.

My only problem with weight is beer so I think the government
can get rid of all the beer commercials. And the Tanquerays and
Kalua ones too. Who needs it? Alcohol not only has invisible
calories, it slows down your metabolism. If the government is going
to regulate the drinking age, they can be creative. Drink legally
at 21, stop at 22 until you turn 25. Drink at 25, stop at 26, until
you turn 30. Make it fun! It would help obesity, drunk driving,
alcoholism, and health care policy. Some states ban drinking by race.
I am not kidding. Go to Georgia. They have some dry counties there
where the only establishments allowed to serve alcohol are clubs.
The clubs are private and censor their members and only allow
caucasian whites to join. They are legal. I do not know why the blacks
do not have any clubs of their own.

Back to Gretawire. The FDA regulates gastric surgery. Liposuction.
Food labelling. The government controls advertising, alcohol, PE.
What is Greta looking for? What can the government do for her husband's
obesity? Would she like him if he was not obese? Maybe her father
was obese too. She did not choose to marry the looks of a George
Clooney or Brad Pitt.

Maybe she is wondering about her own obesity? She needs to overcome
her own diet problems and is assessing her options? Hmmm, that sounds
better. She is doomed to become obese and wants the government
to do something about it? She wants some of those Dutch drugs? Yeah!!
I am going to settle on that. To be continued as she emits new clues.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Good News Corp.

News Corporation owns Fox News which owns On The
Record with Greta Van Susteren. They just now cancelled
OJ! Good. It was News Corp. at the top of that fiasco
with Rupert Murdoch responsible for hiring Judith Regan
of ReganBooks at Harper Collins and the host of the
Fox Broadcast program about OJ Simpson. News Corp.
owns all of them top to bottom. I wonder if this means
they plan to cancel Greta too? She better shape up!

Who Cares About OJ Simpson?

Most of the readers of this blog find it
via keyword searches at blog search engines.
Most of the keywords have been related to either
Greta Van Susteren, the Duke Lacrosse rape case or
Trenton Duckett. Last week I posted about the full
hour OTR on OJ Simpson. Not one site visitor found this
blog because they did a search related to OJ Simpson.
That tells us something about what mainstream America
cares about. And from that we can extrapolate. If the
posts here about OJ are not getting hits, Greta's
airtime about OJ is not getting ratings. Yet, what does
she dedicate her Gretawire to today (again)? OJ. Greta
is really the only one who cares about him. That is what
launched her journalism career. If it hadn't been for OJ,
Greta would be filing motions at the courthouse today.
Fun! OJ is good for something. Greta. But does that justify
projecting her love for OJ onto everybody else as if they
tune into her show and read her blog because they are
looking forward to OJ? No way. The stats tell the truth.
OJ is for Greta, not us. Let's move on already. Back to
the Duke Lacrosse rape case, because that is what the
viewers really care about.

Friday, November 17, 2006

November 17 OTR: Did OJ confess?

Tonight, Greta Van Susteren ended her program
with a clip from her 2004 interview with OJ Simpson,
asking, in a tone that seemed to imply he did,
if OJ confessed to her.

I watched her soundbite twice and could not detect
even a subtle confession. What is the point she was
making? She dedicated her entire program to OJ
this evening. Earlier this week, she has dedicated
tiring segments more. She has dedicated more air
time and promotion to OJ than OJ's confessional
special coming up in two weeks on Fox itself spans.

I am going to watch the OJ special. Sue me. If he
wants to confess, let him, I would like to hear how
he does it.

One thing I would like to know. This week I have
heard countless times from anchors that they will
not watch the OJ confession on TV or support any
company that sponsers it. Well, answer this. How will
they know who the sponsors are if they do not plan to
watch it?

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

November 15 OTR: Trenton Duckett

Greta Van Susteren apparently has decided to scoop
Nancy Grace in the Trenton Duckett story. I have never
heard Greta report on Trenton's disappearance before.
Back in September, Nancy Grace made huge ratings when
Melinda Duckett, Trenton's mother, committed suicide
after a tough interview with her. That was after the 2 yr.
old turned up missing August 27.

I have come to think that Nancy owned the Trenton Duckett
story like Greta owned the Natalee Holloway story. And
it was Fox News that started the squatters rights
competition on missing people stories. What bothers me
today is that Greta appeared on the O'Reilly Factor
earlier today before doing her own show and reported
some information I have heard nowhere else.

Greta's demeanor on O'Reilly was her old manic
self that she used to betray on his show when she
came on to talk about Natalee Holloway. Talking a mile a
minute, over-confident, authoritative, hyper, excited, giddy
about the information she brought forth. Just really
over-hyping it and she closed with "This is huge
Bill!". Now here's the part that concerns me. Print reports
and Nancy Grace say a Wendy's employee saw Melinda in the
drive thru twice on August 27. Greta's version inserts a
third sighting:

"About 4 o'clock in the afternoon, she was seen a third
time, the child wasn't there, but she was there with two
men and a woman."

I watched Nancy tonight. I did google news searches and
nowhere can I find any corroboration about the third
sighting. Later, when Greta did her own show, the Fox
News correspondent mentioned the third sighting too. On
both shows, she refuses to say the name Nancy Grace and
refers to Nancy as 'the pressure of accusations' with
respect to Melinda's suicide.

The third sighting makes the police report more believeable.
Where was Trenton? Was there a fourth female with Trenton?
If Melinda was at Wendy's at 4 pm, could she had returned home
in time to watch a video with guests as she reported initially
prior to finding Trenton gone? Were the two men watching the
video the same two men at the Wendys? (Probably not). So many
questions. Why is the third sighting not in any other news

Thursday, November 09, 2006

November 8 OTR: Did Mike Nifong Win the Durham DA Election?

Yesterday on OTR, Greta Van Susteren reported
the results of the Durham, NC district attorney
election. Mike Nifong, the DA prosecuting the Duke
Lacrosse rape case, won the election with 49% of
the votes. Lewis Cheek trailed Mike Nifong with 39%.

I have a problem with this report. These numbers do
not include any of the provisional ballots according
to News and Observer:

"Nifong, on the ballot as a Democrat, received 26,116
votes or 49 percent, according to unofficial results
that exclude provisional ballots."

Why are the provisional ballots important? They are extremely
important, because a Duke University group, Duke Students
for an Ethical Durham was formed to register as many students
as possible before the October 13 deadline. However, the students
also had another requirement in order for their name to appear
on the precinct list according to Mike Ashe, director of elections
for Durham County in an article in the Duke Chronicle:

"Students may either go to their old precincts to
get transfer forms and then vote at their new
precincts, or they may vote using provisional ballots
at their new precincts, he said."

Most of the students' old precincts are several states away
and they were in the middle of a school semester. I take that to
mean that most of the Duke students that just voted in this
election were given provisional ballots and their votes have
yet to be counted.

This leaves me very eeerie about the election results. Provisional
ballots are controversial and sometimes the subject of voter
corruption. Having a select group of voters restricted to using
provisional ballots, especially in an election like this when
that group is large and likely containing votes for the opponent
of the winning candidate is troubling. When will the provisional
votes be counted? According to Durham News:

"Provisional ballots are returned to the Board of
Elections office in a sealed bag and are researched
to verify that the voter was eligible and filled out
the correct ballot."

One by one, that could take weeks.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

November 8 Gretawire

Greta Van Susteren writes today in her November 8

As for watching the returns, I watched at home with my
husband. The women will be happy to know that I got
command of the remote control from my husband for 20
minutes last night. (He ran out to get us Chinese
food. Upon his return I immediately relinquished
custody.) It is the only part of our relationship
which does not feel equal. (I know, all the men
reading this are pointing out that he went to get the
Chinese food. And yes, that was very nice.)

I find this ridiculous! Get a second TV. There has got
to be enough funds in the piggy bank, go get another TV and
stop complaining. Enough already.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Duke Rape:
"A Referendum on the System of Justice"

Tomorrow is election day for Mike Nifong, the
Durham, NC district attorney running for election.
On October 27 OTR, Greta Van Susteren had to ask
her guest Woody Vann, a Durham defense attorney,
who was running against Nifong. Actually, she first
asked IF anyone was running against Nifong, LOL. Not
that she had not been covering the topic all summer long
and reported on the DA election since June when write-in
candidates petitioned to appear on the ballot for tomorrow's
election. I worry about Greta sometimes. Does she
have a brain tumor? Her memory lapses are so severe.
Woody told Greta that Lewis Cheek is running against
Nifong as a recall candidate. Excellent! Vote Cheek
and Recall Nifong! (That's what I would do if I lived
in that district.)

Greta went on to ask about referring Nifong to the Bar.
How could she not know that he has already been reported
to the Bar and has charges pending upon the outcome the
Duke Lacrosse Rape case? My reading on the case is that
Duke Law professor James Coleman filed the bar complaint
late last spring.

October 27: "I'm beginning to think there is
something wrong with Nifong!"

Now, Greta? You do not remember wondering that in September
and June? The rest of the media world was. What about back
in the days when you had Susannah Meadows from Newsweek
on? She flipped on Nifong's goodness a way long time ago.

Greta also asked about the grand jury transcripts. How can
she cover this case as an attorney herself all these months
and not know that NC does not transcribe grand jury hearings?

She tells Jeff Brown on her panel that she wants to hear from
Nifong himself. She says it so nonchalantly as if it would be
just a fine thing to do. She cannot have a clue that Nifong is
under a gag order that prevents him from talking to the media.
She should know that though. Shouldn't she?

Greta does not go so far as to endorse Nifong's opponent, Lewis
Cheek. She instead says all eyes should be on this election. "It
is a referendum on the system of justice down there and we
should all be watching it." If she is going to go so far as to call
it a referendum, she might as well say 'Recall Nifong'. It is the
same thing right? Unless she doesn't think in-justice is a bad
thing. She sneaks in just enough editorial journalism to squeak,
but not enough to make a difference. Why is she so afraid?

It is too bad Greta does not take the Duke case serious enough
to treat it as anything but info-tainment journalism. What
a waste of a law degree. The media is the one constituent that
has the power to make a difference when blatant injustices
arise. The media informs the uninformed. But how can anyone
uninformed about this case give Greta or OTR any credibility
when she knows so little of the facts of the case? I personally
have followed this case since about day 10. I first learned
about it watching the now extinct Abrams Report. Where is
Dan the Man when we need him most? That guy at least did his
homework and never went on the air with this case to require
memory refreshments of himself like Greta. Her journalism is
shoddy and it is taking up vital primetime space that could
be had by someone like Dan. And even worse, it is not like Greta
is new to this case. She has been reporting on it nearly once a
week for six months. Is she just reading the tele-prompt? In one
ear and out the other? Is her memory like my PC? Turn on the
power in the morning and all of yesterday's windows have
disappeared? Is she ill? Should I be giving her a break or
kicking her butt?

Sunday, November 05, 2006

What are our neighbor blogs saying?

What are other blogs reporting about Greta Van Susteren
this week? Let's take a look:

CosmicConservative at
is saying:

"I don't watch TV much, but the thing that struck me
most about this Fox video is that Greta Van Susteren
is another ten years younger than the last time I saw
her. I may have to rethink my opinion of time travel."

Michael at
is saying:

"Fox News allows its anchors to maintain a blog on That's Ok. But do you think that these
anchors maybe report on stories or topics that they
are interested in, personally and/or professionally?
Maybe do some investigative journalism and share the
knowledge gained in their blogs? Guess again. These
blogs are as TRIVIAL and USELESS as they come. There
is no reason why a story about Greta Van Susteren
bowling in Las Vegas should be on any news site,
unless that news site is solely geared toward
reporting on her. This is a waste. The GretaWire is
ridiculous. If she wants a personal blog she should
get an account from a blogging site
( A blog on a news site
should be about news!"

There are also a lot of spam blogs that are inserting
Greta's name into their meta tags and when you click
on them, the site autoforwards to a spam search engine.
There is no blog there about Greta, sadly. I wonder if she
knows that. She must since she is doing keyword searches
on her own name. Who out there does that? Searches
out their own name in a google search? Why? Is it vain or
is it a search for a good slander lawsuit? Well, we are
safe here at the OTRblog because I only publish facts I can
back up with evidence. The truth is always a valid defense
and I post with that in mind. No slander here, no lies, no
defamation. Just truthful observations. Plus, this blogs
cares about Greta. We want to help her grow and develop.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Greta was here!

Earlier, I installed software to keep track of
the visitors here at the OTR blog. Although I e-mailed
Greta directly about the site with the link, she seems
to have found it via a different means. According
to the stats, a visitor from the network, Fox News
Channel, from the geographical location of Washington,
D.C., on November 3 (yesterday), visited the google
search engine and entered the following keyword phrase:

"Van Susteren"

Upon returning results for the search, the visitor
clicked on this blog site and while here, visited two
of the site's pages. Welcome, Greta! I hope you
visit often and learn plenty. There is no such thing
as negative publicity, remember.

As an aside (a Greta-ism!), here is more information
garnered from the stats. The rest of the visitors from
yesterday found their way here via google keyword searches
relating to the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case post I published
yesterday. From NJ, CA, ME, IL,NY and AR. It will be exciting
to get some from NC for that Duke case. I will try to post
more on the topic as material permits. Our visitor from
Rock Island, IL visited more pages than I did all day
while publishing all the posts! Welcome all.

Please take a moment to leave comments on the posts. Commenting
is not moderated and you may select 'anonymous' instead of needing
to log into an account with a password. Know that you will be
heard here, unconditionally and uncensored. No handpicking of
select comments to publish like Greta does on her Gretawire
blog. No fear of having your good name smeared because Greta
doesn't agree with your comment or presence or for not
worshipping her sufficiently, just post anonymously.

October 31 OTR: Utah Polygamy

This past Tuesday, Greta Van Susteren had a segment on
the Kingston Family in Utah that is being investigated
for incest crimes. Greta re-titled the investigation
under polygamy without basis in her discussion with
the Kingston Family attorney. She insisted in bringing
criticism of polygamy into the discussion even
though the charges have nothing to do with it. She
even got the lawyer to agree with her that polygamy
was illegal and the lawyer deferred to a law in
co-habitation being strengthened.

The facts, which Greta has never addressed are that the
Kingstons practice multiple co-habitation. CNN and
Anderson Cooper have addressed the subject in depth.
Polygamy is legally defined as multiple legal marriages.
Legal marriages are contracts entered into with the
government in exchange for a marriage license. When one
obtains a second, concurrent marriage license, one is
in sense defrauding the government and comitting bigamy
or polygamy, when the number of concurrent licenses exceeds

The polygamist religions in Utah do not practice legal
marriage according to CNN. They practice what they call
'spiritual marriages'. Their marriages are performed
without the issuance of marriage licenses. What is a
'spiritual marriage'? The term has most recently been used
in the media to describe the marriage between Anna Nicole
Smith and Howard K. Stern. Their marriage, and the media
nailed this point to the core, is not legally licensed by the
government. The couple has none of the incentives that the
government reserves for legally married couples like tax
savings, insurance dependencies and probate benefits.

The same applies to the Kingstons and the Fundamentalist LDS
religions and their marriages. The US Supreme Court has
ruled that adultery cannot be criminalized. Therefore, to have
more than one sex partner outside of legalized marriage can
neither be criminal. The law does not recognize non-legal
(or 'spiritual') marriage distinct from an unmarried status.
Therefore, under the law, there is no crime in the polygamy
occurring in Utahans' commission of multiple spiritual marriages.
Greta Van Susteren has repeatedly treated the activity as illegal
on her show although she has never covered a case where there
are criminal charges of illegal polygamy against a Utah citizen.
In the case of Warren Jeffs, another example where Greta cites
polygamy, the criminal charges are actually rape and conspiracy to
commit rape. No where is Jeffs wanted for or charged with polygamy.

We want Greta to get her facts straight. The religions of
Utah practicing polygamous spiritual marriages in the absense
of marriage licensing have a constitutional right to their
practices. As long as they are not molesting children or mating
family members, which the majority do not, they are not committing
any crimes. They do not deserve to be disparaged for their legal
practices on a cable news show by a misinformed news anchor. In fact,
they may have grounds for defamation and slander due to Greta's
coverage. I have not seen other news programs disparaging Greta
for her religious practices and she needs to extend the same
courtesy to her fellow citizens. In this country we practice freedom
of religion, whether it be Christianity, FLDS, Islam, Judaism or
any of other religions practiced on our planet.

Friday, November 03, 2006


Greta-isms are words and phrases often or
over-used by Greta Van Susteren. Ones you see
in her writing over and over again. I thought
I would keep a ledger just for fun:

As an aside
Never dull
I am curious so I assume you are too.
Behind the scenes
What's wrong with people?

Post more in the comments.

OTR November 3, 2006

One issue I have been meaning to address is
the information shown on the lower screen banner
while guests are talking. We only see their
names flash for a couple of seconds and then
disappear to be replaced with an description
of the self-explanatory topic. Since the topic
is self-explanatory, I really think it is better
to flash that and keep the guests names and
organizations visible the rest of the time. The
way Greta does it now is irritating in my opinion
and deprives the viewer of information about the

On a positive note, Greta wished all of us a good
weekend. I've never heard that one before. I wrote
her earlier and told her she was under review here
at the blog so maybe she has decided to shape up
for a change!

October 27 OTR: Police or Sheriff

On October 27, On The Record included an interview
with Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle. Greta introduced
the elected official as a member of the Riverside
Police Department. Uh oh. Since when did the
elected sheriff go to work for the police chief?
Let's help Greta understand police politics. The
police work for the city. The sheriff works for
the county. The police have a chief appointed by
the city's mayor while the sheriff is elected by the
county's citizens. The police fight crime within the
city while the sheriff fights crime outside all of the
city limits within the county. In Riverside, that would
include the city of Palm Springs as well as the city of
Riverside. The sheriff has a lot more responsibility
than the police. He also mans the county jail and guards
the courts with his bailiffs. To call the sheriff a policeman
is like calling the our president a senator. It is very
insulting. Let's hope this mistake does not become a habit.

November 1 OTR: Memory Lapse

On Novemeber 1, 2006, On the Record invited
Durham attorney Woody Vann on to comment on
the Duke Rape Case. Greta asked Woody about
DA Mike Nifong being sent to district court
to prosecute petty crimes to which Woody
explained the involvement of personal reasons
on behalf of the DA.

On May 2, Greta, herself interviewed Mike
Nifong which covered this very topic. See
Nifong Interview.

I will quote in hopes that she will read this
and refresh her memory:

"VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you like the job?

NIFONG: The hours. Actually, that's hard to say. When I was in law school, I knew that what I wanted to do was to be in the courtroom, and the best way to get started in the courtroom was to be an assistant district attorney. So that's a job that I looked for. And it actually was a much better job than I'd even imagined. I did that for 20 years and never considered doing anything else, and actually, probably would not be doing anything other than that right now, but for the fact that in 1999, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer and that put a temporary end to my courtroom career. It got me more involved in administrative matters in the office."

Correspondence with Greta

On November 1, 2006, I sent an e-mail to Greta
inquiring about why readers could not post comments to
her blog in real time (like this blog allows) with
some remarks about her blog style that demonstrate
why such a format is important and useful. She ended
up posting my e-mail in her blog the following day along
with her own reply that followed. However, she also
replied to my message via e-mail, but the message I
received from her was quite an edited, non-PC version
of what she included in the public version of her blog.
Let's examine the differences. Her reply to me via

"For the record…the intern is either lying, or
stupid….or both…thanks for being so willing
to believe an intern over me"

Her reply to me that she published publicly in her

"ANSWER: The intern you met is either a liar or
uninformed... or perhaps both. Your willingness
to assume this about me makes you look
small. (As an aside, "What's wrong with people?")"

Interesting. Why edit her reply from 'stupid'
to 'uninformed'?

I will leave the rest of the content for the readers
here to comment upon.

On The Record and Gretawire

Fox News' On The Record with Greta Van Susteren and Gretawire

Welcome to viewers and readers. This is the place to
get your e-mails to the Gretawire posted rather than
censored and overlooked from the hand-picked
inclusions of Greta Van Susteren's daily blog at

Recently, in her blog, Greta
posted an e-mail inquiring why readers cannot post to
her blog in real-time and why her selections of
e-mails frequently appear to be clones of a particular
agenda of the day. Few readers and viewers of her
show, On The Record with Greta Van Susteren, ever get
to say their peace since she hand picks few messages
of her liking to post each day while likely hundreds
of constructive critiques get left in the dust. Say no
more. Readers may now post away here without fear of

Additionally, this blog is a place to find reviews,
critiques, criticism, praise and analysis of the
topics covered on the Fox News program, On The Record,
each evening. Your comments are encouraged to address
the blog posts as well as any other content on the
program or in the Gretawire. Let's examine how MSM
roles, ratings, Fox management direction, competitive
programming, style, accuracy, content selection, and
fanfare weigh in by taking an in depth look at this
FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from