Greta Van Susteren Slams Fellow Fox AnchorBy: Brian Powell - January 30, 2014
With today’s 24/7 news media, Americans have become used to the constant bickering between networks. Those at Fox News hate MSNBC and CNN, and vice versa. The fighting is almost always directed at someone from another network or other political persuasion. However, the tide turned yesterday as Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren railed against fellow Fox News contributor Erick Erickson.
So what could have possibly upset Susteren so much that she forwent network ties and lambasted her fellow coworker? The culprit was none other than the ubiquitous Twitter. Recently, Erickson has made it his life’s mission to make as many sexist remarks against Wendy Davis as possible. (To refresh one’s memory, Davis is the Senator who completed the 11 hour filibuster against an anti-abortion bill in Texas.) Here are some examples of Erickson’s commentary toward Davis:
To respond to Erickson’s remarks, Susteren went to the interwebs and published a a scathing blog entitled, “What is wrong with this guy? He is such a jerk! He is a repeat offender!” Susteren starts her discussion by stating that there is a utility to constructive debates in which one hopes to persuade others to adopt a particular viewpoint. For Susteren, Erickson does not fall into that category:
“And then there are the creeps who take cheap shots because they are too ignorant and small to engage in an important discussion. The best they can do is make themselves look really bad. No one should pay any attention to them – they are not persuasive, they are noise, and in some instances boorish and obnoxious.”
Hopefully, one appreciates the irony present in this situation. Erickson tweets ridiculous comments in hopes of getting national attention (as evidenced by his own post on RedState.com), and Susteren fulfills his wishes by drawing huge amounts of attention to the situation. However, in doing so, she preaches the fact that one should not give this guy any attention because there is no substance to his argument.
While I would agree with Susteren that the best way to eliminate erroneous opinions and idiotic commentary is to ignore it, there is one more level of irony in this article – the fact that I am writing on it myself.
Susteren’s stance against Erickson has more weight than simply being incensed by some inane Twitter remarks, though. Erickson has a history of making sexist comments. Perhaps his most grievous remarks came last year when discussing a recent Pew survey which showcased the fact that 40% of households were receiving the majority of their money from women and not men. Apparently, this fact was unacceptable to Erickson:
“I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role.”
This diatribe was so offensive that it forced another female Fox News anchor, Megyn Kelly, to sound-off against Erickson as well, stating “I was offended by the piece nonetheless. I don’t like what you wrote one bit. I think you are judging people. You sound like somebody who is judging but wants to come out and said ‘I’m not, I’m not, I’m not but let me judge, judge, judge. And by the way, it’s science and facts, facts, facts.’ But this is a list of studies saying your science is wrong and your facts are wrong.”
Fortunately, we all know the solution to the problem of Erick Erickson. Simply do the opposite of what I am doing in writing this article and do not give Erickson the attention he wants, needs, and craves.
Image via Facebook