Cross-posted from Sheya.com with the permission of the author. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
Both Greta and Tucker make good arguments. Tucker makes a good argument that had this story been about any other Democrat women it would have been national headlines. Greta makes a good argument that the editors note in the post came a little too late.
What Tucker doesn’t get is that while the story would have been national news had it been about Hillary Clinton, the story titles would have been something in the lines of “Tyson’s Repulsive Comments About Secretary Of State”, they wouldn’t put it up like the Daily Caller did with a title “Mike Tyson: Sarah Palin met ‘the wombshifter’.”
Basically the media would have condemned the story in the headlines to make it clear that Tyson’s comments were disgusting. Something the Daily Caller didn’t do.
While we want the media to report the news, who, when, where, what and why, sometimes it’s appropriate to add the condemnation in the title or actual article. News organizations should be smart enough to distinguish when it is appropriate to add some opinion into a story and when not. If you cant make that distinction then you shouldn’t be in the news business
As for his argument that Greta interviewed Tyson in April, that’s the stupidest argument I’ve ever seen. Greta didn’t interview him after he made those comments or after any controversy, she interviewed him about life after jail. It was more of a profile interview. You can bet that had Greta interviewed Tyson after making those comments she would have gone after him pretty hard.
In any event, here is the video:
Here is the Daily Caller post that ignited the debate
[In case you are unable to view the original video here, go to Sheya’s Web page where you can view the video.]