|
A couple of years ago, when somebody ranted against her, a DUer said, "Leave Rita alone. I knew her when she was a local reporter and she is SWEET."
With that in mind, I monitored her on Faux for a year or two and here's my take: She is a hustler (in the hard-working sense). She gets out there and beats the bushes (if not the Shrubs). Her territory is the same as Whorealdo's, but with a touch more delicacy. She beats out others on the same stories because she gets on the inside: If she can't "get" the main interviewee (CONDIT or PETERSON), she will get a family member, a neighbor, or the neighbor's dog.
Her thing is to "get" Bad Boys. She pen pal-ed with McVEIGH and BERKOWITZ. She telephone-interviewed MILOSEVIC. She literally pounded the landfill of that Utah wife and the shore of the PETERSON wash-up. Her method? She talks to the culprits on their "good" side. Unlike Whorealdo who screams at Charles MANSON, she approaches her targets as flawed humans who have at least a tiny particle of goodness. If anybody saw Whorealdo "interview" MANSON, you saw him call him a stream of names. Yes, the names are TRUE, but it's not a technique that will yield insight into how the target's mind works.
When Whorealdo defecated, uh, defected, to Faux, he made the obligatory tour of all the Faux circuses, swearing allegiance to his new Wingnut gods. O'LOOFAH said to him, "What to you bring to Faux that we don't already have?" It was true. His show followed Rita's and both of them were usually on the same stories, but Rita was scooping all the "gets".
After his first couple of years, when he was secure enough, he started showing pique. Once both he and COSBY were promo-ing their own circuses on an earlier Faux circus. It was clear that COSBY had the better "gets" on the same story and Whorealdo was FURIOUS. He wouldn't even look at her. She finally reached over and put her hand on his knee, which probably made him MORE furious.
I don't really have a firm take on her Wingnuttiness. Her stuff tended to be more of the tabloid human interest variety more than ideology, but I might be wrong on this part.
|