Paris Hilton Is Good for Society According to Greta Van Susteren
Paris Hilton
If you've been wallowing in news about
Paris Hilton's legal problems, you can stop feeling guilty about it. Fox News Channel's
Greta Van Susteren, the thinking person's tabloid news anchor, says our obsession is part of a great American tradition. Van Susteren, who blogs daily on Foxnews.com in addition to hosting
On the Record every night at 10 pm/ET, recently told the Biz about how she mines civic lessons out of today's tawdry topics.
TVGuide.com: You are one of the pioneers of this whole genre of celebrity-justice coverage, going back to O.J. Simpson.
Greta Van Susteren: It was an accident. [The 1990 trial of former Washington, D.C., mayor] Marion Barry really started it. I was on local TV. I'm sort of the accidental anchor. I never thought my shelf life would be beyond the next week. I never planned this. I planned on practicing law and teaching as an adjunct professor at Georgetown.
TVGuide.com: What do you make of the current frenzy we see around the legal problems of people like Paris Hilton?
Van Susteren: I don't know if it's so new. Maybe because we look at their legal issues. That's new. But let me give you a little history. In the 1930s, when Charles Lindbergh's son was kidnapped, it was the "Trial of the Century." Someone sneaked a movie camera in and shot part of the trial. The American Bar Association went absolutely nuts and banned all cameras from the courtroom. In the 1980s Florida was the trailblazer in bringing cameras back in. When cameras came in, all of a sudden people saw that trials are fascinating. If you wind back 200 years ago, people used to go down to the town square to watch trials for entertainment. So nothing has really changed except for the delivery system and the volume. It was only between 1933 and the mid-1980s that it was stunted a little bit.
TVGuide.com: You recently scored an interview with Rick and Kathy Hilton, Paris' parents. Why did they feel this was the right time to talk?
Van Susteren: I don't know why they felt it was necessary. I find it interesting to talk to them because [the program] is not just what happens in the courthouse, which is how you measure justice.... A lot of people don't like Paris Hilton, but the fact is, if you looked at the front page of the Los Angeles Times last week, they looked at two million cases in their database, of which 1,500 were similar to Paris Hilton's, and did the comparison to see whether or not she was getting treated fairly. The analysis was that she was getting grossly more time than someone similarly situated. I happen to be interested in that. That's not fair.
TVGuide.com: She was used to set an example?
Van Susteren: One of the five criteria that judges can legitimately look at when they sentence is the [factor of] deterrence. So if you get someone who is high profile, you can whack them a little bit and the point will go out across the nation. The question is, how much? She got 45 days and most people do about four.
TVGuide.com: I was surprised that you suggested to her parents that it was harder for Paris to be alone in jail than to be among the general inmate population. Do you honestly think she would be doing well among the general population?
Van Susteren: No, but that's an important issue. Jails are unsafe, so what do we do? We separate out the people who are safe people and put them alone. We can't figure out how to separate the dangerous people. They are the ones that need to be separated. It's terrible to be in solitary. Yes, if it's going to mean you're going to be hurt, you've got to go into solitary. But don't make any mistake about it. It's far worse than being in the general population.
TVGuide.com: How do you think she's going to be transformed by this experience?
Van Susteren: I've never met the woman, so I have no idea. Sometimes people are only transformed for a week or two. She got 45 days, and maybe she'll do 23, which is a lot different than being wrongfully convicted and on death row for 15 years before DNA exonerates you.
TVGuide.com: Do you think covering her case serves a greater purpose?
Van Susteren: I think driving under the influence is extremely serious, but I think people ought to know that people should be treated fairly. Look at charities: When charities want to get money, they go out and get a high-profile person to sort of spearhead it. If that's the way to draw people's attention to very important issues, well, so be it.
