The epitome of disingenuous journalism.

I have no problem watching a show presenting ideas with which I disagree.  But I am on the lookout for bad logic, bad procedure, lying and disingenuousness.  Greta Van Susteren nabs some pretty influential guests (whatever you may think of their policies), and one would think the show would be informative for that reason.  I don't watch it all the time, so I will not make a general statement about the show.  But I've begun to notice a pattern of disingenuousness that this clip from December 4 takes to an extreme.  First, instead of asking her guest, Rick Santorum, his opinion of POTUS' fiscal cliff offer, she asks Santorum to argue in favor of the deal.  This is a classic straw man--of course Santorum is not going to give the strongest version of the argument (he likely doesn't know it).  So, knocking it over should be a piece of cake.  A conversation regarding Santorum's position would have been interesting and informative--asking him to defend it is a cheap attempt and the trappings of fairness.  In addition, Van Susteren had the chance to correct Santorum on an obvious error.  When he discussed filibuster reform, he claimed that POTUS wanted to "change the rules of the senate to make 51 votes all that is necessary to pass a bill in the US senate."  Regardless of how you feel about filibuster reform, this would not represent a change--this is the current rule in the senate.  The filibuster is the exception to that rule.  Again, a discussion as to why Santorum is not in favor of filibuster reform would have been interesting--but not if it is firmly founded on a falsehood.