As Marsden explained on a Web page for Americanada, the communications company she briefly ran, "Your image is your calling card." Marsden's image surely couldn't have hurt her with Fox News. Right-leaning media has for some time been building an army of attractive fire-starters -- Coulter, Ingraham, Malkin -- whose public personae teeter compellingly on the edge of Crazy Town. The left has not yet produced a comparable army of sirens. Peter Worthington, founder of the Sun newspaper chain for which Marsden writes, described Marsden to the Western Standard almost romantically, as "good looking ... articulate ... but nine miles of bad road." It's surely precisely this kind of noirish notoriety that made Marsden, with her skimpy journalistic résumé, recognizable enough to secure a regular column in a big Canadian paper.
As Marsden once told a reporter about the impact of the Simon Fraser case, "Fifty percent of people want to sleep with me, and the other 50 percent want to kill me." That's a formula that should sound familiar to readers of Coulter's "Godless."
Granatstein said that he could see Marsden at Fox News. "I think she's perfect for them," he said. "She's opinionated, she's loud, she's fun. I really think that might work out beautifully for everybody." He pointed out that given the rigmarole of paperwork it takes to get a Canadian situated at an American network, "they must have really wanted her."
Given the speed with which she moved from O'Reilly contributor to a regular gig, it is clear that someone at Fox really wanted Marsden, and really liked what they got. "Red Eye" senior producer Shelly Stevenson explained by phone that she didn't make the initial call on hiring Marsden for the program, but as the executive on the show, is a big fan. "Political expertise is what she brings to the show," said Stevenson. And it's true that Marsden was recently called upon to explain a reference to the Gulf of Tonkin to her slack-jawed co-hosts. "She has very passionate opinions," continued Stevenson, "she's articulate, intelligent, and we get a lot of favorable mail about her; I think the viewers connect with her." Stevenson also raved about Marsden personally, calling her "lovely, a team player who can't do enough for the show. From the bottom of my heart I like her very much, and I respect her." Stevenson confirmed that it would be fair to say that Fox is grooming Marsden.
Stevenson said she was "aware" of Marsden's history in Canada, and added that "we make no story selection based on her past or anyone else's past. I don't think I've ever seen her be unfair about any type of story that might tread near those waters. I would expect her to be as even and fair as anyone else. I would expect no less of her." Stevenson felt no compulsion to disclose Marsden's past experiences with regard to sex harassment stories. "I would not ask anyone else to disclose her past," she said. "And I think she's not the only woman who has had to deal with this -- it's a big problem out there in the world and if anything it has probably given her sharper insights on issues of gender." Later, when Salon followed up by clarifying that Marsden's past included more than her initial claims of having been harassed, Stevenson replied via e-mail, "I do not know every detail of Rachel's history in Canada, however I feel people should always be given the benefit of the doubt. She has clearly distinguished herself in the ensuing years and is entitled to move ahead with her future and the contributions she can make."
Marsden did not speak for this story. After two attempts to steer me to Fox News publicists who repeatedly informed me that they had nothing to do with controlling her press coverage, since Marsden is technically a contributor, not a Fox News employee, Marsden stopped replying to my e-mails completely. For two weeks, I made many further requests to speak to her both directly and through the network, with no luck.
It may be that even if her public record helped gain her the profile she needed to land her perch in punditry, Marsden feels no need to further mine her past exploits for ink. But it's not a realistic option for her: One need look only at Marsden's Wikipedia page to find reference to the Simon Fraser case. Nexis her name, there are hundreds of stories.
And after all, it is one thing to have a private past in which you behaved badly or got into youthful scrapes. It's another thing altogether when your misadventures result in institutional upheaval and someone getting fired and rehired, and when the scrapes culminate in harassment charges well into your adulthood.
And it's another thing again, knowing that these shenanigans have been documented by the press and the courts, to pursue fame by becoming a conservative noisemaker. Fair enough to leave someone's past alone, if they want to be left alone. But when you make it clear that you are dying to be noticed and now make a living attacking the kinds of ideological groups and institutions that were once your defenders: Well, that's downright impossible to ignore. To use a term that is infelicitous and inflammatory and offensive for a host of reasons with which Rachel Marsden should be all too familiar: It almost seems as though she is asking for it.
And whatever prompted Fox's willingness, or eagerness, to take a chance on her -- for her brains, or her legs, or perhaps even for the scandalous coverage they knew perfectly well she would eventually generate -- speaks to the kind of shifts in political coverage that these post-Coulter years have brought.
From Canada, Boyd speculated, "America loves redemption. It all depends on the spin you put on it."
About the writer
Rebecca Traister is a staff writer for Salon Life.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)