One of the more painful implosions you’re likely to watch.
She goes on and on about ‘I only want to talk about what’s in my book’ and when he asks her about something in her book, we get … ‘I’m not going to address that.’
And then she pulls the, “ooh, I’m being pulled away,” shtick. And then sits there like there aren’t 40 million people watching her squirm asking somebody, “are we off? Are we done?” Has this woman never watched television before? Doesn’t she know how it works?
She was doing okay talking about mistakes she’s made and then, as if to say, “shit, that weren’t nuthin’; y’all watch this,” she politically hangs herself from the town clock.
Certainly one of the more out there tea party members, if memory serves me well.
It wasn’t even a hard question, but I hardly think she hung herself. Enough people will jump to her defence saying he was cherry picking. Whether you like or loathe Piers Morgan, he’s actually capable of conducting an interview, as opposed to the guided monologues of Larry King…:rolleyes:
I might agree, and I might not. It depends on what sort of agreement she had with Piers or his producers before she came on the air, and whther in fact she discusses her position on gay marriage in her book.
For example, let’s imagine that she said, before agreeing to come on, “Look, I wrote this book about the broad economic philosophical positions I have contemplated as a member of the nascent Tea Party movement, and that’s all I want to talk about. I don’t want to get into a soundbite-fest about the issue of the day, be it gay marriage or Arizona’s immigration law.”
And let’s say that there’s no mention of gay marriage in her book.
And let’s say the producers or Piers assured her that these restrictions were fine.
Under those circumstances, I wouldn’t say she acted poorly.
(I of course have little confidence that the above is true, but the point is I don’t know. I haven’t read her book and don’t intend to, so someone else will have to clear up that part of the mystery.)
Though I know nothing about what really happened, when I read about this I immediately assumed that she had someone she trusted (manager, publicist, head coven crone?) tell her this was a good way to stir up a little free publicity for the book she is claiming to have written, and sell a few extra copies…
She seems to be very adept at lying about both the big and small things in her life, (university degree, work history, Satanic marriages) and apparently she is currently saying that she was on the short list of women as a panelist on Barbara Walters’ daytime talkshow. I have never been a huge fan of good ol’ Barbara Walters, but I would be shocked if she ever even momentarily considered hiring someone as lightweight as Christine O’Donnell.
You’re on an interview show. This isn’t your ordinary “go on a show for 2 minutes to plug your book media stop”, you stupid hag. He’s not “borderline rude”, he’s doing his job and you’re too stupid to know how to do an actual interview.
Morgan was deliberately trying to ensnare her into discussion of subjects he knew would be controversial and most likely portray her is the most negative light. Given Morgan’s past history as tabloid scumbag extraordinaire in England, and knowing the way talk show producers operate, I’d wager dollars to donuts that O’Donnell was led to believe that she could discuss her ideas about the Tea Party and economics or whatever and when Morgan insisted on pursuing more inflammatory issues, she simply refused to let Morgan get away with his bullshit.
O’Donnell’s a lightweight and probably wouldn’t have much of import to say anyway, but I got the distinct impression that she felt that Morgan was reneging on their agreement, and after several attempts to explain why she came on the show and to get things back on track, either she or her handlers decided to bail. My only complaint is that she didn’t do it forcefully enough. Dipshits like Morgan and Nancy Grace and everyone else who books guests ostensibly to talk about one thing and then try to move the goalposts once the cameras are on need to be called out publicly for their dishonesty.
I’d be very surprised if CNN had any kind of deal with her to only ask her certain narrow questions. It’s not Entertainment Tonight. Cable News doesn’t work that way.
The questions were also pretty polite and non-confrontational. What’s wrong with asking her opinion on gay marriage? Are you basically just admitting that her opinions about homosexuality are distasteful and put her in a bad light? If there’s nothing wrong with her opinions, then what’s unfair about asking for them
Have you righties ever watched Bill O’Reilly. This was nothing compared to what he does routinely. It’s ridiculous how utterly hypocritical righties are about this stuff. How many righties have ever whined and cried about anyone (including Obama more than once) getting grilled on Bill O’Reilly?
I guarantee she was not told that Morgan would only ask her toadying questions. She was certainly told she would be able to promote her shitty book (that;s how it works), but she was not told she wouldn’t be asked anything else, and the stuff she was asked about is in her book anyway.
That’s the point of an interview. The interviewer brings up controversial things, and your response determines whether or not you look bad. An interview that does not bring up controversial things is not an interview, but an advertisement or comedy routine.
And, sorry, but she did not make them look bad. As you are usually really big on, there is a level of civility and professionalism, that she did not display. Even if she refused to responds, she should have remained for the entire interview. Instead, she comes off as throwing a tantrum because she didn’t get her way.
I agree with everyone else: the only way this makes sense is if it was a publicity maneuver.
You’re right, I thought her performance (and exit) was weak and unprofessional all around, though I don’t know where you’re getting uncivil from. I would have preferred it if she would have simply told him that if she wasn’t going to be allowed to talk about the things they’d agreed to discuss, that she was going to leave, and then followed up on it and left without trying to make it look like her handlers were pulling her away. Either that, or as Elizabeth Smart did with Nancy Grace, simply keep repeating that she wasn’t there to talk about those things and simply wait for the next question, which would undoubtedly been along the same lines, then repeated that she wasn’t going to answer those types of questions, rinse and repeat, until he got the message and straightened up. But she’s an amatuer and in over her head.
As far as his questions being part of an interview, it’s a very common practice for both television and print media to agree beforehand that certains subjects will be discussed, and sometimes that certain other subjects will be off limits. I didn’t get the impression that Morgan or his people had agreed that anything would be off limits, but I definitely got the impression that O’Donnell had been told she could talk about the subjects she wanted to discuss but wasn’t being allowed to by Morgan.
Dio - I don’t watch Fox.
PlainJain - To CNN’s audience her views on homosexuality, etc., would likely be inflammatory and cause her to be viewed in a negative light by that audience. But she wasn’t there to talk about that, or to get people riled up, she was there to discuss (apparently) her views on how Tea Partiers could best articulate their views on what should be done with regard to the economy.
I disagree. They might have not agreed with her or even liked her for her views but there is no reason for it to be inflammatory. I’ll take Piers’ word for it that the subject was broached in her book so to hide it from prospective book buyers is disingenuous.
This is just speculation on your part. There is nothing in the video to support it. I’m quite sure if she would have answered his questions he would have let her talk about her book. That’s standard interview fare.