• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Was In The Right?

Who was in the right?


  • Total voters
    23

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,359
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
O’Donnell walks out of CNN interview – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

But when asked about issues from her book and her campaign Wednesday, O'Donnell walked away from the interview, upset that Morgan wasn't not talking about the things she wished to address.

"Don't you think as a host, if I say this is what I want to talk about, that's what we should address?" she asked Morgan.

When Morgan said "no," O'Donnell began to take off her microphone and said she had turned down another interview for this appearance.

Basically, Piers Morgan was asking her about her stance on gay issues and abstinence, about stuff she had said during her campaign for senate, and in her new book. She got upset and walked off. Was Morgan in the right to ask those questions, was O'Donnal right to think she should be able to control the topic?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Morgan likes to focus on the easier things: sex, drugs, rock and roll, and twitter. Anything more than that would bore his twitter world. O'Donnell was stupid to argue that she is interested in staying in the political arena and then refusing to discuss policies or political issues and social issues within her obvious domain of interest. She was looking for an out. Then again, Morgan didn't move onto anything else to see what she would do, knowing that the story would become about his interview experience.
 
When you go on a talk show, you should expect that, that person will ask contraversial things about you.

Clearly O'Donnel is not self aware, she has said and done contraversial things.

O'Donnel cannot expect not to be asked about these things.
 
When you go on a talk show, you should expect that, that person will ask contraversial things about you.

Clearly O'Donnel is not self aware, she has said and done contraversial things.

O'Donnel cannot expect not to be asked about these things.

So many politicians expect to be coddled these days and then scream media bias when they aren't.
 
Sure Morgan was right to ask those questions...who are these new politicians to believe they can make statements and then dont have to answer to them...if you dont like being questioned dont run for office....WE the people have a right to know all about your stances...if you want to represent us.
 
Dont know, but from what I have seen over the years there is usually a fairly clear understanding of a topic which will be the centerpiece of the interview. IF the show misrepresented the 'what' and focused on the 'weird' then I suppose she was in the right for walking out. Then again...this is a woman who wants to wear big girl panties and be an elected representative to congress. She probably should develop better skills in dealing with media type folk.
 
Assuming that O'Donnell made it clear when agreeing to the interview that "X, Y, and Z" were the acceptable topics for the interview, the moment Morgan went to anything other than those topics she is fully within her rights to stand up and walk out, feeling as though HE was in the wrong.

If those limitations were not presented as conditions of the interview, then he is free to address whatever topic he wants. She is still free to say "no comment" or to walk out, but that is then on HER, not on HIM.
 
Only speaking about what the guest wants to talk about is the standard hosts have set. It's their fault. But no, that is not how it should be.
 
Only speaking about what the guest wants to talk about is the standard hosts have set. It's their fault. But no, that is not how it should be.

If these hosts want to continue having these guests, they are going to have to continue to deal with the limitations imposed on them by the guests and their publicists, managers, etc.... If the host feels they can do their show without guests, great. If not, they will always be forced to cut these types of deals because if they don't, someone else will.
 
If these hosts want to continue having these guests, they are going to have to continue to deal with the limitations imposed on them by the guests and their publicists, managers, etc.... If the host feels they can do their show without guests, great. If not, they will always be forced to cut these types of deals because if they don't, someone else will.

No they don't. These guests need the air time every bit as much as the hosts needs guests. If no host would give a political candidate air time unless they were willing to answer the questions the hosts want addressed they would.

Unfortunately, there will be hosts willing to toss the easy questions. So as I said, it's their own fault guests won't answer the questions.
 
If these hosts want to continue having these guests, they are going to have to continue to deal with the limitations imposed on them by the guests and their publicists, managers, etc.... If the host feels they can do their show without guests, great. If not, they will always be forced to cut these types of deals because if they don't, someone else will.
Who matters more, the people or the guest ?
Both should of course, but ultimately, the host must decide if he wants his show to be a beacon of light or a shill for political extremism.
Right now, we seem to have far too much of the latter.
About the only shows I like are CSpan, NPR, and PBS.
 
If these hosts want to continue having these guests, they are going to have to continue to deal with the limitations imposed on them by the guests and their publicists, managers, etc.... If the host feels they can do their show without guests, great. If not, they will always be forced to cut these types of deals because if they don't, someone else will.
That's not necessarily true. I remember Oprah said in an interview that she never accepted limitations for interviews on her show. When people would request that she not mention certain things, she told them "no, I'll ask what I want or we don't have to do the interview" and she got plenty of guests.
 
That's not necessarily true. I remember Oprah said in an interview that she never accepted limitations for interviews on her show. When people would request that she not mention certain things, she told them "no, I'll ask what I want or we don't have to do the interview" and she got plenty of guests.

I'm not an Oprah viewer, so I have to ask..... Exactly how many Politicians did she regularly have on that show? What I can remember seeing it was generally celebrities and pop culture people more than Politicians. Assuming she didn't have a lot of politicians, I would suggest her unwillingness to limit topics of conversation would be a main reason why.
 
Someone promoting a book is actually being provided a service by the interviewer (regardless of whether or not they are smart enough to realize it). She may have run for office previously, but now she's promoting her book. By leaving she fails to take advantage of the service and also makes it look as though she doesn't have the courage to sit for a real interview, which could cost her more interviews in the future. If I was her publisher, I'd be pissed about her behavior.

On the other side, Piers Morgan's benefits from the interview are entirely dependent on the types of questions he asks. If he asks softball questions of a controversial figure such as this, then he does not benefit at all from it. However, if he asks tougher questions he does benefit. He took the latter approach and because of that, his guess walked off. Whoop-de-do. There are plenty of people who understand the idea of publicizing their books out there in the world who won't walk away from an interview simply because they want to play the victim. If I was his producer, I'd be very pleased with him. His ratings won't be hurt by this, and it helps him develop a reputation for putting public figures in the hot seat.

So, from the perspective of looking at the ultimate goals each person had going into the interview, he was absolutely right to ask her such questions. And because she doesn't seem to actually understand the idea of book promotion, she is wrong.
 
What I can remember seeing it was generally celebrities and pop culture people more than Politicians.

O'Donnell is nothing more than a celebrity and pop culture person. One actually has to hold a political office or currently be running for political office to qualify as a politician. She has never held apolitical office, and she is not running for office, so calling her a politician is akin to calling the Rent is Too Damn High guy a politician.
 
Last edited:
O’Donnell walks out of CNN interview – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



Basically, Piers Morgan was asking her about her stance,. those questions, was O'Donnal right to think she should be able to control the topic?
She is an idiot for thinking she could control the topic. It is the host/interviewer's show not the person being interviewed. Republicans usually say that CNN stands for Communist News Network or Clinton News network and she went on there anyways, so that makes her a even bigger idiot for going onto the show and thinking liberals would not ask her questions that themselves think are controversial. If she wanted to control the questions being asked then she should have the network or who ever signed a contract that only specific questions would be asked. Morgan is the one in the right seeing how it is his show and or that he is the interviewer. If O'donnell didn't want to have views that upset libs then she should have been a lib.
 
Last edited:
Neither is "right." She is "wrong" just because she is wrong. He is "wrong" for giving this circus clown the time of day.
 
I'm not an Oprah viewer, so I have to ask..... Exactly how many Politicians did she regularly have on that show? What I can remember seeing it was generally celebrities and pop culture people more than Politicians. Assuming she didn't have a lot of politicians, I would suggest her unwillingness to limit topics of conversation would be a main reason why.
She had Obama, George W. Bush, Palin, Gore, Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Arnold Swartezewhatever and probably others.
 
Last edited:
She is an idiot for thinking she could control the topic. It is the host/interviewer's show not the person being interviewed. Republicans usually say that CNN stands for Communist News Network or Clinton News network and she went on there anyways, so that makes her a even bigger idiot for going onto the show and thinking liberals would not ask her questions that themselves think are controversial. If she wanted to control the questions being asked then she should have the network or who ever signed a contract that only specific questions would be asked. Morgan is the one in the right seeing how it is his show and or that he is the interviewer. If O'donnell didn't want to have views that upset libs then she should have been a lib.

I see what you're saying, and I do think you're right.

I wonder though, if her whole idea wasn't to get up and walk off. She knew that CNN was not going to toss softballs, so she was just waiting for her chance to storm off. She gets to look like a "hero" to the TP, and to be honest, would we be talking about her if the interview had gone without a hitch?
 
No they don't. These guests need the air time every bit as much as the hosts needs guests. If no host would give a political candidate air time unless they were willing to answer the questions the hosts want addressed they would.

I would say that the guests need it more. O'Donnell's trying to publicize herself and her book. Morgan doesn't need to do that. I suspect that there wouldn't be as much on the "News" channels if there was nobody publicizing these things, but it's still O'Donnell that needed the publicity more.
 
Wow, how completely arrogant. If you are going to be a politician, you should expect to have to answer questions like these. It's not rude to ask a politician a question that pertains to a very large and current hot-button social issue. Perhaps if she doesn't like answering these types of questions, she should stop doing interviews completely or even quit being a politician. I'm not a fan of Piers, but I'm glad he kept pressing the issue.
 
This depends ENTIRELY on the understanding PRIOR to the interview...

For example, if she was invited on to "promote" her new book and was pitched this more like a media tour interview, with no indication given that she'd be getting more political driven and biting questions then I think it'd be problematic.

If they invited her on for an interview, stating that they'd promote her book but ask her some questions along with it, then there's nothing wrong with it.

There is a significant difference between a honest to goodness in depth interview and a media tour type thing where guests are being booked in a more "talk show" type atmosphere. To give an example, lets go outside the political world to a over the top example...

You have OJ Simpson and he writes a book about his time in the NFL.

Someone having an "in depth interview" with OJ around this time, letting him know before hand when bringing him on that they're going to be asking a variety of questions about multiple topics, and then asking him about the murders would be fine.

Someone having what's essentially a media tour interview with OJ promoting his book who then out of no where drops questions about the murders is a bit in the wrong in regards to standard interview ettiquite.

People rarely just enter into these types of interviews completely off the cuff. There's typically conversation between publicists and producers with various understandings made regarding the style and topical nature of an interview. If this happened and Peirs went outside those paramaters, he's absolutely in the wrong. If this happened and what he did was within those parameters and O'Donnel wasn't ready for it or didn't expect it to get there or didn't understand those parameters, then she's in the wrong for just walking off.
 
O'Donnell was within her rights to walk off, but she does not have the right to dictate the course of the interview. It is Piers Morgan's show and he has the right to ask whatever questions he wishes. Clearly he is no David Frost. He should have given her much more time, let her get comfortable, and drawn her out more slowly. His producers could have edited for time, and they can put the whole interview up online so that all sides are well represented.
 
Last edited:
That's not necessarily true. I remember Oprah said in an interview that she never accepted limitations for interviews on her show. When people would request that she not mention certain things, she told them "no, I'll ask what I want or we don't have to do the interview" and she got plenty of guests.

I would almost garauntee that this began to happen after Oprah became OPRAH, and not early on.

Piers Morgan can't even SNIFF the reach, import, or advertising power that Oprah has. She has the clout to demand such things. I wouldn't suggest anyone on any of the 24/7 news stations really has close to her influence or power.
 
Back
Top Bottom