UPDATE:
From Big Hollywood - INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean, by Lynn Vincent
________________
CNN is falling apart.
I think the network is desperate for ratings so it's ratcheting up its approach. On Wednesday during a live interview with Carrie Prejean, Larry King became combative.
I guess the struggling cable news network will get at least a little attention for this bizarre incident.
Video, from Breitbart.
I don't think Prejean handled this very well.
Granted, King was being a real jerk. He refused to accept her answer that she couldn't discuss the settlement. Prejean said King was being inappropriate and he was.
For her part, Prejean shouldn't have taken off her microphone unless she really was going to get up and leave. Instead, she kept talking. That was goofy.
These couple of minutes made for some very strange TV, more evidence that CNN is a mess.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Carrie Prejean and Larry King
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Maybe ole Larry was bearing a grudge since she canceled her last appearance on his show due to being hung over? Maybe he got annoyed because she kept sticking her book into the camera (shameless promotion). Larry King asks the same question about "why" anyone who settles out of court did so... it's a tough question, but hardly inappropriate. Blondie will have to learn to deal appropriately with tough questions, instead of saying they're inappropriate.
Have you ever been a party to a settlement with a confidentiality clause?
You can't talk. If you violate it, you could face harsh penalties.
Can King possibly be so clueless?
I have no problem with King's initial question. I have a problem with the way he persisted and was harassing Prejean.
Is it possible that Prejean was just dodging the issue?
Sure. I don't know the specifics of her confidentiality agreement.
It's certainly possible that she couldn't give King the information he wanted.
"... Prejean shouldn't have taken off her microphone ..."
She never actually does get it off completely though, does she? Those darn things can be pretty hard to figure out. If only they were as simple as a bikini top, I'm sure she could have figured it out.
Honestly, I don't get why the right so often choses spokespeople who are quite light in the intellectual britches. Bush, Palin, now Prejean, just to mention a few. I guess the "just like me" reasoning doesn't sit well with me. Just as I don't want a brain surgeon that is "just like me," (I'm really not that bright), I'd rather be represented by someone that can grasp complicated issues.
King's not the clueless one, IMO. If she decided to go on his show, there will be tough questions. I have seen him persist and people handle it. On the other hand, given all the reasons why she probably settled (which is the question she was asked and didn't like), I can see why she didn't want to answer. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/03/miss.california.suit/index.html
Jim, that bikini top remark was rather snarky. Same goes for your attacks on President Bush and Sarah Palin.
What I honestly don't understand is why people on the Left keep crowning individuals to be spokespersons for the Right.
Who says Prejean is a spokesperson for the Right?
I don't consider that to be her role at all.
Jim - you touch on a great point, and not the first to pose the question. The good news is it's not working on most people.
The problem is not about inadequate brainpower to reason about things intellectually, but rather laziness. It's easier to see the world in a dualistic (black or white) fashion, rather than discern the true shades of gray that exist in political candidates, especially if you consider all the dimensions (fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, leadership, diplomacy, etc.) Most people don't want to think about all those things, because it makes choosing a candidate harder.
I know people with university educations who refuse to believe that there were really no WMDs in Iraq... it's easier for them to believe there were, despite the evidence, rather than to realize someone might have had hidden reasons for choosing to invade Iraq (e.g., control over oil).
As for Prejean's representing the right, her downfall was when she began to take some higher ground about why gays should not marry. That's why people are associating her with the right - she was emulating right leaders.
Consider how many heterosexual couples bring kids into the world irresponsibly, raising them in environments that are unhealthy. It's a whole lot more dysfunction in our society than the potential and non-proven fear that gays will raise kids in some anti-social way. Where are the people on the right protesting to prevent the irresponsible heterosexuals from marrying?
The Bible is full of wise advice that is not dualistic, yet such non-dualism requires more effort to follow and is not for the lazy.
King certainly had something up his a$$ about Prejean. I have seen him countless times over the decades and I have never really seen him attack a guest, which this was a bit. He may ask a "tough" question, even though in reality most of his questions are true softball ones, he rarely follows up on them or is persistent about them. This question to Prejean was not tough, so I have no idea what these two idiots are speaking of. It was a question she did not want to answer for legal reasons, according to her. Seems pretty simple to me. Though I'm a conservative and not as sophisticated or intelligent as these two brainiacs shoring up the left. Sheesh.
Post a Comment