Topic: Media Research Center
Last September, Brent Bozell and his Media Research Center issued a press release defending then-Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell against criticism of her in the media, declaring that "Christine O’Donnell and her Tea Party supporters have been smeared by every major broadcast and cable network since she won the Delaware primary against GOP establishment candidate on Tuesday night." Bozell himself added:
"This is mudsliging at its ugliest. Pure character assassination. These networks have never treated a viable Democratic candidate with this level of contempt. How dare they lecture anyone on manners or decency ever again.
"The MRC demands the media Tell The Truth! about the Tea Party, its momentum and the revolution of people whose votes are proving America is fed up with Washington."
Bozell ignored the fact that it was largely conservative commentators like Karl Rove who were the most critical of her.
O'Donnell lost the election, and now it seems Bozell wants nothing more to do with her. In the wake of O'Donnell's walking out on an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, Bozell issued a statement making that abundantly clear:
In short, O'Donnell's behavior was beyond indefensible. It was downright bizarre.
The questions Piers Morgan put forward may have been trite, even seemingly silly, but given to whom they were being posed, they were not inappropriate. He asked if in her heart O'Donnell has committed lust.
He asked her views on gay marriage. He asked her views on witchcraft and on masturbation. Titillating questions? Sure, but O'Donnell has staked out public opinions on all these fronts and it is those public statements she's made that invite questions like his. She had to know she'd be asked these things when she accepted the interview invitation. If she didn't then she's living in a parallel universe. Moreover, Morgan was neither Chris Matthews rude nor Keith Olbermann offensive. He simply asked the questions.
O'Donnell had no right to reject the questions. Even worse, in declaring them inappropriate she made an ass of herself.
She answered the gay marriage question by declaring, over and over, that the answer could be found in her book, which book she was there to promote, except she refused to discuss her position on gay marriage, which was in the book. She declared she was there to "talk about the issues I chose to talk about in the book," and when asked by Morgan, "Do you answer that question in the book?" she answered, "I talk about my religious beliefs, yes. I absolutely do." But she wouldn't answer his question about gay marriage, and instead accused him of being rude to her.
Nonsensical is too kind. She is a buffoon.
O'Donnell had no right to walk off the set. But in a sense I'm glad she did -- if it means she'll never come back. Conservatives do themselves no favors by defending this woman and she is doing conservatives no favors by going on national television programs to talk about -- God only knows what she'll talk about, or not talk about, next. Please, Christine O'Donnell, call it a day.
Nevertheless, MRC employee Noel Sheppard defended the walkout, complaining in an Aug. 18 NewsBusters post that "America currently has 9.1 percent unemployment, plummeting home and stock prices, a debt explosion, a credit rating problem, and Medicare going bankrupt in twelve years," adding, "With all the problems we're currently facing, wouldn't it be better to focus on what is really concerning the public? Or is that not good for ratings?"
WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, also took O'Donnell's side. In an Aug. 20 WND "news" article, Anita Crane parroted O'Donnell's complaints, fawned over her appearance at a tea party event in Virginia, and ignored Bozell's claim that O'Donnell should have expected such questions from Morgan given her history of discussing them in public.
Of course, WND has its reasons for whitewashing O'Donnell: Its online store is selling her book, and it doesn't want to cut into sales.
