Dunno. Doesn't that say MORE about the guest than the guest would care for the audience to see? ("Ah, he'll only talk about things that he's 'pre-approved'... how would this have been any different than a press release? Equally artificial...")
Bitter thread? LOL Don said something I thought was funny about
*rationalizations to NOT hear things that challenge beliefs*.He brought up an interesting *idea*, and I pointed out his own recent foray at *rationalizations to NOT hear things that challenge beliefs*.
I don't like outright lies, or hate mongering, which is what she posted, imo. I'm not at all surprised, especially when you consider she has to have the last word. LOL
IMO, it shows lack of integrity of the interviewer. Yes it may have restrictions and come off as a press release, but if you make an agreement, stick to it.
No different than press conferences where they person says "no more questions" or "we cannot say" and yet the reporters continue to badger so they look important. They are just disrespectful.
You DON'T MAKE THAT AGREEMENT. Presumably, the interviewEE wants the interview for his/her own reasons. It's not a one-way street. "You want time on national US television? These are OUR terms..."
BS Rather and the network want that interview just as much. In a perfect world you are right, no interview, but TV ratings allow for some sleaziness in the minds of the producers. Breaking the agreement just shows the flexibility of their morals.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.