Joan Rivers Walks Out Of CNN Interview

[MarcATL]

Was she right for doing it?

Joan Rivers Walks Out Of CNN Interview | Mediaite

Why/why not?

 

[shart_attack]

Slow news day, I s'pose.

But if Rivers can't take it, she shouldn't be dishing it out — which has always been PETA's calling card: dishing it out.

Rivers was wrong for walking out on the interview.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

She was right in walking out.

 

[DriftingSand]

I'm not a Joan Rivers fan but I'm not a PETA or CNN fan either so it's sort of a non-issue. However, Rivers did make a good point concerning the leather shoes/belt. If PETA is going to bitch about fur then they should bitch about any and all animal products including foods.

 

[RosieS]

Rivers did it as a stunt. She doesn't much like substantive questions.

Too bad. One should not go full diva if one seeks credibility.

Joan Rivers has been the Kim Kardashian of comedy for many years - remaining famous for no particular good reason.

Regards from Rosie

 

[blastoff]

I didn't think the line of questioning was as negative as she claimed.

I never cared for her because I'd only seen her do guest shots on various shows and she never seemed that funny. But then a year or so ago I came across one of her concert shows on HBO or somewhere and thought it was pretty good because she skewered everyone...Christians, Jews, Muslims, blacks, whites, Asians, gays, straights, Republicans, Democrats, herself, other entertainers and on and on. Nobody was safe and lots of it was very funny stuff.

 

[whitehall]

Who cares what the (90 year old?) plastic surgery queen thinks or does?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I always liked her but she fails to understand the power of the Gay Mafia in Hollywood.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Was she right for doing it?

Joan Rivers Walks Out Of CNN Interview | Mediaite

Why/why not?

Wrong question imo. Should be, was she right in attempting to negate the feelings of PETA over her wearing fur because "it was killed 15 years ago." How would she feel about her relatives being killed in the death camps 70 or so years ago? Is it more acceptable because however much time has elapsed makes it less offensive? Of course not.

Wearing furs or animal skins is akin to ogres in fantasy movies and books tearing apart some person and wearing its skin.

 

[shart_attack]

I always liked her but she fails to understand the power of the Gay Mafia in Hollywood.

Huh? You're kidding, right?

She and her daughter have been in countless pride parades, and Rivers herself just "married" a couple in NYC last week!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rivers' career is on life-support - the ventilator is her trashing other people and saying very mean-spirited things about what they are wearing.

I have no sympathy for her at all.

But it's her choice - I won't say it's right or it's wrong.

But it doesn't do anything to increase my level of respect for her - but that was probably beyond repair anyway.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Joan is so obnoxious that she did everyone a favor when she walked out. A few days later, David Letterman walked out on her. Frankly, she was grossing people out. She is one of those celebrities who just doesn't get it that she is over the hill, and a pain in the ass.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/david-letterman-walks-out-joan-rivers_n_5570309.html

 

[gallantwarrior]

If more people would walk out on some of these interviews that become offensive or contentious, maybe interviewers would start asking better, more substantive questions.

 

[Vandalshandle]

If more people would walk out on some of these interviews that become offensive or contentious, maybe interviewers would start asking better, more substantive questions.

For crying out loud, how can you ask substantive questions of Joan Rivers when all she is trying to do is to promote her book. You would have about the same success by interviewing Sarah Palin.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If more people would walk out on some of these interviews that become offensive or contentious, maybe interviewers would start asking better, more substantive questions.

For crying out loud, how can you ask substantive questions of Joan Rivers when all she is trying to do is to promote her book. You would have about the same success by interviewing Sarah Palin.

Then let her hawk her book. Frankly, I don't much follow the entertainment industry, but in the political arena, interviewers need to asking substantive questions and not attacking the interviewee. I'm far more interested in what a pol plans on doing than having their past "revealed". Who cares if some pol's dog had diarrhea?

 

[aaronleland]

It wasn't a stunt, or a serious situation. It was a joke that nobody else was in on, and great publicity for her book.

 

[aaronleland]

How would she feel about her relatives being killed in the death camps 70 or so years ago?

Oh... was that a serious question?

 

[MarcATL]

If more people would walk out on some of these interviews that become offensive or contentious, maybe interviewers would start asking better, more substantive questions.

For crying out loud, how can you ask substantive questions of Joan Rivers when all she is trying to do is to promote her book. You would have about the same success by interviewing Sarah Palin.

Then let her hawk her book. Frankly, I don't much follow the entertainment industry, but in the political arena, interviewers need to asking substantive questions and not attacking the interviewee. I'm far more interested in what a pol plans on doing than having their past "revealed". Who cares if some pol's dog had diarrhea?

Since you're bringing in political interviews into the mix, I'm going to respond to that.

It's BS to think that the pols being interviewed are there to actually inform the public of their plans. Instead, what they are there to do is peddle their talking points. It's the job of a good interviewer to cut through their BS and ask them tough questions.

The last person to do that was Tim Russel of 'Meet The Press' fame. All the rest in the media are hacks to one degree or another. I sorely miss Tim Russel. I was truly saddened by his untimely demise, and still am.

Now back to Joan...

She shouldn't have walked off. She's an entertainer and should have tough enough skin. Particularly because her brand of humor is basically constantly attacking and demeaning others.

Is she funny? Yes, but it's a mean type of funny. I don't like people who can't take what they dish. And this is what she appears to have done here.

BTW, the interviewer was not mean-spirited or malicious in any way, she's simply bringing up relevant issues to the interviewee.

 

[gallantwarrior]

For crying out loud, how can you ask substantive questions of Joan Rivers when all she is trying to do is to promote her book. You would have about the same success by interviewing Sarah Palin.

Then let her hawk her book. Frankly, I don't much follow the entertainment industry, but in the political arena, interviewers need to asking substantive questions and not attacking the interviewee. I'm far more interested in what a pol plans on doing than having their past "revealed". Who cares if some pol's dog had diarrhea?

Since you're bringing in political interviews into the mix, I'm going to respond to that.

It's BS to think that the pols being interviewed are there to actually inform the public of their plans. Instead, what they are there to do is peddle their talking points. It's the job of a good interviewer to cut through their BS and ask them tough questions.

The last person to do that was Tim Russel of 'Meet The Press' fame. All the rest in the media are hacks to one degree or another. I sorely miss Tim Russel. I was truly saddened by his untimely demise, and still am.

Now back to Joan...

She shouldn't have walked off. She's an entertainer and should have tough enough skin. Particularly because her brand of humor is basically constantly attacking and demeaning others.

Is she funny? Yes, but it's a mean type of funny. I don't like people who can't take what they dish. And this is what she appears to have done here.

BTW, the interviewer was not mean-spirited or malicious in any way, she's simply bringing up relevant issues to the interviewee.

I agree on both points, the pols and Joan Rivers. Of course, you must consider that she walked off just to get people talking about her, too.

 

[MarcATL]

I agree on both points, the pols and Joan Rivers. Of course, you must consider that she walked off just to get people talking about her, too.

Awesome!

You might be right, however, I believe that she was truly pissed at the question.

I believe that she expected to have a pretty easy interview where she could do her usual schtick and that would be that. I think she didn't expect to hear about the PETA thing, which she had recently been lambasted about in public and she had just reached her wits end.

That was my take on it.

But, you could be right, she could have been just faking it all along.

*shrugs*