You can watch the video here.The interviewer, like many people we all occasionally encounter (and who apparently see basic etiquette as a sign of weakness), hoped Lewinsky would try to avoid "making a scene." Or, to put things more accurately, she hoped Lewinsky would forget who was responsible for any "scene" that would occur, and attempt to avoid the blame for the alternative she chose -- by answering a question she did not want to answer. That was a shameful tactic by the interviewer, and I applaud Lewinsky for calling her bluff.
She didn't scream, cry, or throw a fit. The boundaries had been violated and so she left. Interview over.
She didn't worry that she was making the interviewer feel uncomfortable, or that the event planners now had time they needed to fill.
According to Lewinsky, she and Levi had agreed before the interview that the question about former President Clinton was not to be asked. If this is, indeed, the case, Levi was counting on social pressures to make Lewinsky address the question. [link in original, bold added]
-- CAV
P.S. I have not seen the TED talk by Lewinsky that Lucas brings up later in her piece.
Yo, Gus, you write, "Or, to put things more accurately, she hoped Lewinsky would forget who was responsible for any "scene" that would occur, and attempt to avoid the blame for the alternative she chose -- by answering a question she did not want to answer. That was a shameful tactic by the interviewer, and I applaud Lewinsky for calling her bluff."
ReplyDeleteYes. Good for her.
And this is true despite what many conservatives like to point out: that Lewinsky might well owe her present fame in part to that affair. The interviewer got her to show up on false pretenses to ask about something she has clearly put behind her and that happened long ago.
ReplyDelete