On Sunday's MediaBuzz on Fox News, former CNN correspondent Lola Ogunnaike slammed the reaction of many conservatives to the sexual abuse scandal surrounding the Duggar family. Host Howard Kurtz wondered if "some conservative commentators going easy on the family, because it's somebody who is seen as on their side." Ogunnaike replied, "Absolutely. I think that if this family was a group of atheists, they would have thrown the book at them. They would have raked them over the coals – drawn and quartered the entire family in the middle of Times Square." [video below]
The guest, who currently is an anchor for Arise TV, and once worked for the New York Times, continued by asserting that these conservatives were "a bit lenient on this family. They've been understanding. They've asked how Josh is feeling – how the family is feeling. It's about how those girls are feeling, and how those girls were victimized by their family. That's what it's about here."
Ogunnaike also criticized the fact that the two Duggar sisters, who were victims of their older brother, went on the record during the family's interview of Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly:
LOLA OGUNNAIKE, ARISE TV ANCHOR: I think it was horrible that those two sisters spoke to Megyn Kelly. Even though that – even though their names are redacted, we didn't have to necessarily hear from them. We should hear from anybody in that family, it should be Josh. He should be out there defending his own actions. His sisters shouldn't be out there. They've already been victimized once by him. They shouldn't have to be re-victimized again by going on a mea culpa tour for him.
Kurtz retorted that he supported their decision to be interviewed: "I disagree on this point – which is, yeah, I would like to hear from Josh Duggar. He's the missing voice in all this. But I think, since they've already been outed; if those two daughters chose to speak to Megyn Kelly – in effect, voluntarily come forward as victims of sexual abuse, I think that is their right."
Later in the segment, the Arise TV anchor attacked Kelly for not conducting a tougher interview of the Duggars:
OGUNNAIKE: ...[T]here were some glaring omissions. I mean, when the father said, oh, he's not a pedophile, because he committed his actions when he was 14 going on 15 – you have to be 16 to be a pedophile – she let that go. That's a problem....There should be a follow-up question, like, did you hear what you just said now?
Kurtz actually asked columnist Kathleen Parker the reverse version of the question earlier in the panel discussion: "Are liberal media types...taking a special joy in attacking the Duggar family – not letting them off the hook, because they're Christian conservatives; have had a lot of kids; and now, appear to be hypocrites?" Parker gave an odd answer to the Fox News host's question:
KATHLEEN PARKER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I think that's – you know, the liberal media – I don't know exactly who you're talking about – but yes, they would delight in such a thing, because conservative Christians, when they have problems – they're always called hypocrites, because – I don't know why – because to be a Christian doesn't mean, as Mr. Duggar said, it doesn't mean you have to be perfect. It means that you aspire to live in a certain way, but – you know, we are all fallen, as Christians will tell you; and therefore – you know, mistakes are made by everyone. So it's unfair, I think, to ever attack someone as hypocrite because they've failed to live up to perfection.
Ogunnaike then interjected that "that's what they were selling....Their reality show is based on them being this perfect family....They're not music entertainers. They're not actors. They were selling that they were this perfect Christian family."
The transcript of the relevant portion of the Parker/Ogunnaike segment from Sunday's MediaBuzz on Fox News Channel:
HOWARD KURTZ: Kathleen, let me – let me turn to this: are liberal media types – because the coverage here seem to be very polarizing – are they taking a special joy in attacking the Duggar family – not letting them off the hook, because they're Christian conservatives; have had a lot of kids; and now, appear to be hypocrites?
KATHLEEN PARKER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I think that's – you know, the liberal media – I don't know exactly who you're talking about – but yes, they would delight in such a thing, because conservative Christians, when they have problems – they're always called hypocrites, because – I don't know why – because to be a Christian doesn't mean, as Mr. Duggar said, it doesn't mean you have to be perfect. It means that you aspire to live in a certain way, but – you know, we are all fallen, as Christians will tell you; and therefore – you know, mistakes are made by everyone. So it's unfair, I think, to ever attack someone as hypocrite because they've failed to live up to perfection. And when liberals-
LOLA OGUNNAIKE, ARISE TV ANCHOR: Well, but – but that's what they were selling. That's what they were selling. Their reality show is based on them being this perfect family. That's what they were selling. They're not music entertainers. They're not actors. They were selling that they were this perfect Christian family. And they chose to become reality figures. They chose to become reality stars. If you know that you have this shameful secret in your past, why would you invite cameras into your home? Why would you open yourself up to that level of scrutiny?
PARKER: Well, I agree with that- (laughs)
OGUNNAIKE: It boggles the mind. It's – it is so insane. I just – I don't understand it. I cannot wrap my head around why they would do that.
PARKER: Well, I agree with you completely on that. And in fact, reality shows, as a whole, are mind-boggling to me. (Ogunnaike laughs) I don't know why would anyone expose their children to any kind of scrutiny like that – whether they have a record or not-
KURTZ: I have all – I have all kinds of criticisms of the Duggar parents, and I thought they handled many of Megyn Kelly's questions very poorly, because they didn't have good answers. You know, why they didn't go to the authorities sooner? And all of that. But the worst thing is the thing that you've identified, which is, why would you put and make your family famous, and put the cameras in their lives, and make it a show when you know – and everyone in the family knows – that you're hiding this?
But on the question of the coverage, Lola, what about – let me flip the question: are some conservative commentators going easy on the family, because it's somebody who is seen as on their side?
OGUNNAIKE: Absolutely. I think that if this family was a group of atheists, they would have thrown the book at them. They would have raked them over the coals – drawn and quartered the entire family in the middle of Times Square. And the fact that they've been a bit – I think a bit lenient on this family. They've been understanding. They've asked how Josh is feeling – how the family is feeling. It's about how those girls are feeling, and how those girls were victimized by their family. That's what it's about here. And yes, they've been victimized by In Touch Weekly and the tabloids that have published these stories; but they've also been victimized by their own family, because the family has rallied to support Josh, and not rallied to support these girls.
I think it was horrible that those two sisters spoke to Megyn Kelly. Even though that – even though their names are redacted, we didn't have to necessarily hear from them. We should hear from anybody in that family, it should be Josh. He should be out there defending his own actions. His sisters shouldn't be out there. They've already been victimized once by him. They shouldn't have to be re-victimized again by going on a mea culpa tour for him.
KURTZ: Well, I just-
PARKER: I would happy – I would be much happier if we didn't hear from any of them ever again on any subject-
OGUNNAIKE: I agree, but Kathleen, they're trying to save their show. They're trying to save their show-
PARKER: Lola, may I just say: I don't think there are any atheists out there with 19 children, (Ogunnaike laughs) but if there are, I would watch that show.
OGUNNAIKE: I would, too.
KURTZ: I disagree – I disagree on this point – which is, yeah, I would like to hear from Josh Duggar. He's the missing voice in all this. But I think, since they've already been outed; if those two daughters chose to speak to Megyn Kelly – in effect, voluntarily come forward as victims of sexual abuse, I think that is their right.
But, you know, there have been a lot of criticism or hot takes on the interview itself, Kathleen. How do you think it was handled? Some say Megyn Kelly should have been more prosecutorial with them. She should have nailed them.
PARKER: Well, if you want to be prosecutorial with an – with an interview subject, the interview will be very short. You know, your objective is to try to get to the heart of the matter, and get these people to open up and tell you something. You might bring it up at the end, which would-
KURTZ: Well, she asked a lot of tough questions-
PARKER: Yeah-
KURTZ: But she was providing a forum to hear the family's side.
PARKER: Of course, and you have to be sympathetic to their feelings in order to get them to talk to you openly. So, that's why they probably chose Megyn.
KURTZ: Lola, one of the writers at Daily-
OGUNNAIKE: But Howie, there were – but Howie, there were some glaring omissions. I mean, when the father said, oh, he's not a pedophile, because he committed his actions when he was 14 going on 15 – you have to be 16 to be a pedophile – she let that go. That's a problem.
KURTZ: But you noticed it. I mean, I think she gave-
OGUNNAIKE: I did. We all noticed it-
KURTZ: I think she gave – my point is, she gave them-
OGUNNAIKE: There should be a follow-up question, like, did you hear what you just said now? (laughs) I mean-KURTZ: I think – I think – my view is that Megyn Kelly gave them plenty of rope, and they proceeded, in many instances, to hang themselves with that rope. But here – interesting point here-
OGUNNAIKE: Oh, I agree with you. The only winner was Megyn Kelly – Fox. The Duggars did themselves no favors by showing up for that interview.
KURTZ: Okay. And a writer for The Daily Beast, Kevin Fallon – while conceding that Megyn Kelly has asked important questions, said on MSNBC, 'The interviewer should have wagged a finger at them and condemned them to hell.' And that's our media culture in a nutshell. If there's somebody you don't like and you don't agree with their ideology, they should go to hell.
OGUNNAIKE: No. I don't agree with that. That's not objective journalism-
