That's not really unusual in cases where charges are never filed, dropped, or settled out of court.
I'm not sure how it would be journalistic to keep asking Cosby about allegations for which he was never criminally charged after prosecutors didn't have enough evidence, or lawsuits that resulted in settlements with clauses forbidding either side from talking to the press.
Especially when Cosby has never said anything about these issues ever, except denials through his lawyer.
I don't think it's rare for celebrities or politicians to be asked about and answer questions regarding alleged crimes. I see it all the time. The fact that he has never once responded to the allegations publicly is all the more reason he should have been asked.
This whole situation is heartbreaking. If the allegations are true, it's upsetting that Cosby would do such things. If not, it's sad that people would make and perpetuate these allegations. I hope the truth comes out in some way, whatever it is.
My university is scheduled to host Cosby for their benefit dinner in a few weeks (contract was signed before this erupted). They're standing by their decision to host Cosby as of now but waiting to see how things play out. I think it's an appropriate response.
"The fact that he has never once responded to the allegations publicly is all the more reason he should have been asked."
He has responded by saying he would not be responding. It's just not the response people want. Plus, if he said anything more, and there eventually are charges, those statements can be considered evidence. Another reason the lawyer makes all the statements.
It really serves no purpose. Woody Allen responded regarding Mia et. al. talking about him earlier this year, and all it does it keep the story going longer, by giving it another day of "Woody responds to allegations" and then a second day or more of people talking about his response.
If the goal is to get the story out of the spotlight, silence is more effective. Especially without charges or a case pending.
I think if these allegations are false he should come at these women with full legal force. I don't see why one wouldn't if truth is on your side. Unless it isn't.
"If the goal is to get the story out of the spotlight, silence is more effective. Especially without charges or a case pending." Yeah that NPR interview seems to be working out great for him! I hope he keeps it up! The less we ever have to hear from Bill Cosby again, the better.
SmokeyLady, there's no point. The statute of limitations ended a very long time ago. He cannot be penalized for this. He will just live out the rest of life in silence.
Janice is very hard to believe considering she was heavily into drugs and alcohol, and probably still is. However, when 15 women say the same thing about you, you are probably a dangerous predator.
"Yeah that NPR interview seems to be working out great for him! I hope he keeps it up!"
True, I suppose those are both examples of the word silence. I suppose there's not much I can add if you don't see a difference between a media strategy of not doing interviews and intentionally talking to the press about an issue, and refusing to answer a question during an ambush interview.
An ambush interview? He and his wife sat down to talk about their vast and valuable art collection and exhibit. He's old enough to know that the media is under no obligation to be polite and not bring up difficult topics. He's probably shocked because usually members of the media just lob softballs at him.
The "truth" will never come out, unless Cosby is foolish enough to do this sort of thing in the present day. Unless that happens, it'll be Cosby's silence and his lawyer's word against the word of over a dozen unique women whose allegations span decades.
He won't be legally penalized, but he'll certainly spend the rest of career in shame with his legacy completely tarnished.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
"An ambush interview? He and his wife sat down to talk about their vast and valuable art collection and exhibit."
Yes, and when the interviewer strayed from the agreed-upon topic for an interview, it becomes an ambush.
On the media strategy blog linked below, it describes there are different types of ambush:
"More typically, an ambush occurs in one of two ways: 1. When a reporter shows up without notice (the topic of this post) 2. When a reporter deviates from the agreed-upon topic to blindside a source with something totally unexpected."
I doubt NPR set up the art exhibit interview as a pretense for asking about the rape charges, but they also had enough foresight to not mention they would be asking about it in advance, since they knew Cosby wouldn't have done the interview, which means they knew they were planning to ambush him.
"Which would be a shame if the charges are not true. This could be a modern day media witch hunt."
From The Atlantic link PJ posted...
"A defense of Cosby requires that one believe that several women have decided to publicly accuse one of the most powerful men in recent Hollywood history of a crime they have no hope of seeing prosecuted, and for which they are seeking no damages."