I’m sure you’ve all seen this, but if you haven’t, check out this SUPER lame Elizabeth Smart Interview on CNN with Nancy Grace.

Holy Moly this is lame (thanks to usuaggies.com for the referral).


  1. Mayan Elephant August 29, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    you really need a stronger warning with that john. you owe me one. i want my 3 minutes back.

  2. John Dehlin August 29, 2006 at 10:08 pm

    I thought it was unbelievable, no? It’s got tens of thousands of views on youtube.com.

    I was stunned at how lame the interviewer was.

  3. cg August 29, 2006 at 10:18 pm

    Nancy Grace is not the brightest star in the sky. Her condescending attitude is off the charts. She’s gotten worse the longer she’s been on tv. Must be the pressure of 24 hours news. Remember Don Henley’s song “Dirty Laundry”? It’s more apt today than ever.

  4. The Daily Kirk August 29, 2006 at 11:30 pm

    Did they install some sort of chip into this chicks brain that makes her spit out certain phrases at the apropriate moment? My Teddy Ruxpin doll sounds more natural.

  5. The Daily Kirk August 29, 2006 at 11:32 pm

    Hey John,

    I just got around to reading that whole thread about those blogs who dropped you.

    I don’t want to start the discussion again, just wanted to tell ya not to sweat it man. As snoop dog says “This kinds of shits happens all the time.”

  6. Mr-Brightside August 30, 2006 at 6:37 am

    Not only was Nancy lame, she actually made me angry watching that. I felt bad that she kept pushing Elizabeth about her experiences even after she told her she wasn’t there to talk about them.

    She was completely insensitive and should be sacked or at least disciplined.

  7. John Dehlin August 30, 2006 at 6:57 am

    Thanks, Kirk. I loves ya, man.

  8. lyndseyelise August 30, 2006 at 11:46 am

    How is Nancy Grace any different than any other reporter? Hasn’t anybody watch a press conference with the President when 15 different reporters ask the same question 15 different ways just to get reminded that their question will not be answered. Come on, I know Elizabeth Smart is just a kid but it’s still a mystery to us what happened. Let’s face it the only reason Elizabeth Smart is being interviewed is because what happened to her. I can’t even imagine what she went through. I only hope that her parents have her involved in some serious therapy.

  9. Matt Thurston August 30, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Considering Elizabeth Smart’s horrifying experience, her age (she’s still relatively young), her overprotective parents, etc. it doesn’t surprise me that the interview was lame.

    One hopes that 9-10 years from now, once she’s put some distance between herself and the event, once she’s properly dealt with and understands what really happened to her, once she lets go of the guilt/pain/etc, once she begins truly thinking for herself — assuming all of the above is even possible — one hopes that she is able to sit down for a real interview, a 2-Hr Dateline NBC interview with a competent reporter (not Nancy Grace). She has the opportunity to be an important spokesperson for abuse, former victims, etc. If she’s willing, she could do a tremendous amount of good someday.

  10. AnnLeslie August 30, 2006 at 5:50 pm

    Elizabeth Smart is now 18 years old. If she is going to be available to the media, via books or television etc., then she should behave as an adult and not a child. The problem with this interview is not Nancy Grace. Nancy expected an adult woman and not a girl. Unfortunately for Elizabeth, if the overprotection continues, she will never be able to emerge as a healthy, adult woman. Oh, well………………..

  11. Matt Thurston August 30, 2006 at 7:30 pm

    AnnLeslie, 18 isn’t that old. If Elizabeth had been 28 and acted like that, I’d be more sympathetic to your comment. But come on, cut her some slack. Less than 4 years ago she spent almost a year living as a homeless person and rape victim of a clearly deranged man and woman. Do you really expect her to now act like a perfectly well-adjusted, media-savvy adult? “Yeah Nancy, wearing the burka was strange, but I got used to it.” Give me a break. I wouldn’t expect a lot of normal 18 year olds to act like a well-adjusted, media-savvy adult.

    She’s clearly still a frightened little girl. A far less traumatizing experience could easily retard emotional growth. I’d expect any parent — Mormon or otherwise — would overprotect a child who had experienced what Elizabeth went through, at least until she was 18. The kind of growth you expect will come over the next 10 years as she actually lives life as an adult.

  12. HyrumPage August 30, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    Thanks for reminding me why I am so happy to have gotten rid of my satellite tv. Nancy [dis]Grace is a fine example of what has gone wrong with the art of journalistic interviewing. It is the professional’s job to get the interviewee talking. Her failure to do that is about her own incompetence, not Elizabeth’s shortcomings.

    Furthermore, it looked very much to me like she was brought onto the show under false pretenses. She comes to talk about a political issue, and instead gets smacked with questions about a burka.

    All of this might be a part of the “biz”, but for this reason I am doubly happy with my choice to opt out of this dog-and-pony, tabloid tripe, broadcasting. I’ll take my news where news is to be found. I won’t look for it on a trumped up, 24-hour version of Jerry Springer.

  13. paula August 31, 2006 at 8:23 am

    I think, as someone else said, that it was Nancy Grace’s job to get Elizabeth to talk, and presumably Elizabeth had agree to go on to talk about the bill, not about her experiences. Grace should have done a better job of interviewing. The stuff about the burka, etc, were ridiculous sensational questions that weren’t really designed to help anyone understand what Elizabeth went through.

    I’ve heard complaints about Elizabeth’s demeanor there, but, as the mom of two teenagers, and a former high school teacher, she looks to me like a fairly normal teenager who’s accidentally walked into an encounter with a clueless adult. A little eye-rolling, a little staring in disbelief– pretty much the usual teenage reaction (and fairly appropriate in this case.)

  14. AnnLeslie August 31, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    Matt: I understand why you feel the way you do. If a family is going to write books, as the Smart family has regarding this incident, and go on television, give interviews etc., then PLEASE don’t be surprised if the interviewers, or the American public for that matter, ask the obvious! Since the “obvious” has never been discussed at all, then future interviewers will continue to ask the same questions. That’s just the way it goes. In a better world, what Elizabeth may reveal would not need to be told, but in the kidnapping world we live in, the information Elizabeth could provide may actually help other children. Just my opinion………..

  15. cg August 31, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    Yes, clearly learning how Elizabeth could see wearing that burka is information relevent to most if not all kidnapped children. How dare anyone actually criticize an interviewer who said they were going to be discussing one subject and then does a bait and switch.


    AnnLeslie, don’t you be surprised that anyone, especially an 18 year old girl who’s been to hell and back, doesn’t like to be lied to and ambushed. Just my opinion…

  16. AnnLeslie August 31, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    What I am saying, but failing to communicate, is we all know, including the Smart parents, that a media interview is not a “Yellow Brick Road”. Larry King, since he is married to a Mormon, would have more of a clue that he should toss his normal “softballs”. If this girl were my child, I would never encourage her to submit to an interview, unless she were prepared for this type of questioning. Not in this day and age!

  17. Matt Thurston August 31, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    I agree with your last two comments, AnnLeslie. I’m hoping the day will come that Elizabeth can get a little distance from her family and tell her story. It would not only be great for the world, but it would be great for her too. Helping others overcome or avoid a similar fate would do wonders for her ability to overcome her own trauma.

  18. lyndseyelise August 31, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    Of course, wearing burka is not relevant to all kidnapped children! But how about, teaching your children to never go with a stranger even if your family is being threatened.Or how about breaking free from your abuductor whenever you get the chance and run through the streets screaming, “I’ve been kidnapped! Please help me!” This might be more useful information to help other children.

    So let’s get over the burka question. Yes, the majority of abductors are not religious fanatics who brainwash their victims, but there are too many kids who are taken just because who never see the light of day ever again. For example, five year old Destiny from SLC. Elizabeth is a lucky girl.

    If ES does not want to reveal what happened then I would suggest that she have a spokesperson do all her talking for her.

  19. HyrumPage August 31, 2006 at 7:28 pm

    The “burka question” is shorthand for the way the whole thing was handled. For Nancy [dis]Grace, everything is about ratings and her own celebrity. While she professes her concern for victims, and may even believe she possesses such concern, all of this is filtered through her massive ego and blunt intellect, which pushes its way through every encounter with the sheer force of her bully demeanor. Whatever it is this woman does, it is not journalism.

    Many people out there still seem to blame the victim. It is so much more comforting to imagine ourselves as the folks who do all of the things we judge the victim as having failed to do. It is like watching a horror movie and telling the person on the screen to duck when the music gets eerie. I am overjoyed for those who escape their captors. I am overjoyed that Elizabeth, although she did not run away from her captors, was not murdered like so many other unfortunate abducted persons.

    I think part of the sad truth here is that some people want to use a little girl’s mistfortune as a way to assault the LDS Church for its views and practices with regard to gender. Shame on those who would exploit a victim in this way.

  20. Krista September 3, 2006 at 12:22 pm

    I agree 100% with what AnnLeslie said.

  21. Bonnie September 23, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    I think the title of this blog is misleading. It should read “Super lame interviewer Nancy Grace talks with Elizabeth Smart. I find it fascinating to read the other comments from people who have decided that Elizabeth needs to tell the world the details of her ordeal in order to “get over it.” I believe she’s in private therapy dealing with it in her own way and “going public” is no way to heal. The more she talks about it, the more she relives it, and the more energy she spends on negativity. I don’t see her parents as “overprotective.” They are doing what responsible, loving parents should do. It’s obvious that the Smarts were mislead in what the interview would be about. The focus in all this should be the bill and how it can protect our own children.

  22. John Dehlin September 23, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    Done! Thanks for the suggestion, Bonnie!

  23. Ron September 30, 2006 at 2:50 am

    Elizabeth is wrong if she thinks she is going to go around doing interviews pushing some bill for child sexual predator laws and not get asked about her situtation. What a joke. I only saw the short Youtube video so I don’t know if Nancy asked again about the Burqa.

    I guess Nancys stupid question asking how she was able to “…see out of that thing?” was possibly the result of a requirment that Nancy not mention religion, I don’t know. This is just another example how the much of the mass media covers up religous crimes in other religions to save the Christians from attack. http://www.GeorgiaWeblog.com

  24. Lacee January 21, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    I really don’t believe that what happened to Elizabeth should be considered a religious crime. Brian Mitchell was a sexual predator long before he started using religion as an excuse for being one. He sexually assaulted his second wife’s kids in the 1980’s and made sexual advances toward Wanda Barzee’s daughter Louree in the 1990’s, and he didn’t use religion to justify those assaults. So why should he be allowed to use religion as an excuse for kidnapping and raping Elizabeth Smart? Besides, Mormons aren’t Christians. And saving Christians from attack? Since when? Anyway, Nancy Graceless is a moron.

  25. J.T. July 11, 2007 at 4:23 am

    annleslie has a good point, if you are not prepared for an interview you should have a spokeperson representing you. The only time someone wants to pass a bill is when it happens to them. I am not bashing E.S. my heart goes out to her and her family for the terrible things they all went through. By her being so young she should have had proper representation by her not being strong enough to handle Fancy mis Nancy. Nancy should have cut her some slack 4 sure

Comments are closed.