I said (I can't get italics and even yours disappear in my reply) - I think there is something to be said for seeing these people (Rice, Axelrod, etc.) up close and listening to their words, even if the interviewer was uncritical.

You said - Okay. What is that "something?" Is there anything about the mere presence of a politician in a TV studio that imparts anything different than what you would get just watching them give a speech?

#### I was merely making some observations, not launching a full-scale defense of anything. However, there is something more to be had from watching a person in an interview than in a speech - even softball questions elicit a lot sometimes. (I found the various softball interviews of Obama to be interesting.) However, I don't have some kind of strong opinion that softball interviews should continue infinitum. If there's some other way of doing things, then (someone) let's try it. If American politicians would sit still for British type interrogations, then that would be great (it's not MY spine in question Kitt). But, since neither politicians nor interviewers in the U.S. have any practice with this, nor, it would seem, any taste for it, I'm not holding my breath.

You said - I think omooex's point is a good one - what is there to be gained in information value by giving famous political figures yet another forum to recite talking points? One would imagine the point an interview program would be to elicit more information.

#### Granted. Again, I was making observations, not staunchly defending the status quo (jeez, looeez). Anyway, even softball interviews elicit more information (or "information").

You said - As it stands, the appearance of famous people on a program is merely a way of boosting that program's ratings. It's a "get:" Meet the Press is literally no different than Entertainment Tonight in this regard.

#### I agree. I watch them for mild entertainment rather than finding out anything much. (Or read the snarky summaries on Huff.) What I was saying was, what (practical) alternative are all the critics here suggesting?

I said - The interviewing and the critiquing would have to be separate media functions, and it's unreasonable to expect that one person would do both (esp. on the same program).

You said - Unreasonable how? Exactly how?

I said - I wouldn't come on your program and be treated nicely if I knew you were going to rip me to shreds later... ((This was my reason for thinking that interview and fierce critique needed to be separate, given the present attitudes on those interview programs.))

You said - What is being "rip[ped] to shreds" in your estimation? Asking tough questions, as the British media does not infrequently?

#### Hey, I'm all in favor! (Or in favour.) If American politicians would sit for that, great! What some previous poster had suggested, and I thought it was a good point, was that the 'gets' on these programs wouldn't come under those conditions.

You said - I guess that we differ in that you don't seem to see TV interviews as a potential means for getting information to the people about what the powerful are up to. Is it that you don't think it's an appropriate venue... or that you don't think it's an appropriate activity regardless of venue?

#### Christ, for the last time, I wasn't defending the current Meet the Press & clones, merely making some observations and wondering how all the critics here could get what they waned. Of course I think getting info to the people is an appropriate activity. I was merely agreeing with someone that the current set-up has this inherent problem that the prospective interviewees would stay home if they figured they'd get hard questioning.

Ah, thanks

I think you're probably right that tough interviews will only happen if there's "a collective stiffening of spines", as, yeah, otherwise the interviewees will go to the softer venues.

Glenn, you said So by this same reasoning, newspapers shouldn't write anything negative about political leaders, otherwise those leaders will no longer talk to those papers, right?

But we're talking about interview programs, which should be compared only to newspaper interview pieces, no? - and I'd expect the same problems. Both TV and papers do their commenting (still often soft) when the interviewees have left the premises.

Christopher Hitchens has a devastating piece on him currently on Slate, arguing that his views on gays is the least of his sins, and that more than gays and gay supporters should be complaining about his selection to be part of the inauguration.