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.

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.

-- wychwood

I don't see how that is a problem. I've stated this before to you. How is it better that people come on and lie and propagandize on a national stage rather than have them being exposed as cowards for not being willing to promote their positions? Either they or someone else would have to make the case, if there is a case to be made. If they feel that they were not able to make their case then why have them on?

We not only have nothing to lose by demanding a press that asks real questions, but we have much to gain. To me, there is no viable argument for allowing politicians to lie and propagandize. Bring on the truth tellers. There is a market for them and no amount of washing your hands of it could convince me otherwise.

The American Media, with very few exceptions, has a dismal world wide reputation for failure. This morning the Today show was doing a dismal apology for the Bush regime and were hoping that history would view his record more favorably. I, for one, am grateful that the internet has allowed me to read responsible and insightful journalists.

if he has reason to believe that Israeli war aims are what Glenn describes him as pushing Livni toward. If those are indeed their aims, but Livni does not want to admit to it for political reasons, then Gregory's attempts to get her to address that proposition might be seen as an attempt to get a politician to level with the public on a topic on which she is currently evading or dissembling.

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.

Be at peace, my son. :) I think the "feasible" line, in addition to your statements about "critical" questions and the "rip to shreds" bit sounded like a defense or a justification to some of us. Thanks for your response and your clarification.

By the way, look at the "allowed html" notification above the letter box: use <i> for italic, <b> for bold, etc. At the end of the section you want to italicize, put a </i> - it's old-school but you get used to it. It makes reading quoted passages easier.