By the way, how about some criticism of Rachel and Keith and the MSNBC lineup. Talk about softball interviews. Anytime someone from the left is on, its all ooze and smiles. Maybe that will change when the Obama folks and the Dems in Congress (who are pretty much the only game in town now) start showing up. We will see.

-- ehillesum

Good point.

Meet the Press does not bill itself as a "news" program, but rather a "public affairs" program.

Yes, we shall see.

There you go again scooter. Projecting again. You wouldnt know reality if it bit you in the ass. And we all wish it would.

As for a better host of MTP, how about Helen Thomas or Keith Olbermann?

-- druidbros

The answer isn't in replacing the "stars" of the various interview programs. Olbermann, et al, are no different than Johnny Carson. They bring guests on, not to present news or inform the public, they bring them on to generate viewers (ratings = revenue) regardless of the content.

The answer is to re-condition the American public to "doveryai, no proveryai" (Trust but Verify) and not automatically believe whatever they hear on "established, hard-hitting" public affairs (not news) programs.

When ratings go down the tube because the public has caught onto the actual performance of these shows, some bright young producer will actually insist that his program be news, not schmooze.

Frankly, from my observation point, I don't see the public giving a shit about all of this. They just want to be able to sit down with a beer and be entertained, not educated.

I saw it too. No problem. at all. I decided that's best.

I'd love to communicate more, but no way... Silence.

Notice: To a NSA too. I want to shut-off a computer.

And know, Respectfully, I'll say NO more. Sorry. Sigh.

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've been following the back and forth here and I have to say (as someone, Kitt I think, noted earlier) that these people wouldn't just stay home if they were faced with tough questions. They'd have to get their "message" out somehow and would probably revert to accusing the media for distorting that message. But they do that anyway so nothing is lost by asking challenging questions and demanding that they justify, legally, morally or otherwise, why they've chosen to do what they've done. To wit: instead of this from Gregory:

So only the replacement of Hamas by Fatah, by more moderate leaders, appears to be the only answer

how about a real question, such as, how do you (livni) justify an attack on a democratically elected government? Or, what is the current status of negotiations between Israel and the democratically elected Hamas? Or, why do you continue to blockade and otherwise disrupt food and medical supplies to the people of Gaza? How do you justify that? How is that not a war crime? Or, Israel is often described as the only democracy in the Middle East, yet the Palestinians also elected their leaders. What does your assault on Gaza say about Israeli democracy? What does it say about civilized behavior.

That at least would be a clear challenge to the powers-that-be that the press won't act as a sycophantic supporter of those powers.

You've never watched the weekly Prime Minister's Questions? It can be done. It can happen. If you want to be guilty of enabling this sham bullshit we're currently being subjected to, just say so. Otherwise, show some spine?

-- Kitt

What makes you think that Prime Minister's Questions isn't correographed in the same manner as Meet the Press? I have never, ever seen a British PM stumped for a reasonable answer to any question posed. Why, it's almost like he had all the questions in advance.

I hear.

Revolution, if it is ever to take hold,

must be above a return to a rhythm,

which, or who, is another name, This

Just manifest everywhere in creation.

It is a turning until we come around,

right. So, thanks, and I not a-joking.

Respectfully,

Sincerely,

Art James

I see the usual idiots are here ... Glenn and his 9 friends changing the world.

I have to say, that really made me laugh. Probably not in the way you intended, but still.

It's a beautiful day outside.

Kitt makes a good point. The British media is simply BETTER. If you don't want to take the Prime Minister questioning, watch a mere half hour of the BBC on PBS.

What ensues is complete embarassment for the American media.

The recent Bush and Cheney interviews by so-called tough mainstream media journalists who claim to have seem the ravages of the Iraq War firsthand (cough, Martha Radditz, cough) are further evidence of this.

Dick Cheney admits to helping put in place the legal framework for waterboarding. The jouranlists doing the interview responds by sitting there stunned. He asks absolutely NO follow-up questions and then changes the subject to something else.

David Gregory, as Glenn points out, asked NO real questions in a 7-minute interview with the current Foreign Minister and likely next Prime Minister of a country involved in a controversial war. (I won't say they launched it, it's arguable Hamas started it.) Gregory, a citizen of the United States and purported journalist, then proceeds to try to URGE the Foreign Minister to launch HARSHER attacks and overthrow the government of the other country. Look you can argue for that, but not if you're a purported journalist.

The state of American journalism is in the toilet, Gregory's a disgrace as is the rest of our MSM and anyone going after Glenn for pointing this out doesn't understand HE'S the only one doing his job.

Ah, thanks

"I'll personally pay for your Ramallah or Gaza City vacation, so you can see what it's like to live imprisoned by walls, under a 40-year foreign occupation, with blockades that cause your children's growth to stunt and to be denied basic nutritional and medical needs."

40-year occupation, Glenn? Israel is 60. Why don't you enlighten your readers as to who occupied Gaza and the West Bank for the other 20 years? It's a pretty basic question, one that never seems to garner an answer. And why not? Because it's complicated and not boiled down to sound bites like the one above.

Seriously, I'll play the sound bite game now, too. If Egypt and Jordan (and the rest of the Arab world) cared so much for the Palestinian people, why didn't they make every effort to grant them independence? Why not build them into a viable nation from 1948-1967 when they controlled the West Bank and Gaza?

Good sound bite, huh? And every bit as true as what you wrote. Truth is, anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that the governments of the Arab world could give a camel's hump about the Palestinians. They're pawns in a giant, violent chess match.

To prove the point, the leaders and populations of the Arab world didn't rise up during Black September in 1970 when thousands of Palestinians were killed by Jordanian forces. I didn't notice the outcry from them (nor the American left) when Kuwait expelled 400,000 Palestinians after the Gulf War because Arafat aligned the PLO with Saddam (not to mention those Palestinians imprisoned, tortured and killed). And really, as much as Israel imposes harsh economic conditions on the Palestinians in response to terrorism, the expulsion of this huge population (that lived and thrived in Kuwait since the 1930's) ravaged the Palestinian economy.

But nary a peep. Funny how worldwide condemnation only seems to blossom when Palestinians are affected by Israeli decisions. Why is that? Hmmmm?

Personally, I deplore the bloodshed and think the Palestinians should have their own state. And I think all of this will lead nowhere. But the entire truth is that the Palestinians have been 'imprisoned' for far more than 40 years. One could go back to the Iron Age. Israel only goes back to 1948.