I have had it too, Glenn

So, No worry. Over. Out.

I'm afraid I agree with the critics in that should MTP start trafficking in tougher questions, they would quickly lose their impressive guest lists and their percieved relevance and influence as well. Unless there is a collective media finding of spines, then should any particular program, MTP is no exception, regularly challenge guests with tough questions they will soon find themselves without such important and influential guests. There will always be other, more friendly venues to go 'make their case'. Case in point: How many times has Cheney been on FOX News and MTP vs. how many times has he been on MSNBC and NPR? (Not to confer super awesome tough questioning status on the latter of course)

I'm afraid I agree with the critics in that should MTP start trafficking in tougher questions, they would quickly lose their impressive guest lists and their percieved relevance and influence as well.

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?

And if TV news programs wanting to interview political leaders agreed to submit the questions in response and to only ask the ones which the politicians expressly approved, that would be OK, too. After all, the most important thing is that these shows be able to book the guests.

The whole premise is wrong -- political leaders go on shows like MTP because they want and need the exposure. They would go on even if they were asked hard questions. In fact, there are times when Chris Wallace does hard interviews, even of Republicans.

The reasons they don't ask hard questions is because that's not the point of the show, and it's not the personality or character of the TV stars. They rise in those corporations precisely because they're so good at pleasing power. It's what they do and who they are.

Sorry, I lost respect.

You have been okay,

and now I say:`forget it.

It hurts to be this frank.

The last post you deleted

were No monopolizing, No.

And I had turned UT off, Yes, ah our ago?

I don't need to defend and explain @ UT.

You not always Perfect. I NO want a Blog.

Your not always Perfect. Remember that!

Let those deleted comments be the Last.

Concerning Gaza's nationhood. It was a nation in the days of Samson and thats good enough for me. I understand he brought a temple down there and caused some trouble for the Nation of Gaza and such was recorded in the Bible.

Dare you question its legitimacy? It's in the Bible.

For if Gaza is no Nation, then a certain province of Egypt, then Babylon, then Greece, then Rome, etc. etc. etc. is also no Nation.

Gotcha!

Gaza is a nation.

and who was Tim Russert? - Glenn why don't you finally start watching TV programs which matter - and about the Gaza mess - that's much too serious to leave one of the usual stupid comments - so I will refrain- just wishing everybody a Happy New Year (after I was busy the last days) Don't you have anything better to do at this time of the year either - this is pathetic!

Concerning Gaza's nationhood. It was a nation in the days of Samson and that's good enough for me. I understand he brought a temple down there and caused some trouble for the Nation of Gaza and such was recorded in the Bible.

Dare you question its legitimacy? It's in the Bible.

For if Gaza is no Nation, then a certain province of Egypt, then Babylon, then Greece, then Rome, etc. etc. etc. is also no Nation.

Gotcha!

Gaza is a nation.

Does the "z" stand for zany or zowie?

I have had it too, Glenn

So, No worry. Over. Out.

ss: I'm seeing double, aren't I?

poc: who is david gregory? and who was Tim Russert? - Glenn why don't you finally start watching TV programs which matter - and about the Gaza mess - that's much too serious to leave one of the usual stupid comments - so I will refrain ... Don't you have anything better to do at this time of the year either - this is pathetic!

I recognize that much of this is tongue-in-cheek but, seriously, these programs are illustrative of what an execrable media we have. These people must be forced to do their jobs. And I mean forced, too. Relentless clinical evisceration of the type that Glenn provides needs to continue. I'm pleased, for one, when he cites "commentary" from others who ridicule him, insult him, etc., since it means they're reading him. Someone mentioned earlier on (again, Kitt, I think) FDL's post about Joe Klein seemingly having gotten religion. Well, good. I attribute this to all the sites we're familiar with. It cannot stop until these people get it together and start doing their jobs.

A number of posters have suggested that if American pundits asked tough questions of politicians then they would not be able to get them to appear on their programmes. This is not necessarily true.

Politicians in the UK media are routinely grilled, especially by the likes of Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys on the BBC's heavyweight news programmes. The politicians might not like it but if they refused to appear, it just makes them look really bad.

There are occasional instances where the government (or company, or other public body, depending on the issue) does not muster a spokesperson and this is clearly stated in the program, for example: "We asked the government/company/whatever for a spokesperson to comment on this issue and they declined".

And, believe me, this really makes them look guilty to the viewer and therefore happens rarely.

"amn't I?"

We should be hearing stories about you and The Odonnell Woman soon...

"amn't I" indeed -- ;-)

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?

That is right, and seems to be how it works. I think you've wrote a few columns decrying that fact here.

The whole premise is wrong -- political leaders go on shows like MTP because they want and need the exposure. They would go on even if they were asked hard questions. In fact, there are times when Chris Wallace does hard interviews, even of Republicans.

They go on shows for the exposure but choose the shows based on which they think will get their message across they way they would like. Chris Wallace will usually do that, a few hard interviews notwithstanding. If MTP doesn't do that I think they would likely skip it more often than not in favor of others that will.

Right now the landscape seems to be liberal networks that are hard on conservatives with few conservative guests, conservative networks that are hard on liberals with few liberal guests, and network/CNN shows that are hard on nobody with plenty guests of both persuasions.