'these people' should keep on doing exactly what they are doing until everybody will watch Jon Stewart for serious news and Meet the Press will be left with the viewership of the retarded!

At least David Gregory looks the part. He probably won't be in the job for very long. He looks like the weasel that he is, and the show will probably "lose audience."

Something different going on that this situation brings into focus. The past eight years were a distinctly negative time, with the appropriate prominence of a gang of sociopaths. Because of this, and the great promise offered by the candidacy and election of Barack Obama, hopes and expectations have been raised. We voted for and presume that we will have clean, honest, and decent government. If Obama turns out to be just another toad posing as a statesman, then the rest of his life will be one of sorrow and shame.

There has been a shift in consciousness. It will take some time for the transition, but the old, criminal ways of doing things will have to change. One of the ways the change is likely to manifest is in television, where the emphasis on crap is at such a fever pitch. The choices now tend to be grisly cop shows or trashy comedies. Fittingly, the networks are losing money on these shows, and might actually have to come up with real dramas and comedies, such as was done in the 50s and 60s.

Because Obama talks a good game, and actually seems to mean it, people believe he will bring a higher level of effort to his tenure as president. One of the ways he can start is to cancel all foreign aid to "Israel." Let them pay for their crimes with their own money.

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.

Israel will never be legitimate. And the reasons for that belief go back thousands of years.

Actually it only goes back about 60 years. Israel will never be legitimate because they are occupying Palestinian land. Period.

Both the Romans and the Nazis are known for their disproportionate responses. And look how well that turned out...

Anyone remember the USS Liberty? That's our friend, Israel.

Billions every year given to a war-mongering nation while America has one of the worst infant mortality rates on the planet.

Nice.

Fuck you David Gregory.

I understand the idea that an accommodating talking head will get more guests wanting to use him and his show since he is a cream puff. This seems to be common sense.

However, I do not think that means that a news show can not ask the tough questions. I think the shows care more about attracting viewers than pleasing the guests. If you show real reporting, they will watch. If you have enough viewers that a poll needs to talk to, the guests will come.

The hard part is having objectivity and a nose for news to begin with. Oh, that and a spot of courage.

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

Right. I decry it, not defend it.

MTP has the largest audience and the most impact of any of the interview show. Virtually all politicians would go on it even if they were asked hard questions.

Media outlets have done a great job of brainwashing people into believing that they can't ask hard questions -- it's just too unfair of a burden to place on them, because then they won't be able to get interviews at all.

It's false. And even if it were true, it's vastly preferable not to have those people on the air than it is to let them on the air with softball interviews.

Softball interviews create the illusion that they're being held accountable while the only thing that's actually happening is that their message is being massively and uncritically amplified. See the Iraq War to know the results of that.

I wonder what Israel's response would have been had those rockets come from the occupied West Bank.

The same?

If not, why not?

'Media outlets have done a great job of brainwashing people into believing that they can't ask hard questions -- it's just too unfair of a burden to place on them, because then they won't be able to get interviews at all.

Media outlets have lost nearly every credibility -

'And even if it were true, it's vastly preferable not to have those people on the air than it is to let them on the air with softball interviews'.

They are just doing their job (Gods, Allahs, or whatever higher Spirit you are praying too - work)

'Softball interviews create the illusion that they're being held accountable while the only thing that's actually happening is that their message is being massively and uncritically amplified. See the Iraq War to know the results of that'.

That's the Past - Look forward dude - nobody is going for that shtick anymore (well - a few

but who cares about them) - It's going to be a whole New World - You know THE WEB!

Isn't the better question why we, as citizens, should make excuses and force ourselves to see things from the lapdog media's ostensible perspective? In how many other contexts do we react to someone's or something's doing something we find wrong or immoral by instantly taking the most forgiving interpretation of their motives? Does the media's behavior in this instance, with the myriad negative effects and consequences it produces, merit doing so?

I see this hand-wringing all the time coming from otherwise seemingly intelligent and level-headed people. They lament the existence of some kind of destructive behavior, then for some reason reflexively assuage themselves that there are "good reasons" for that behavior. This seems the epitome of intellectual cowardice to me, and lays the psychological groundwork for complete passivity in the face of injustice.