Longtime lurker, first time poster.

Acknowledging GG's clear discretion to enforce decorum, relevance and bandwidth, I'd like simply to say I'd think it'd be a shame if the profligate poets he has warned, were to disappear from the comments completely.

Their lines break up -- and sometimes pertain slyly -- to what is often a tedious solemnity in these pages. And whatever the drawbacks(or frequency), most of the entries have the virtue of being...let's say...not overlong.

It may grate on some. For me it is like white noise, like a surf machine, a low volume radio, a rill of running water. Nice to have in the background, and sometimes appreciable on its own terms.

Perhaps Klytus and Bebop-o can live with the modest restrictions GG would impose. Perhaps not.Perhaps that ship has already sailed. C'est la guerre.

Their comments may not add very much to the conversation, but what they do add may be lost in the general annoyance, and one loyal reader, at least, likes them a little FWIW.

Okay, at least in the English-speaking world, is Terry Gross of Fresh Aire. She consistently asks the most interesting, most probing questions and does so with entertainers, writers, politicians, business leaders, etc.

And yet even she is not the kind of hard-hitting questioner that some here seem to want.

So who (other than economically unviable anchors and talk show hosts from Air America) would you all choose for the Sunday morning network shows? And would you want them to be as tough on Clinton ("Bill, how many times did you tell Monica you were in lover with her before you had sex or at least engaged in activity that some define as sex?" or Al Sharpton ("Let's talk about Tawana Brawley . . ." or even Barney Frank ("So Barney, that guy you were dating at Fannie or Freddie while regulating them--what exactly was it he did there and . . .")).

Or do you just want them to grill conservatives?

White noise is fine- not a blizzard I have to scroll down page after page after page. Is it the Klytus & bebop-o hour, or an open discussion for all?

there are no poets just a mean queen of cards!

I'm watching a program right now about the New York nightclub called The Wetlands. The concept of The Wetlands was very similar to what we are discussing here about the news media. The owner of the club provided an outlet for bands, musicians and audience that was not necessarily or even at all about making money. Nonetheless they were a very successful venture in many ways. There is no reason that we, the American public, should allow ourselves to be condescended to and used as a money enterprise for corporate media. We can and should have our say about how we want our media airwaves to process the news.

You know, I've just been listening to a BBC Radio 4 programme which included an interview with a UN aid worker in Gaza (she was American by the sound of it) and it's enough to make you weep.

She's been in Gaza two years and never seen anything like it before: there is just so much loss of life that the hospitals, which are anyway desperately under-resourced after the blockade, are having to turn away all but the most seriously injured people. Much of the aid workers' help has had to stop because it's just too dangerous for them: the Israeli army are now attacking individual houses and not just known Hamas centres.

And do ordinary Palestinians blame Hamas for their plight? No, she replied, they blame the people who are attacking them now - Israel.

This does not sound to me anything like the story Americans are hearing from their media.

I wouldn't say bended knee. Try lying on his back with his legs in the air saying 'Take me Tzipi Trippi Lippi. I'm yours, yours, yours! Beat me, lie to me, and I'll agree with everything darlink. Everything you say is true and we both know it so what is there to argue about?' Gregory has always been an emetic for me, which just goes to show that no one, not even him, is completely useless. If you like your Ken dolls to talk he's perfect.

So who (other than economically unviable anchors and talk show hosts from Air America) would you all choose for the Sunday morning network shows?

It's not so much about whom we would choose, but how that person comports him or herself when put in the position. And as for the potential picks outside the very system that thrives from coddling powerful interviewees, don't be so quick to dismiss "talk show hosts from Air America" as "economically unviable" when we have the case study of Rachel Maddow to stiffly disprove your assumption.

And would you want them to be as tough on Clinton ("Bill, how many times did you tell Monica you were in lover with her before you had sex or at least engaged in activity that some define as sex?" or Al Sharpton ("Let's talk about Tawana Brawley . . ." or even Barney Frank ("So Barney, that guy you were dating at Fannie or Freddie while regulating them--what exactly was it he did there and . . .")).

Or do you just want them to grill conservatives?

The problem with your examples is not that they are instances of grilling liberals or Democrats, but that they are demonstrations of the typically inane subject matter that often forms the heart of much of the media's "tough" questioning. I'm quite positive that most thinking liberals and Democrats would have little problem with tough questioning of "their side" if the questioning was based on relevant issues that matter to governance, and not based on fraudulent premises or trivial tabloid BS.

This article slams Meet The Press but this morning I saw Netanyahu being interviewed on Live Desk at Faux and the procedure was exactly the same.

There were no hard questions. There was no challenging of the rubbish that the Israeli Warhawk was spouting. It was disgusting to watch another example of the complete bastardization of the journalist profession (assuming there still is such a thing).

We, the public, need to demand more from those who pretend to bring us the news.

www.dangerouscreation.com