there are no poets just a mean queen of cards!

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?

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?

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.

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.

'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!

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

The same?

If not, why not?

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 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.

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.