Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

this is about a political committee that has not yet figured out how to raise money in the post-McCain-Feingold era.

But doesn't that make my point of needing a full-time DNC chair?

There is a structural problem at the DNC that needs fixing.

By resting on their laurels, the DNC may hand over some key slots to the GOP in 2010.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, what I meant was

Will the neo-con control of the GOP and it's continued stampede to the right lead to its' demise as a effective political party.

Is that scenario comparable to the American Independent Party after Pat took control ?

Chuck,

I heard Olberman ranting about neocons the other night in one of his promos now Burlap Mudflap (great name btw) is talking about them. Maybe one of you guys can tell me what a neocon is so I don’t have to waste my time watching Olberman. There are about 8000 definitions on the internet the most interesting being a reformed Democrat. Maybe it was a deformed Democrat. Looked it up a couple days ago and my memory ain’t what it used to be. Olberman and Mr. Mudflap seem to use it as a perjorative term. What is NBCs definition?

there isn't a love affair, its a fantasy of the far right. Have u seen the press conferences? It sure doesn't look like Jake Tapper "loves" the President, and Chuck doesn't conduct himself that way either. Obama was right. If you watch any of Fox "News's" shows from 6am to 11pm, you will not find a single positive story or a single anchor or political reporter who voted for Obama I assure you.

mjs,

Two guys (Jake Tapper and Major Garrett) in the entire White House press corps ask tough questions and you consider that objective journalism? Most of the people in the room are still suffering from "thrill up my leg syndrome" and the Gibbs giggle fests are so bizarre they're unwatchable. As NBCs new poll shows people are figuring out that unending deficit spending is not a good idea and printing trillions of dollars of fiat money will not solve our fiscal problems. To the credit of the American people they have figured this out in spite of NBC, ABC and CBS not because of them. Remember how NBC treated the “t-baggers” when they tried to point out the folly of deficit spending and rewarding irresponsible behavior? They were labeled a bunch of right wing nuts inflamed by Fox news. Given that most people now understand these are problems and are concerned about them, either those of us who raised the issues initially aren’t as crazy as the folks at NBC/MSNBC assumed or the Fox news audience numbers are grossly underestimated and Fox has managed to indoctrinate the majority of the American people. Stop assuming everything the president wants to do is good for the country. Sorry friend, he was elected president not king and he ain’t the Messiah. Support him when you think he’s right, challenge him when you think he’s wrong and stop calling anyone who disagrees with him a right wing, Fox news, dittohead who hates the president. When Chuck says “The honeymoon may be coming to an end” what that probably means is reporters are nearly done celebrating his victory and some are ready to get back to work. Others like Olberman and Mathews may wash their negligees and put them away until the next election but the president will never have reason to doubt their loyalty.

Boy was I wrong. Saw Mathews this morning. He all but washed and ironed his negligee while humming "My guy" on national T.V. Then he proudly declared on his Sunday show the honeymoon is definitely not over. Where does one find such devotion?

Did you hear the President at the dinner Friday night when he joked about rolling over and Brian Williams was there and the joke at the dinner earlier a few months ago when he joked that the whole press, except fox news, voted for him. I realize the press is human and may support the guy but the press plays a role in how we the people hold our government accountable. i don't want the ridiculous comments like on fox, i just want good solid questions and analysis. far too often, it seems that the press just won't ask the tough question. we need that for our government to function properly.

George Will had a great line Sunday when George Steponallofus brought up the president's disdain for Fox news. Will said, "It's the one discordant note in an otherwise harmonious chorus."

Chuck had an excellent question for the president today but he seemed a little nervous and let the prez talk his way around it. Keep it up Chuck. You'll eventually get comfortable throwing overhand.

John---4.5---you raise an excellent point about the press and obama---the press must learn how to lob those all important follow up questions to this president.......too often they fall short in this area and accept the president's dancing around the question in place of an ANSWER.

Chuck---re: my point to John in 4.5---kudos to you for your performance in Obama's presser yesterday----you asked a great question and had very good followup---too bad for us though that the President refused to answer you and more or less shut you down....please KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT.......we need more of these kinds of tough questions posed to the President in his pressers......eventually he'll have to learn how to actually answer rather than just declare "I already answered that"---when clearly he had not.

Chuck

I appreciate your strong rebuttal but when even the President jokes about the press and their love affair doesn't that mean you could consent to the comments, even a bit. I think it's more than just honeymoon and I think if you step back and look at MSNBC, it is the reverse of FOX. I see no difference between the two exept Fox is right wing and MSNBC is left wing ( I mean MSNBC has 2 or 3 left wing radio hosts and Fox has 1 or 2). So, please, at least acknowledge that MSNBC is very left oriented and pro-Obama. The funny part to me is that the press shows such disdain for the attitude at Fox but when MSNBC does the same thing, not a peep is heard. Chuck, I was pleading with you that you and your colleagues take the role the press is meant to have and ask tough questions. Do you think the press is questioning the current administration with the same attitude and aggressiveness that was shown to Bush? I hear you on the first six months but that doesn't make it right. I love that during the election all these things Bush did were so wrong (like running deficits) are now ok in the current administration because they occurred in the last administration. We voted for CHANGE and candidate Obama always talked about getting the deficit down and the budget under control. Chuck, thanks for letting us opine, please just consider one cowboy's comments and ask the tough questions. One other suggestion (sorry) , can NBC go back and look at the past big government initiatives and how we thought the spending woudl go, including the IRAQ war, vs. the outcomes. I think that type of accountability would be helpful to the public. Thanks.

Chuck 4.8---my question in 4.0 was not about the press corps specifically or even NBC News.....though unfortunately it's clear that's how you read it. My question was about the broader term "media"---and First Read imho is an enormous offender in terms of the stark difference in tone in its coverage of Obama vs. Bush. They are way too rah rah for Obama over there. That's why I asked the question about whether it's his personal popularity driving that rah rah tone but I guess being a part of MSNBC that should be expected.....and ABC giving prime time to Obama to make his infomercial about healthcare with no participation from the opposition also lends credence to the charges (beyond what Drudge or others are saying) that the media is indeed biased toward this president.

Chuck

Just watched you interview Gibbs on Hardball. Some good tough questions but , and I admit I am a broken record on this, please alwasy ask about the deficit. The deficit will have more impact on long term US ability to do things than anything we are considering today like don't ask don't tell or Gitmo. Just look at California; it is a disaster about to blow. If we can't float the future trillions of debt, then all this other stuff is nada tostada. Thanks.

Chuck,

You had to come back when I was away for the weekend. Sorry I missed the fun and I'm sure I'm too late to chime in but that never stops me. A few points:

1. Your network has deliberately blurred the lines between hard news, infotainment (Today) and propaganda (MSNBC) so don't tell us it's our fault if some people can't tell the difference.

2. I have heard 3 guys asking tough questions at the president's press conferences. Jake Tapper who throws them hard and fast, Major Garrett who seems to be so frustrated he is starting to throw bean balls, and some guy I think is from CBS and, sorry, almost forgot, you asked a tough one last time too. So 4 guys out of how many? Then the president puts in a plant. You reported it but you guys ripped President Bush to shreds (justifiably) when he tried that.

3. Drudge and Limbaugh aren't your problems. It's funny you complain about people blaming the media for everything then turn around and blame Limbaugh or Fox for all of your problems. That makes as much sense as Tad, Nicky and Peyton blaming me for you being AWOL for a couple weeks. Mean old Santa Claus looking guy scares off the D.C. reporter. I'm forced to defend your manhood.

4. I hope you take some of this as constructive feedback. I appreciate the fact you do this and have a suggestion/request I will post on your next thread or whatever you young folks call it.

Glad you're back. Those kind hearted liberal/progressives can stop kicking the crazy old man now.

NBC/CBS/ABC all proove the very "love affair" w/the president of our nation.  The 3 'networks' are blatant beyond belief w/their negative jibes/comments at anything that is not "obama-fied".   I'd like to know when people will remember to stand for what is right and good and honorable, and quit taking the low road, and continue to use the blame -game to excuse the inexcusable.   If one would honestly listen (quite a word to non-conservatives or those who blindly follow mr. obama) to Fox, one would hear many issues discussed, from many sides. It scares me, that those who "VOTED" for mr. obama continue to be intensely and immediately loudly defensive of everything he had done, and even all the things he has promised, and now gone back on! 

where's the truth?   it's not in the present administration, and the fact that people are so quick to put the smack-down on anyone who has the fortitude to even question, is a very scary position to do to our country.

Amen and amen. Nancy Pelosi is a most negative and harmful person to have such power over this country. It is inconceivable as to why she was ever put in such a position. It would serve ALL of us to have her step down immediately.

3rd time's a charm.

Here's hoping.

Chuck

I appreciate your comments and as one of the more conservative people on here, I find it incredible that the Judge's critics can only argue against her based on some speeches and comments. With the exception of the discrimination case in NH, I haven't hear a litany of "errors" she made. Seems to me the republican/conservatives are just kicking up dirt because that is what happens in these situations (ie Roberts and Alito). It's sad that both parties waste time on this non-sense. She seems like she has earned the spot on the court and we should move on and focus on the deficit, and legislation. If she was a radical, then there would be alot more than 1 or 2 opinions to point out. I'm glad the debate has moved away from her; I think she gets confirmed pretty easily (at least I hope).

Good questions, Tad.

I have REALLY missed you guys the past few weeks. This vine has developed an ugly, cynical, finger-pointing undertone lately that I don't care for. Glad you're back. Never leave again. :)

Thank you Peyton ... I always enjoy reading your questions and observations. I might not always chime in, but I always read what you have to say. When the TN gov races heats up, I'll definitely be asking your take on it. I like and agree with your post regarding Sonia Sotomayor; hopefully Chuck addresses it on this go around.

Have a great weekend! I promise not to leave :)

Peyton,

The ugly, cynical undertone chimes in. Please check out my question on health care below. Is Jim Cooper one of yours and do you know if he actually said what Mr. Ryan alleges?

Thanks

I had no idea Jim Cooper was a Democrat. ;)

See, cynicism can be funny.

Hey Tad, Peyton and Nicky,

He's baaack.

I told you Chuck was a big boy. He isn't going to be scared off by an old guy who looks like Santa Claus and has a warped sense of humor.

Dude,

I'm serious. I think he has a shot at king.

Go Longhorns:

I think there are various ways to pay for a public health care plan. Here are a few:

1) How about tapping into some of the profit and executive compensation that the big insurance companies are receiving? Why should they get rich off of American's health care?

2) How about reducing the "humanitarian aid" that ends up outside our borders and using that money for "humanitarian aid" here at home? In the end, isn't that what health care is?

3) End the war in Iraq. It was the wrong war for the wrong reasons and is costing us way too much in lives and money.

4) Increase the highest tax bracket. Reagan reduced the tax bracket of the richest Americans during his presidency from 70% to somewhere in the 40% range. W took it one step further and reduced it to 35%. 35% is the highest tax bracket in the US!! Don't you think the richest American's can cough up a little more than that on income exceeding $500K?? Even if the top tier were to move to everything over $1.0Million, it would reduce the deficit exponentially. And I'm not supporting going back to 70%, but 40 - 45% seems doable.

5) Eliminate the tax credits large corporations receive for shipping jobs overseas. In fact, if they do outsource jobs overseas, tax their behinds even more!!! We need jobs here so more people are paying taxes (thereby reducing the deficit.)

It's time for health care reform now. We as a nation have waited way too long as it is. The time is now. As LBJ said about civil rights, "If not now, when?" Now works for me.

I know that many will think I'm a left wing liberal (yes I AM!) or a socialist (is that really a bad thing?) or just a plain whack job. But that's okay. You asked and I've given you my answer. One of many you will receive, I'm sure. Look, other countries can provide quality health care for their citizens, why can't the US. Aren't we supposed to be the best country in the world in which to live?? Let's make sure that statement can stand up to the comparison of many countries that have universal health care available to all.

Cdv,

Do you support the president's position that tort reform is off the table? I see two huge costs in our current system that add no value (there are obviously more). The first is ambulance chasers who not only take significant portions of settlements meant for victims but also increase the cost of liability insurance. The unholy alliance between insurance companies and lawyers frequently encourages payouts just to stay out of court. The second is extraordinary bonuses paid to insurance company execs. Executives get bigger bonuses by creating systems that deny consumers payment for legitimate claims. Neither is a necessary cost of medical service nor do they increase the value of the services we receive.

Hi John -

Thanks for your comments. I don't know about you, but everytime I've visited a doctor over the past 20 years or so, I always had to sign an arbitration agreement so that if there is malpractice, it can be settled out of court. You're absolutely right however, that lawyers and the insurance industry are getting way too much of our money that could be used to fund health care reform. And putting limits on some of the huge payouts would go a long way in getting current costs back into this stratosphere.

And don't even get me started on the huge bonuses execs receive in every sector in the country. Sure, give the big wigs 20x or 30x base pay of the average worker in that particular company, but when you get up to 300x or 400x that is just insane. Personnaly, I think $20 million/year in compensation (i.e. earned income) is obscene. Who needs to earn that much money?? Shouldn't $1 - 5 million be more than enough?? That speaks to the increase in the top rate of income tax I mentioned above.

What I would really like to see is that the medical insurance giants either go away entirely or become non-profits and have to put all of their slush funds into R&D to find cures for diabetes, cancer, aids, ms, md, etc. Because in the end, finding cures will reduce costs and improve quality of life.

Thanks for askin'

All-

Good and reasonable discussion. I worked at a very large bank for many years (one of the evil tarp banks) and the compensation levels and lifestyles (jets, dining rooms, offices, bonuses, etc. ) are crazy. I agree. That said, we live in a world where movie stars get $20 million for a movie role so seems to me the whole thing is bonkers...not to mention the perks our pals in congress get and they work for us!!!!!!!! I mean for all of them to have multi-million $$ pensions and the healthcare they have after being our public servants seems odd to me. I wish the decision makers would take time, or Chuck maybe MSNBC could do this, but take the time to work through the numbers, root cause of rising costs, and real benefits of options. my concern is that when FDR passed the New Deal and LBJ passed the war on poverty, the costs today are incredibly higher than they ever contemplated. I'd love for everyone to get healthcare, etc. but I am concerned that we are putting ourselves at grave risk if one day a foreign government decided not to buy our bonds, what would we do. I need a drink!!!!!!!!!!!

Go Longhorns,

Got any Don Julio?

When it comes to liqour and sharing, I am definately a liberal. Please take all you want and have a great time. Although, I do prefer a good italian or french red if at all possible. I figure my liberal buds will appreciate that I am looking to the europeans for something.

Longhorns,

Re. Your comments in 15.4: You’re dead on as usual. Why the rush when we haven’t even identified the root causes of the problems? I’ve never been a fan of the “Do something even if it’s wrong” school. Is the president's goal to meet a timetable or to implement effective, long-term solutions? I didn’t like the do it without thinking approach during the bailout and I like it even less now because the consequences of errors will be devastating. Is the president’s score card or check list more important than what is best for the country? Does he want to be able to say he accomplished more in the first year of his presidency than any president in history? If so, we don’t need a president who thinks his agenda and legacy are more important than the good of the country and that’s what we should tell him. Effective analysis by someone in the media or congress or anywhere for that matter could help get us on the right track to real solutions. Simply providing a platform for one side or the other to shout their positions, as the media seems to be doing now isn’t likely to solve anything.

What say you Chuck? Is the media up to providing thorough analysis of the problems or are you just there to referee the wrestling match?

Chuck,

Would you be willing to put those questions to the President?

Your summation that "It seems there needs to be a lot more regulation of health care..." is, in my opinion, spot on. But, How do you set up regulation that works, that won't be deregulated in 20 years and the whole thing falls apart again? Have we learned that lesson yet? Sometimes I wonder.

Speaking of regulation, how closely does the new regulation for Wall Street and the banking industry compare to "re-instating" the Glass-Stegal Act, if at all?? Are we making real steps toward protecting ourselves from this kind of hit again?

During the campaign, Candidate Obama spoke of repealing the tax cuts for companies that out-source jobs overseas. When do you think he'll address this? Year 3 or 4?

I tend to agree with you about Romney; I think he's slowly emerging as the frontrunner. What's been interesting is that he's risen to the top of the field not so much by what he's done, but by what he hasn't done (i.e., he hasn't screwed up in any way like some others have). Romney may get the nomination by process of elimination.

Haley Barbour looks to be a top-tier contender, but I still say he's overrated as a national candidate. In fact, I think he would be a disaster if he were their candidate (winning the South, but few states elsewhere). I also think Palin would be a disaster, but you'd have to put her in the top tier as far as winning the nomination is concerned.

My take on the others: Jindal's too young, Huckabee probably doesn't want to spend the countless months fund-raising, Christ is too moderate to win a GOP primary, and Thune's probably going to wait till 2016. Gingrich could be a factor, although I tend to doubt he'll run. Tim Pawlenty is a bit of a wild card.

If I were laying odds, I'd have Romney leading the pack as of now, but it's still so early. The only thing for certain is that we won't be seeing a Sanford/Ensign ticket any time soon!

mjs and Tad,

Your friends in the media will never let a Mormon get a sniff of the presidency. Throw in conservative and the New York media will be on him like ants on a honey covered ham if he gets the nomination. During the Republican primary did you ever see an interview with Mr. Romney where his religion wasn't mentioned? If Romney's the candidate you can be assured you will hear more questions about cults and polygamy (with in depth specials at 9:00) than economic policy. You only have to scare about 2% of the people.

let's hope the republicans have someone that no one has really focused on emerge. I think President Obama demonstrates that having a short track record is best so you can't get caught up in previous comments/votes, etc. I have to tell you, though, that the repubs need to come up with someone good. Bush and his spending was so awful; I really think we could fix healthcare and get everyone covered if we will step back and evaluate all the programs and get the budget balanced. anyways, will be interesting, but for now we really have to stop the out of control spending. I just shake my head when I hear the current administration saying no more deficit spending and then they come out with all this spending and tax. i am concerned.

Tad,

I don't disagree with most of what you said. The flip flop on abortion tells me he is a guy who will play to his audience to a certain extent which, to me, is a character issue. You are also right that some on the Christian right would be against him because he is a Mormon. Unfortunately they may not know any people who practice the religion so are susceptible to whatever the media tells them. That's why I said you only have to scare about 2% of the people. That's all it takes to win an election, the folks in your party and in the media know that and that's why his religion would be topic number one. I think he has an impressive resume and could be a great president. You never know until they get into office. It would be nice to get someone in office who understands how business works before President Obama drives what's left of our industries out of the country.

Hi Tad,

Do you think it's just a coincidence that Chuck has been MIA the past 3 weeks, or do you think his absence has something to do with the 38 versions of the same absurd question he keeps getting?

After skimming some of the ridiculous statements I've read on this thread, I was wondering why Chuck would spend his precious free time defending his credibility to people who are already convinced that the media has no professional integrity. This was supposed to be a discussion about the current political environment and events, not a forum for criticizing Chuck Todd and the media.

Hopefully he's just been busy, and not ignoring us because he's grown so tired of the stupidity. I've never liked group punishment, and that's what this feels like to me. I wonder why he can't just answer the questions that are relevant and ignore the rest. What do you think, Tad?

Hi Peyton -

He's usually pretty good at eventually answering all the threads, but yes, he's been MIA for a few weeks. I would assume his schedule is very demanding; I'm frankly surprised he even has time for something like this.

I'm guessing some of the broken-record questions & baseless accusations by some of the posters become a mild annoyance to him, or at least they would to me. After all, how many times can you keep hearing the same complaint that the media hates Republicans, or that the only reason Obama won was because of the media? It gets old, and nothing Chuck says will change these peoples' minds. Fair enough, I suppose. The only ones that I really dislike are the people who question Chuck's honesty and professional integrity, or his motivations. I think these people are way off base. It wouldn't surprise me if he's a little more selective on which threads he responds to in the future, especially ones that are accusing and mean-spirited in nature. He certainly doesn't need to waste his time defending his credibility.

Maybe Chuck will chime in on this and we'll get his take.

If Chuck Todd is intimidated by the relatively tame comments seen here he won't last long in Washington. Is there any objective analysis that says NBC is not biased toward Obama? I haven't seen any.

George,

Once an objective analyst stated their opinion that NBC was not biased you would then label the objective analyst a subjective analyst no? Out of curiousity do you have any authorities you consider objective? Who's word do you take as a fair an balanced reading of the situation?

Casey,

I shouldn't have said objective. I haven't seen any analysis that says the networks don't give more positive coverage to the current president than to any other president they compare him to. Any of the major poling companies would be fine but just good accurate reporting would be the best way to show no bias.

Chuck,

You won't believe this because you are obviously biased...No wait. That's your line. Sorry.

I get most of my T.V. news from NBC nightly news, Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday. Beyond that I use the internet because, like Alaska, the inland northwest doesn't have a lot of good daily newspapers. I think I am objective but freely admit my opinions are colored by my prejudices and may cause me to watch for examples of media bias more closely. You assume your critics are parroting someone else as if we have no ability to independently observe and comment. If that is what you believe you are dead wrong. Finally, listen to your dad. He's right.

John Oaks 21.8---I just want to say I appreciate this comment---frankly---I was more than a little surprised how personally Chuck took my original question on this subject in comment 4.0. Makes one think he doth protest too much. Chuck I know you got a new gig these days....but your picture is still right up top of First Read which is without question in its tone rah rah Obama headquarters no matter what you say to the contrary. I read it every day and the tone it takes in its coverage of Obama vs. Bush is striking and was at the foundation of my original question in 4.0. PS---despite what Chuck said in his rebuttal to me and others who brought up media bias---I do not listen to Rush and I am not a regular Drudge reader and frankly I'm surprised that Chuck would blame Rush for accusations of media bias toward Obama. That's laughable to me particularly after the whole Obamacare infomercial on ABC.

Willie

Well said and much less obnoxious than my questions/comments. We need a strong press.

While it is well said, I dispute the foundation of the question. Can you define "soft ball" questions, and maybe since you are such an authority on the rating of question difficulty, maybe you could share with us some of your "hard ball" questions that you would like to see the president answer. I assure you Chuck aint afraid of stumping Obama, he'd probably relish it.

So MSM and Chuck can question politicians and everyone else' honesty and professional integrity but the public can't question the press? I don't think that MSM is above reproach especially in light of their major failures in covering the run up to the Iraq war, torture, Katrina, the financial meltdown and so on and so on. I like Chuck but I've have noticed a change in his reporting. During the campaign, he used to correct Joe S. on Morning Joe's spin and lies. Now, he no longer does that, Chuck side steeps the questionable facts Joe presents and just plays along with the jokey humor.

MSM is a clique that bands together irregardless of the truth. Just yesterday the WH press corp all banded together to throw out conspiracy theories and lies because they were so upset that Nico from Huffington Post got called on by the President during his press conference. The Washington press corps are becoming syncopates and I rather not have Chuck fall into this trap, even though he is showing signs that he already has.

Who watches the watchers?

Tad

Great points but one question. By "mean spirited" do you mean like calling him a "troll" like Chris Matthews calls Dick Cheney or stupid/dumb like all the press did of GW Bush, or like calling all of them liars and killers that we heard all through the last election? I don't think any rhetoric on this thread has reached that shrill tone. For me personally, I appreciate Chuck providing this opportunity to speak up like we get to in America. My 2 cents was meant to call attention to the fact that our country is spending a tremendous amount of money and there is little "pushback" by the press. For example, the house is voting on a huge energy bill today that will raise our taxes tremendously and all the media is talking about Micheal Jackson. Or I have heard, but not much, that there was a big riot and "put down" in Iran but can't seem to find out much about how the protests are going on. I don't focus this criticism on just the "liberal" press, fox is 24/7 Micheal jackson too. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Go Longhorns:

You are so correct. MSM has 24 hours to coverage everything. But they don't. We don't hear anything about Iraq or Afghan- just when there are explosions. No reporters has done a story on what is in the energy bill that will be voted on today by the House. Reporters are either lying or confused about the discussion on whether to tax health care benefits. Congress is in discussion to limit the tax benefit on those who buy expensive health care or "Cadillac plan" valued at $17,000 or more. But because MSM loves to peg a president as a flip flopper, they are saying Obama is open to backing the health care plan McCain championed during the campaign. First of all, Obama is not open to the taxing of Cadillac plans put wants to drawback the percentage rich folks can claim for charitable contributions. 2. McCain' plan would of affected every one. In McCain's plan, your health care benefit would have been treated as salary but you would get a tax credit for your health care plan. But the credit was $8,000 and an average family plan is around $12,000. So people would of ended up being taxed around $4,000 more for their health care plan. I think MSM constantly conflates issues to either have a vice vs versa narrative or a politican is lying. There are so many real cases of rampant lying by politicans and bad blood- they don't have to make something out of nothing. If only they investigate things. Sanford's affair came out of admission, Blago and his corruption came out because of a Special Prosecutor press conference (even though the Chicago Tribune was a target of a shakedown by Blago). News isn't investigated anymore, it just blows up in our faces and onto our TV screens- and every reporter either acts shocked or chime in on some small tidbit. And it makes me think, if you are shocked - you should not be a reporter and then if you had some tidbit of information, why didn't you investigate it and report on it.

I think it's unfair to act as though since the cable news networks are on all day, that they have 24 hours of programming to fully explain issues. That would require you to watch a cable news channel for 24 hours straight and that's only if you want to watch one days worth of news. They only produce about 15 minutes of headlines to be repeated and updated throughout the day, so people can simply tune in for a few minutes, see what's going on, then tune out. They have extremely limited time in reality. That said, I agree they need to get more substantive and like every other media critic out there the cable channels need to acknowledge that there is more to a debate than put both sides on and let them give their speil. There are FACTS that can be considered, if only we could get the two sides to agree what was fact...