Should a Major interviewer on Programs like Meet the Press or

[Winterblues]

Face the Nation or the other one with George Stephonoplous/Jake Tapper (sp) allow their guest to make blatant claims that have no bearing to the truth without questioning it. I watched Jake Tapper yesterday allow McConnel to go on and on about how the Health care Bill was a HUGE Government takeover of the Health Care Industry and how Democrats never offered to work with Republicans at all on any issue. Also how the GREAT Majority of Americans are against Health Care Reform.. On and On, one LIE after another and not once was he ever questioned over it..IMO it discredits the entire show if they allow LIES to be uncontested and in fact encouraged....

[rfranklin]

1. Its part of the political circus...

and the entertainment value for the talking heads is watching who can con the rubes with the biggest bullshit lies. Truth is not their objective.

[classysassy]

2. The sponsors

are in control of those shows.The host or hostess do as they are told.

[bertman]

3. The answer to your question is "No", but they do it all the time--as long as the person

spouting the lies is a Republican or Corporatist. If a "liberal" makes a statement it has to be qualified, re-qualified, footnoted, annotated, and documented twelve ways to Sunday.

It's just American Corporate Media. Not likely to change anytime soon.

I try not to watch. Isn't good for my blood pressure.

REC.

[el_bryanto]

4. what the others said- and as a practical matter - would you book yourself on show where the host

challenged you on factual matters? Particularly if, like McConnel, an accurate reading of the facts was likely to not support your point of view?

And what would happen to a show that had no guests?

Bryant

[freddie mertz]

5. No, but they always do. The news hosts are themselves ignorant and complicit.

So what do you expect?

[librechik]

6. I think it's outrageous and arrogant, but they don't give a shit what we think

They're only there to keep the Cocktail Party going--that's the only one that has any power in DC, apparently.

[Myrina]

7. ... sorta off topic but I think anyone interviewing or being interviewed ...

... should have to disclose their affiliation, ie - not just "James Carville is a democratic strategist" but specifically who's side of the issues (or payroll) any given commentator is talking from. That way we can recognize codified talking points and a mini-infomercial when we see it.

[goclark]

8. I also think they should say that James is married to Mary

Then listeners would all know that he sleeps with the"enemy."

So many people that I talk to don't know the connections

Mica and her dad and on and on

[hvn_nbr_2]

9. Answer to your question:

Q: Should a Major interviewer allow their guest to make blatant claims that have no bearing to the truth without questioning it?

A: Only if they want to be considered a journalist instead of a shill.

[clear eye]

10. Well of course they shouldn't but w/o a Fairness Doctrine,

how do you stop it? You'd have to get a critical # of listeners to go to the FCC and complain that the station showing the program was not doing its job to keep citizens informed, and you'd have to do that for every station running the program--an impossibility.

Basically, repealing the Fairness Doctrine deregulated lying on TV and radio,

[Winterblues]

11. The Fairness Doctrine only applied to Broadcast TV or Radio.

If it is on cable or satellite it wouldn't apply anyway.. Also all it did was guarantee the other side got to respond or at least have the same amount of air time. It really didn't do anything about the LIES.

[TicketyBoo]

12. Well, this WAS

on a broadcast network (ABC) as is Meet the Press (NBC) and Face the Nation (CBS).

Bob Schieffer is tops in my book.

[clear eye]

13. That's b/c it was repealed before cable!

How do you know what would have happened if it still existed when cable became pervasive?

On edit: "all it did was guarantee the other side got to respond or at least have the same amount of air time"?! Do you think that had no effect on the ability or even willingness of stations to run hours and hours of lying material like rw radio or Fox News?

Frankly your assumptions flabberghast me.

[spanone]

14. this is how media bias works....it's not what they do, it's what they don't do.

[gratuitous]

15. Keep in mind what you're watching

If you're looking for fact-based reporting, that's someone else's job. St. Tim Russert laid down the ground rules for all the opinion show hosts: Off the record was his default setting when he picked up the phone. Politicians knew they could try out their latest line of nonsense with Russert and get it vetted before going public with it.

David Gregory (I think it was) is continuing that fine tradition, by publicly stating that it's not his job to know any facts and he doesn't invite guests onto his show to be confronted with facts, especially the ones that contradict whatever his guest wants to say. Reality can take a hike when the camera is on Dancing David. Gregory used to bear some resemblance to a real live journalist, but somewhere along the line he found he could make a shitload more money for doing approximately 97% less work. Who wouldn't want that?

The purpose of these shows is not to inform viewers.