[Howlin]

I am still just sitting here, shaking my head. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it.

I wonder what Brit will have to say about this tonight?

[Miss Marple]

I think Brit needs a two-hour program this evening!

[spectre]

Wow, this thread was fun...like the good ole days!

I'm hoping they will replay this interview tonight. I didn't tape it for Mr. Spectre...:~)

sw

[ArneFufkin]

Isn't it refreshing to see an interviewer who has a mastery of the issues and positions associated with his guest? To ask, like, REAL followup questions that are warranted by a particular answer? I thought Scott Pelley did an excellent job in his interview last night. Michael Medved is perhaps the best at this I've heard.

Nobody annoys me more in his interview technique than Tim Russert. He has a list of questions, all phrased in that gutless form we all know so well: "Here's what your critics say about this plan." "How do you respond to officials in your own Pentagon who have disagreed and said ...". "There are those in your own party who have blasted your proposal, saying ..." It basically presents the opposing talking point or position disguised as a question, and makes the interviewee continually defend himself/herself against a partisan charge rather than present their own poisition in a proactive way. Which can then, fairly, be challenged through an informed follow-up. Nah, when the guest is done defending his position against one baseless charge, Tim moves on to the next charge. It's a slimy, lazy and manipulative process.