Cheap, lazy, and intellectually sloppy

Reading through a blog comment thread regarding the Chris Matthews statement equating Michael Moore and Osama bin Laden, I started to wonder: Just what is the point of having shows such as Hardball and Scarborough Country on national television night after night?*

What bothers me about the Chris Matthews remark is that it's cheap, lazy, and intellectually sloppy. Sadly, that's pretty much the state of cable news "analysis" programs. There isn't a single element in these shows that is designed to actually advance a meaningful debate about any topic, and for good reason: that's not the objective of these programs.

What is the objective of the programs? Well, your theory is as good as mine. For the viewers, though, these shows are not informative and not entertaining. They're incredibly repetitive because they feature the same roster of guests week in and week out who parrot their respective group's assigned talking points.

Regardless of one's political leanings, you have to look at the format and at the hosts of these programs and wonder: this is the best that can be done?

God, I'm such a threadkiller. That's the comment I left on the thread, where the others were happily squabbling over who would or would not be suitable as an OBL comparator. Oh well.

Nobody's being fooled here. Intellectually, the hosts and the guests are not up to the challenge. Most are not even media-genic, with their irritating voices and mannerisms. And yet, this is who and what we get. Night after night after night.

But why?

*Do any of us have questions about why the FOXNews line-up exists? I thought not.