I have a bone to pick with TV news.

Have you noticed how whenever a red/blue topic is being discussed, the news brings in individuals on both sides of the issue to debate it. They are then both allowed simultaneous access to a hot mike so the debate usually devolves into interruptions and a shouting match. Usually, the spokesmen are in different parts of the country, so it would be just as easy, and fairer to both sides, if each got an equal length of time to state their case, and then an opportunity for rebuttal; with only one microphone turned on at a time. If there was time, each could then be provided with an opportunity for summation.

When non-cultural controversies are being discussed, this latter method is usually adopted, so I am forced to conclude that "good television", not informing the public, is the dynamic here. It also tends to favor annoying commentators of the Coulter/Carville ilk, who are good at thinking on their feet and obscuring the issues, but who rarely have anything substantive to add to the debate.