About comparitive quality:

Do you know a commercial news source with the cahones to *not* cover the OJ trial?

About an arguement for public ownership of a news source:

When your sole purpose for existance is to maximize viewership, rather than to inform, then you will make your editorial decisions in an entirely different manner. If you think these other TV sources that you list are as good, then either you haven't bothered to watch the News Hour, or you really do belong in the "tabloid" market that networks and cables cater to.

About "leftist" leanings:

I'm not sure that's true. Do you have an example of a more balanced news source? But pretty much any newsmaker who can be relatively civil can appear on the show and have his say, without editing and (time constraints, notwithstanding) without interruption. The guests are always treated with the utmost respect by the hosts.

The Gergen & Shields discussions were absolutely classic. The Shields & Gigot incarnation is nowhere as good (I really miss David Gergen [spelling his name wrong, I think]), but still it's a fairly balanced discussion.