the interview with milibank wasn't very compelling; essentially, it asked, "why cover the campaign if romney is presumed to be the victor?" or, put another way, why cover the american league championship series if the yankees are going to win?" ridiculous. the campaign press has been wrong about the GOP script at every turn. another tidbit today: santorum has pulled ahead of romney ... but why bother covering that? http://bit.ly/wc96rO

I was struck by the treatment of Chris Hayes as an ordinary journalist. I won't claim that this segment was wholly devoted to the sort of anti-Republican screed that MSNBC's prime time newstalk coverage supplies. But still, can anyone ever imagine Brooke Gladstone doing a routine general-media-outlook story with Rich Lowry? With Fred Barnes? With Bill Kristol? With Jonah Goldberg? With John Fund? With James Taranto? With Mona Charen? With Laura Ingram?

I can certainly see Brooke talking with any of those journalists from the right; that is, I can picture Brooke interviewing them, more or less adversarially, performing a kind of journalistic fencing match. Not, as in this case with Chris Hayes, doing the equivalent of having a cup of coffee with a friend, which is what I always picture when Brooke is talking with Hayes, or when Terry Gross is interviewing Al Franken, or Tavis Smiley is interviewing any of a dozen of his political/media friends, etc., etc.

These interviews with Milbank and Chris Hayes are a waste of time. One of the worst of your shows. It's insulting to the intelligence or your audience. I feel like I just read Time Magazine. What a joke. Do you ever make an effort to really explore a story?

This is pathetic.