Washington Journal

C-Span is a wonderful idea. Too bad it doesn't reach more people. It's show Washington Journal begins at 5:00 a.m. where I live. Hence I don't catch it that often. Yesterday, however, I caught a segment with Reuel Marc Gerecht, taking comments from listeners. He was amazing patient giving scholarly answers to harebrained seminar callers, some of whom were reading statements. He only got one call asking a genuine question. The rest were people pushing their own explanation of world events, generally built around a conspiracy theory involving George W. Bush. A few were right wingers with their own conspiracy theories. I'd have told them they were flaming idiots and gone to the next caller.

C-Span is, as I say, a wonderful concept for presenting events as they happen, especially in Congress and Washington, and permitting the people watching to response. The problem is that it attracts idiots like a dead carcass attracts flies. As it bounces from Democrat to Republican callers, the bitter invective and differences in assumptions are amazing.

As a news medium, C-Span is about as pure as it can be. Its hosts never insert their own views. I have no idea how Brian Lamb votes, and I think that most of his viewers think he votes with them. He's like the Eliza computer program, which merely reflects the user's comments in the form of questions which elicit more, sort of a psychoanalyst to the nation.

Listening to Mr. Gerecht, I had a profound sense of failure. He patiently explained his observations and analysis over and over, albeit in language that goes on and on until you're not sure you know what his point is. Toward the end, an older woman called in and accused him of evasion and obfuscation, demanding that he just answer the questions. He had no response. I agreed with the caller. I've read several long articles by Mr. Gerecht that discuss, analyze, consider, review, etc. until the reader is unsure of what the author's conclusions are, or at least what his argument is.

None of this mattered, however, because the callers were focused on their own arguments, not his.

The next hour featured Ralph Neas, he of the crooked eyebrow. I changed channels.

Right now, I'm listening to Michael Medved joust with callers whom he has invited to explain why we're in Iraq, if not for the reasons Bush has oultlined. It's like shooting skeet, and Medved never misses. The answers are as predictable as clay pidgeons: to steal/control oil; to benefit his family and friends in the oil business; to divert attention from our failure to capture bin Laden; to avenge his father; to carry out his vendetta against Saddam. Medved's object is to show his listeners the emptiness of leftist claims, but of course, their minds are never changed. I don't know whether he's accomplishing anything but heartening conservatives. This approach only works with an occasional honest individual who thinks it over and is willing to follow logic.