The McLaughlin Group

"The McLaughlin Group" was the first of the political "round table" shows. I like the fact that they address important issues of the day, and that the group members seem to be very well-informed.

However, the show quickly gets on my nerves when the panelists constantly shout and interrupt each other. It seems like none of them ever listen to the other participants. Each of the panelists, especially Mr. McLaughlin, comes across as extremely biased and unwilling to consider any other point of view. I also don't like the episodes when all the panelists hold essentially the same views and gang up on a person in the news. They also condemn individuals who disagree with them in any way. What about the issues? Aren't people entitled to hold an opinion differing from that of the panelists? Why not focus on the issues rather than personalities? Aren't there two sides to every story?

This show sets a bad example by pushing simple answers to complex problems and by drowning out any other opinion than the week's "party line."

I would find civil discussion much more challenging to the viewers. Commentators should encourage people to think for themselves.

How about polite forums on the issues, where all sides are represented and the panelists respect other peoples' right to hold differing opinions. We have freedom of speech in America. But obviously not on this show.

This is the best political show on television. It is the only political show on PBS.

Without this show PBS would likely forced to be reborn since it generally has such a powerfully left-wing bias.

The narrator, John McLaughlin is a roughly non-partisan figure who really hosts the show. He does it in a novel manner that makes the show more interesting. He may be a Libertarian... as he falls into left and right camps with a tendency to visit the right.

Typical hosts include Pat Buchanan and others. Mr. Buchanan is obviously conservative. He has a chick counterpart who covers the left territory in an equally abrasive manner. The two co-hosts complement John McLaughlin who then puts them in their place by reminding them that they live in America, not Liberica or Conservica! It is quite interesting to watch- especially occasionally and over a period of years, even decades as I have.

Issues commonly discussed include American foreign policy and domestic security issues. It's often suggested that the U.S. get out of everywhere and focus the heck on it's own problems. This is an attitude that non-baby boomers (younger set) may find very appealing.

Speaking of that generational issues have over the years been brought up in the show. The guests tend to have very optimistic views of the future and their own take on how that future will be brighter than before.

There is a general feeling from within the show that the left is viewed as being on it's way to obsolescence with the right redefining a new left and right based on rational thought and modern life.

However it should be said that this show definitely represents all views. It is one of the only TV shows aired anywhere that really discusses all sides of the political equation.

This is a great show. McLaughlin is an intelligent host and very good at stirring debate. The guests are well known and have very insightful regarding whatever questions John McLaughlin asks them. We get a fair representation of the issue and a fairly deep understanding of it. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in news.

I used to like watching The McLaughlin Group and have seen a progression of panelists evolve throughout the years; however, I must say that I have watched it less and less since Monica Crowley joined the show. Her disdain for Eleanor Clift is palpable and her need to dominate the discussion is enabled by John McLaughlin, who is clearly besotted with her. There is a mean-spiritedness about Ms. Crowley that transcends simple participation and anyone who has heard her radio show knows that her radio persona is harshly ideological and vitriolic.

While I agree that this show is loud, opinionated and sometimes raucous, it is also clear that most of the "old guard" is fond of one another; Ms. Crowley is another matter. I do believe that she sees herself as a contender for John McLaughlin's seat if and when he retires and is tireless in her efforts to position herself at the forefront of discussion. Again, her constant interruptions of Eleanor Clift, as well as her general demeanor toward Ms. Clift are shameful, as is Mr. McLaughlin's indulgence of this.

As for Mort Zuckerman: I'm not quite sure of the reasoning behind putting him on the same side of the "table" as Eleanor Clift. While clearly very bright and obviously very successful, he tends to lean more toward the views of Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin. He's certainly not the reason, however, that I have taken this show off my DVR. To Ms. Crowley goes that honor.

I enjoy watching this show very much and have for years. McLaughlin and the four panelists are very well-read on current events (they would have to be, all being journalists) and they do show all sides of an issue (when you can make out what they are saying).

I tend to be liberal in my views but it's important to hear other peoples' opinions and I am gratified that such a forum exists. Who knew there could be five sides to a story?

I suspect, however, that unless the people who run for office watch the show too, that all of the energy, opinions and knowledge displayed really won't change anything. It's Monday-morning quarterbacking at its finest.