After a recent contentious panel with Christopher Hitchens that dissolved into an embarrassing shouting match, Joe Scarborough delivered a little eplilogue apoligizing for the rancor:
"We can talk about-I mean, we ought to be able to talk about this like adults, instead of having this rudeness, which, I got to tell you, I mean, my mom didn't raise me that way. My dad didn't raise me that way. I can't understand people who behave that way. But I am very sorry it happened tonight. And it doesn't usually happen in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. When I first started this show, it happened once in a while. I didn't control things as well as I should have. And I apologize to you for that. But it's just not going to happen on my show tonight. It's not going to happen in the future. And I'm sorry for what you just saw...."
What does it mean when the rabble rousers themselves start to acknowledge that it's all gone too far? Might that be the beginning of the change? One can only hope.
I'm interested in examining alternate formats for these panel/pundit shows. I think the virtual talking head construct is designed to foment conflict, not to spark clarity in communication and a move toward agreement. I'd be curious to learn more about how these types of discussion shows are conducted in other countries. I know they're very common in France, but they usually involve everyone sitting on a couch or at a table together. I'd bet that face-to-face aspect results in more respectful communication.