Excerpt:Â NaÃ¯ve critter that I am, it took me quite a while to nail down the reason for my vague, continuing nagging dissatisfaction with discussions on TV. There was, I thought, something missing. I said â€œnaÃ¯veâ€ because I believed at first that the media had my interests at heart when they designed the format for what passes for discourse these days. It finally emerged and became clear to me that the media have their own best interests at heart. I know that must come as a shock to readers who beat me to that realization by several light years. Specifically what bothered me, it is now clear, is that putting two â€œtalking headsâ€ on â€“ one from the Left, one from the Right â€“ and allowing them to rebut each other is merely the first step in the process that I want. There is in the field of Philosophy a concept known as a â€œdialectic,â€ which explains how ideas progress. For those who arenâ€™t steeped in philosophy (and that includes your humble writer) the dialectic tells us that the standard route is: â€œThesis; Antithesis; Synthesis.â€ So, 1) I make a claim. 2) Your response is, â€œThatâ€™s the stupidest thing Iâ€™ve ever heard, Hyland.â€ You and I then 3) talk back and forth until we arrive at some sort of resolution of the two views. The moderator, if any, is supposed to aid the process.