Attack of the Shills

If anything, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” watch too many of those darned 24-hour cable news programs. Call it a vice: Some people commit adultery, others snort copious amounts of cocaine, and we tune in to too many episodes of “Scarborough Country.”

Boy, didn’t we luck out in the vice department.

We mention this, dear reader, for a few distinct—and earnest—reasons. First, we think it’s a terrible—nay, disgraceful—habit. Such chat shows routinely dumb down their coverage, and spend far too much time on politically and intellectually nugatory fare. (Can anyone say Anna Nicole Smith?)

In addition, we also believe that these shows—whether broadcast on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, or some even more dubious network—routinely make one irredeemable error: After bringing up a given topic for discussion, they incessantly allow two mindless party hacks to comment.

You know what we mean. A dunderheaded TV host—say, the stentorian Chris Matthews—will introduce a particular subject—say, a timetable for American troop withdrawals from Iraq. So far, so good (especially if you’re deaf, and thus don’t have to endure Chris Matthews barking at you).

But then whom will Mr. Matthews introduce to debate this issue? Well, naturally, one Democratic Party strategist and one Republican Party strategist. This, of course, ineluctably leads to a completely useless and predictable conversation.

We mean, come on: These stupid party shills are downright infuriating. As you listen to them offer their boilerplate responses, you can almost see them memorizing their party’s insipid talking points backstage. You can almost see the guy behind them pulling their string to make them talk.

Ah, so the Democratic Party doofus firmly believes that setting a timetable for American withdrawal in Iraq is a wonderful idea. Gee: That’s a real shocker.

And who would have guessed it: The Republican Party boob takes the exact opposite stance. To him, it’s imperative that we don’t set a timetable. Well color us deeply surprised.

Why do they give camera time to such party-line flacks? Why not simply post a list of the parties’ respective talking points on the screen? Or maybe a taped message from Harry Reid and Trent Lott? It’d be just as compelling.

If they’re going to waste your time with these nincompoops, we think they ought to allow us, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” on the boob tube. Sure, we may be about as feminine as Ann Coulter and as mellifluous as Susan Estrich. Further, we collectively bear a striking resemblance to Noam Chomsky. But we promise we’ll be more entertaining.