Where the men are like men, and the women are too

Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Clarence Page, Mort Zuckerman, and Tom Rogan in The McLaughlin Group (1982)

Ezra Klein in The McLaughlin Group (1982)

Frederic W. Barnes, Michael Barone, Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Jack Germond, Morton Kondracke, John McLaughlin, Lawrence O'Donnell, Clarence Page, Mort Zuckerman, Jay Carney, James Warren, Monica Crowley, Rich Lowry, Larry Kudlow, Timothy Carney, Michelle Bernard, Susan Ferrechio, and Tom Rogan in The McLaughlin Group (1982)

John McLaughlin

Eleanor Clift

Pat Buchanan

This PBS news/talk-show presents several journalists involved in spirited discussions of topics in current events. The group is led in round-table discussions by John McLaughlin.

The McLaughlin Group

Shouting Match or Civil Discussion?

&quot;The McLaughlin Group&quot; was the first of the political &quot;round table&quot; 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&apos;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&apos;t people entitled to hold an opinion differing from that of the panelists?  Why not focus on the issues rather than personalities? Aren&apos;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&apos;s &quot;party line.&quot;

 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&apos; right to hold differing opinions.  We have freedom of speech in America.  But obviously not on this show.

"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.

bappamtv

The McLaughlin Group

🎭 Top Cast

🎬 Technical Specs

🏷️ Keywords

🎯 Categories

⭐ Featured Review

💡 Did You Know?

📖 Synopsis