FoolThemAll

Nothing wrong with it? I'd agree that it wasn't "over the line", whatever that means, but it certainly struck me as intellectually lazy. What's the point of a panel discussion with no disagreement? There's no challenge in preaching to the choir. If they were going to go that route, they should've just stuck with a single speaker and removed the false semblance of a debate.

To the OP:

I got the impression, though, that the reporter didn't expect a lack of dissent, what with her "no one's going to defend them?" question. Am I just being gullible there?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.