The object of this program should be to disseminate  as clearly as possible the topics that are either not discussed at all in the complicit corporate press and media, nor are they well defined but premediatively suppressed.  I think that most of us that are looking for a higher calibre of informed information would very much like to see a change in this constant harping of debate turn into dialogue instead.  There should be more etiquette for this type of program and I am sure that you were create more viewers than less.  It does an injustice to the concept of those who actually created the program in the first place.  I look forward to a more positive change.

I agree with 'Alan' and 'david peri'.

'Cross talk' is an excellent programme, but I believe the format is in need of an overhaul.

I understand that the fundamental rule is for guests to break in whenever they like. Unfortunately, the resulting cross-talk very often creates confusion which becomes frustrating for the attentive listener. This is clearly exacerbated by the varying delays in electronic communications. You probably lose many viewers as a result.

I suggest that you ditch the 'break-in' rule, and appoint Peter Lavelle 'dictator' - hopefully a benevolent one!

Why can't they just let one person talk at a time interrupti ng each other "Lee Smith" no one can follow the conversatio nI would also like to have the show on for 60 minutes not the 30 minutes  ;we get now
I have a question Peter might like to asked at some point how can 1.5/1.7 present  of the US population more or less, have a totalstrangle h old over the American policy -making system.