Bret: Agree again. Too much of the news media seems to be about giving audiences what they want — or think they want — rather than what editors and reporters think our audiences ought to know if they want to be well-informed. It’s demand driven. And most of the demand is to cover the same subjects again and again: Trump-Mueller-Trump-Putin-Trump-Pelosi-Trump-Stormy and so on. Try writing a column about China’s monstrous mistreatment of its Muslim minority, for instance, and see how much reader traffic that gets.

Too often we wind up just feeding the beast. The result is an impoverished news diet and far too much shouting.

Gail: Speaking of shouting, I don’t think we’ll be conversing again until Debate Week. How are the Democrats looking to you?

Bret: Well, I worry that Joe Biden might be reprising the self-immolation tactics he’s been honing all these years. There he was, presumptive front-runner, and then he opened his mouth. So unnecessary!

That’s good news for Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg and probably Kamala Harris, though I doubt it will move the needle much for Bernie Sanders. It’s a shame that Michael Bennet and Amy Klobuchar haven’t done better, because they are both thoughtful moderates and could be formidable contenders in a general election. I’m a bit surprised that Beto O’Rourke seems to have achieved so little traction, but his poll numbers are stuck in low digits along with Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand. Maybe it’s because they communicate little more than calculated ambition.

Gail: Well, it’s hard to have presidential prospects if you don’t calculate.

Bret: As for the other 13 or so candidates, I think we should amalgamate them into a single name: Hickenblasio. Or Swalbard.

The bottom line is that I’m not seeing a candidate who is anything like a slam-dunk for beating Trump. I realize a lot can and will happen over the next year, but the field seems to me as weak as it is wide. Where am I wrong?