(Link to story and you can also launch the interview)

Anybody see this? I was embarassed for Cruise personally. Either Matt Lauer was being respectful, or he isn't a very good interviewer.

Cruise called Lauer "glib," and told him that he shouldn't be talking about the benefits of Ritalin without knowing the history behind it. Lauer wasn't doing that, but Cruise was just a jerk to Matt, I thought.

A good cross-examiner could have torn Cruise to shreds, but Lauer was either being polite or he doesn't know how to argue.

Cruise said he always had doubts about psychiatry, and then said once he studied it, he knew it was bogus. Lauer should have called him on perhaps not being the most unbiased source in the world. Descartes set out to prove the existence of god and lo and behold, he did, even though his proofs are as faulty as an I-75 construction project.

As well, Cruise kept saying that he had studied up on all the drugs and research that goes into their development and distribution and has come to the conclusion that they are harmful. What Lauer never, ever questioned Cruise on is what type of publications he used for his study, where he got them, how he tested for truth, etc. The giant assumption in Cruise's argument was that the things he read were medically accurate and unbiased and that he understood them and was representing their contents accurately. Lauer said it was "impressive" to hear Cruise talk, but a good actor could tell him that the moon is on fire, impressively - sounding believable is what actors do for a living.

Call me cynical, but I would have a hard time believing the average person can even begin to grasp modern medicine, yet alone someone who would be doing it in their spare time away from movie sets.