Well, if you haven't heard already, CNN's Crossfire is going off the air after twenty-three years. A pretty good run for a television show. I can't think of many that have been on longer. But what was it that finally did them in? Many people cite Jon Stewart's awesome appearance [.wmv] as the last straw.
Here's L.A. Times' Op-Ed / Editorial Page editor Michael Kinsley's take on the end of Crossfire. He even calls Jon Stewart America's "philosopher-king."
It is certainly true that if intellectual sophistication is what you're looking for, the New York Review of Books might be a better choice than the McLaughlin Group. And if, as a journalist, you want to explore and analyze an issue, the New Republic or the Los Angeles Times editorial page (two other places I have worked) are of course better forums than "Hannity and Colmes" or "Hardball."
But the conversation of democracy is conducted on multiple levels, and there is a trade-off. An article in the New Republic is a topical lotion on the body politic that may or may not penetrate down to the vital organs. An appearance on "Bill O'Reilly" is an injection straight to the heart. (To pursue this tortured analogy, decorous broadcast venues like Charlie Rose or Terry Gross' "Fresh Air" are like Lasik surgery, or maybe liposuction, or … heck, I give up.)
The conceit that there are exactly 2.0 sides to every question, one "left" and one "right," is a genuine flaw of "Crossfire"-type shows. So is their Groundhog Day quality: The argument goes on forever, nobody's mind is ever changed. But this format has a great advantage over other variations of TV talking-head journalism in terms of intellectual honesty.
And speaking of political talk shows, on Meet the Press in 10 hours, John Kerry will be the guest. Let's see what this quitter has to say for himself in his first television interview since quitting on America.
Comments