By Vaughn Ververs
NationalJournal.com
Friday, Jan. 7, 2005

It's not every day that a comic-turned-fake-newsman can cause the cancellation of a television program that has been on the air for more than 20 years. But, according to CNN's new chief Jonathan Klein, Jon Stewart has done just that. Just a few months after Stewart's appearance on CNN's "Crossfire," where he charged the show with providing a disservice to the nation, the cable network has pulled the plug on the legendary program.

	Rather than a battle of ideas and philosophy, "Crossfire" became a game of who could push his party line the furthest and loudest regardless of how ludicrous those positions became.
	[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Almost as amazing as Klein's willingness to trash the show using a comedian's argument is the complete lack of respect for a revolutionary concept that helped build a network and shape cable TV news -- for better and for worse. Even in the press coverage, the departure from CNN of "Crossfire" co-host Tucker Carlson trumped the demise of the show itself. Its long run deserves much more.

True, the "Crossfire" of 2004 is a far cry from the show many of us came to know and love during its heyday in the 1980s and early 90s. Exactly when the show morphed from an intelligent debate with newsmakers to a shout-fest among pundits and political operatives is difficult to pinpoint (more on that below). But the show's impact on television is impossible to understate.

It is hard to believe, but before Pat Buchanan and Tom Braden hit the air with their combative, back-and forth debates, television news was pretty devoid of argument. Sure, there were the Sunday shows, where public officials were grilled over the major issues of the day. But then, as now, those were far more polite and "civilized" forums. "Crossfire" changed all of that.

Surf through any of the cable news channels on any given day and you'll see the influence. The "Crossfire" format has become the formula for political debate. Producers and bookers take the contentious issue du jour, get someone from one side, someone from the other and, bingo, you got your segment. And those who make their case with flair and style become staples on your TV screen.

In fact, the "Crossfire" template has become so ingrained in cable news that it's easy to forget there may be any middle ground on some of the issues addressed. That, of course, is the negative impact that "Crossfire" copying has brought to us. Not satisfied with a give-and-take debate on substance, TV now gravitates to those partisans who yell the loudest, degrade the opposition the most and yield no ground.

It never had to be that way and, at least for most of the "Crossfire" run, it wasn't. As a concept, the show was just what cable TV needed in order to cover happenings in the nation's capital. After all, debating budget policy (or just about any other topic) is much more enjoyable to watch when it's done with passion, energy and wit than a dry recitation of numbers.

Nobody did it better, and generally with more class, than Buchanan and Braden first, then Buchanan and Michael Kinsley. Others who came later -- Bill Press, Robert Novak and others -- at times rose to the occasion, but those early years were the model. Few can be fiercer or more combative than Buchanan, Braden and Kinsley. But those clashes more closely resembled real debates than choreographed fights.

The beauty of those days was that the debates were rooted in ideological intellectualism, not knee-jerk reactionism. When Buchanan and Kinsley squared off, you would even occasionally find areas of agreement between the two, even times when they would take positions opposite of what you would expect. It was Buchanan v. Kinsley, not just left v. right. They worked more from their thoughts than from partisan talking points.

Over the years, any vestige of independent thought in cable debates were stripped away. The rising use of active partisans (not that Buchanan wasn't, but he was a partisan of himself when he ran against the GOP) as hosts further blurred the line between their role and the role of the guests. Rather than a battle of ideas and philosophy, "Crossfire" became a game of who could push his party line the furthest and loudest regardless of how ludicrous those positions became.

To that end, Stewart had a valid and obvious point to make when he appeared on the show last year to castigate the entire formula. It's probably time for the show to be retired. But the perversion of the "Crossfire" format by lazy and intellectually bereft producers and performers should not totally eclipse what "Crossfire" once was and what political debate can be again.

Vaughn Ververs is editor of The Hotline, the National Journal Group's daily briefing on politics. His e-mail address is vververs@nationaljournal.com.

[ Talking Heads Archives ]

Need A Reprint Of This Column?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.