The American Spectator

Brian Kirk| 4.4.09 @ 5:26PM

When I was 11, my father introduced me to Crossfire. He said, "That guy's right [Buchanan]. That's guy's wrong [Braden]. Watch and learn."

Hunter Baker| 4.4.09 @ 6:29PM

I cut my teeth on Buchanan v. Braden. What a show!!! Haven't seen anything like it since.

Matthew Vadum| 4.4.09 @ 7:10PM

Braden was a pleasure to watch. "Crossfire" was a good show back in the old days.

Bob| 4.5.09 @ 9:45AM

The demise of Crossfire simply was due to ratings. Most people are not intellectual enough to listen to both sides objectively. They would rather be lemmings and listen to only one side of the argument with whackos like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Olberman. Fox found this out when they fired Colmes from Hannity.

Both Buchanan and Braden were respectful. In fact, Buchanan is still respectful. But times change and discussion degraded into partisan shouting matches and a total lack of intellectual activity. Fox pioneered this media activity by segmenting the audience. It is far more profitable to build repeat listeners than to constantly try to acquire new listeners. Furthermore, news has morphed from the dissemination of objective information and analysis to entertainment by partisans.

I also liked the early Crossfire. It would be nice to again have a venue for intelligent discourse. But that is difficult to do when the political parties have become havens for right and left wing whackos. Also, the Republican push for anti-intellectualism over the past 30 years has taken its toll on the party and reduced the party to the lowest percentage of voters in modern history.

stmichrick| 4.5.09 @ 11:41AM

I also began my addiction to adversarial talk programming with Braden & Buchanan on Washington's WRC radio in the 80's. I agree with Bob in terms of the respect shown by these two for each other however I believe it to be more a generational thing as well as Pat's appreciation for the fact that Tom Braden was a substantive and patriotic individual.

Crossfire's TV ratings went into the dumper, not because of changes in the audience Bob, but because of changes in the Crossfire format and the quality of the hosts. The introduction of hacks like Begala and Carville to go up against lightweights like Tucker Carlson spelled the end of the quality of debate that was expected by older fans of the program like myself. Read all about it in Bob Novak's autobiography.

It was CNN, not Fox, who pioneered the pie fight style of political debate. I agree with you that Hannity perpetuates this but it would be incorrect to characterize Fox, which also produces Special Report and Fox News Sunday, as the primary purveyor of the lower form of political discourse.

That prize would go to MSNBC which, ironically, is where Pat Buchanan gets a paycheck now.

Bob is incorrect when

whiterb| 4.5.09 @ 2:47PM

If you ask me Bob the wackos have been and always will be those strange people who occupy the world of big newspapers and network television. As far as the republicans being anti-intellectual, gee Bob look at what passes itself off as being intellectual these days ? Al Gore ? Obama ? Hillary ? I assume they are smart, and yes they have acquired degrees, but the truth is they are close minded, power hungry political hacks. Look at their primitive mindset on global warming, as just one example.

Bob| 4.5.09 @ 4:30PM

stmichrick -- actually you mistake cause and effect with Crossfire. TV shows do not lead the public, they follow it through the use of marketing research. As the public became less intellectual and partisan, they chose hosts that reflected those views -- hence, Carville and Begala. At the same time, Republicans became far less intellectual as people like Hannity and Limbaugh, both without college educations, rose to the top. Novak was decent, but was far to emotional to have an intelligent back and forth.

Fox was formed by Roger Ailes to mine the underserved social conservative base. He correctly surmized that this group of people wanted more belief and less reason a la Rush and Hannity and thus chose hosts that fulfilled those attributes -- e.g., Fox and Friends. There are a couple of token journalists on Fox News just like MSNBC, but the vast majority of them are not. Shep Smith has been slowly moving rightward (I assume they are pushing him) after getting grief a couple of times this last year. Fox News Sunday has also been moving rightward this year. You'd expect this because it is not about journalism, but about entertainment and profits.

Here's what I'd like you to do... Add up all of the hours on Fox News, and tell me what percentage of hours is dedicated to Special Report and FNS. The way I calculate it, real journalism accounts for about 5% of programming. MSNBC has both Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory -- both Republican leaning.

whiterb -- ALL politicians are political hacks -- both right and left. They ALL want power. I don't think the extreme right or extreme left use a whole lot of reason. I never saw Gore as being tremendously bright, but I do believe Obama looks at the issues and uses reason a lot more than other presidents we have had. But again, he is a politician who is good at positioning himself. I really believe that if he could get more mileage by pushing to the right, he would do it. His political strategy is now established. He will move to the left when introducing subject matter to satisfy his base and then let that subject move to the right for it to be passed. It's like negotiating the price for a house or a car. If he proposed centrist policies, he'd anger his base and still would not get any help from the right -- Republicans have proven than. Moving to the center is not a good political strategy for him. I don't consider that closed minded. I do consider Al Gore to be closed minded -- but that goes along with a lack of brain power whether you are talking about him, Bush, McCain, or social conservatives.

By the way, I agree with you on global warming. I've read a great deal on both sides of the issue looking for data to back up hypotheses. I've come to the conclusion that global warming does exist, but am not convinced that it is a major threat. I wish someone would put out the actual data (as I was a mathematician). I've been able to analyze economic data that has been normalized, but environmental data is all over the place with many contradictions.

danny| 4.5.09 @ 6:40PM

god, i thought i was understanding all this back and forth. alas i'm not college educated, guess i'd better bow out and go read a comic book or something.

stmichrick| 4.5.09 @ 9:40PM

Bob;
I would agree with you that TV shows follow audience through market research but what we are talking about here does not indicate that the audience for quality grows smaller; it is always smaller than those that prefer a pie fight. This lower common denominator would more likely be served by James Carville more than by Tom Braden.

My point was that CNN went for bigger audience share by going for this lower common denominator which, in Crossfire's case, alienated the base of those viewers that were originally enthusiastic about this shows' format. Combine that with the fact that there were more competing shows over time and Crossfire failed. Thus, my conclusion that CNN led the way in the direction that gave us Hannity and Chris Matthews.

In condemning Fox News journalism you did not say where that art is practiced to your satisfaction. Please don't say NPR. Plain old, just-give-us-the-facts, with-context-please, television and radio journalism is long dead, I fear.

I still have a problem with your constant denigration of Limbaugh. He is able to communicate conservative political philosphy like no other. His transcripts are on his websites along with cited references. A great deal of preparation goes into his message whether you agree with it or not. I think your problem is not having a sense of humor, particularly when he skewers one of your icons. Maybe it's generational also.

You need to get over this tendency to condescend when faced with effective adversaries that don't have your level of formal education, Bob. They do not teach common sense and human nature in the Ivy League as far as I can tell. And their alumni certainly do not all agree on all things, do they?

George Bush earned degrees at both Harvard and Yale ,as I'm sure you know...with a GPA just a tad higher than John Kerry's.

Bob| 4.6.09 @ 8:59AM

stmichrick -- Actually, we basically agree. I don't see any one source that I would consider unbiased. When news organizations morphed into entertainment venues, objectivity was thrown out of the window. That's why the only way to understand the full range of issues is to watch both sides -- equally -- and then check the facts yourself. If you listen to Limbaugh and don't counter that with Olberman, then you are not being intellectually honest and true.

I have no problem with Limbaugh communicating conservative objectives which he does well, but his commentaries are so filled with misused facts taken out of context (just like Olberman), that it drives me up the wall. The fact that he doesn't understand supporting theories and goes for the lowest common denominator is also grating. His understanding of economics is deplorable. It's a shame that such a great communicator is so uneducated. He could be doing conservatism a great service, but his approval rating is only 26% which means he's doing a lot more harm than good -- except for himself, however, because his audience does not check facts and likes being lemmings -- oh, I mean -- dittoheads.

The problem I have with your views of "common sense" and "human nature" is that without education and knowledge, common sense and human nature have little value. If you look out of your front door, you will believe that the world is flat. That is just "common sense", isn't it? As I consistently point out, people easily believe that tax cuts raise revenues because of "common sense". However, the data does not support that contention.

You are right that schools -- any of them -- teach common sense. But then again, common sense by itself is not extremely valuable unless it is accompanied by knowledge. Furthermore, you cannot claim common sense if you are not open to changing your beliefs when opposing data is produced.

stmichrick| 4.6.09 @ 10:10AM

Very good Bob;

Except, equating Olberman and Limbaugh is spurious...Olberman is driven by bile while Limbaugh, I think, by a combination of a love of the joust, desire to prove his doubters of earlier years wrong, love of what this country can be and profit.

In high school we had a name for the likes of Keith Olberman. It described an act of self gratification.

Bob| 4.6.09 @ 10:23AM

stmichrick, why are you so gullible when it comes to Limbaugh. The only difference between Olberman and Limbaugh is that Rush is the far better entertainer. I don't believe for one minute that Limbaugh has a real "love of country". If he did, he'd strive for the truth. You cannot be more "self gratified" than Limbaugh. That's why he took drugs and that's why he can't stay married. They are both partisan hacks after money. "Love of country" is just a part of their schtick. You see Limbaugh's bile evident when anyone on "his" side disagrees with him.

That said, I still listen to both of them and am entertained by both.

stmichrick| 4.6.09 @ 11:13AM

Bob;

BECAUSE, from what I have been able to read of the back story of Rush Limbaugh he seems to be an admirable, well-meaning person. I hesitate to JUDGE him by his ability to maintain a marriage relationship. It is a common failure of focused and otherwise successful individuals.

Your characterization of Limbaugh's drug use is uncharacteristically not factual, Bob. Unless, of course, you don't believe that otherwise responsible people can get addicted to painkilling prescription drugs. He was totally upfront about that.

I guess we all have our 'truth.' For me, political 'truth' is seen through conservative eyes with all that those PRINCIPLES entail. We also frequently are gratified by the RESULTS when our policies are tried without undue dilution. Conservative thinking has never lead me to a wrong place.

Your truth seems to be in 'proving them all wrong' with a deluge of statistics, that, of course
can be manipulated as skillfully as we 'believers' can do with facts.

Leftist 'truth' is more based on unimpeachable INTENTIONS and supported by arguments of unrestrained EMOTION and policies that involve monopolization of POWER....with often disastrous results.

Take the state of the black family.

Bob| 4.6.09 @ 12:14PM

stmichrick -- I don't believe in "political truth". I believe in looking at the data and coming to an unbiased truth. If you put the rose colored glasses of "political truth" over what you see, then you will be mislead much of the time.

With regard to "statistics", those who use "political truth" often misuse them. If you study mathematics, you'll learn how to normalize data so that it is not biased. For example, I always use charts rather than selected data. Selected data is always misleading. Charts include all data points. You always want to normalize data for the specific question being asked. For example, if you look at federal revenue comparisons, you want to take out the effect of inflation on the data. The Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank), does an excellent job at this. If you don't know how to look through manipulated data points, then you will always come to the wrong conclusions.

For example, one person here argued with me about the BEA data versus the data used to determine recessions. He didn't realize the BEA data was raw and was not adjusted for inflation. I just wish that more people would understand how to use data to get to the truth.

You can only agree with Rush if you don't understand how to analyze data properly to get to the truth. Critical thinking is one of those things you learn in school. That's one of the reasons college is so important.

rusli zainal sang visioner| 8.29.09 @ 1:21AM

nice share, great article, very usefull for us...thank you
Stop Dreaming Start Action |
kenali dan kunjungi objek wisata di pandeglang