-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Ramesh Ponnuru argues that a cable TV network should revive the old CNN debate show Crossfire.
The show ran for half an hour and examined one question. There were two hosts: one liberal, one conservative, both opinion journalists rather than operatives for a political party. In the early 1990s, Michael Kinsley (now a Bloomberg View columnist) and Patrick Buchanan did the job. There were two guests, usually politicians or public-policy experts on each side of the debate. There was no studio audience.
Each of these features made “Crossfire” better. The one-subject rule made it impossible for the politicians to make it through the show on sound bites alone. That both hosts were journalists made for a fairer debate than the usual practice of today’s political shows, which put journalists up against political operatives.
The show was ruined by the introduction of a hooting-and-hollering live audience and by having the left represented by Democratic hacks rather than liberal journalists. Many people blame Crossfire for the political polarization on television — think of Jon Stewart’s memorable anti-Crossfire rant — but most of the shows that have followed it have been far worse.
The format of most political shows encourages partisan point-scoring rather than intelligent discussion. As an occasional guest myself, I can think of times where I didn’t take the conventional Republican position in a given controversy but felt obliged to defend it anyway because my sparring partner — almost always a Democratic consultant — was characterizing it so unfairly.
No political debate show will ever be as good as William F. Buckley, Jr.’s Firing Line. But Crossfire is about as good as it gets with a length and format accessible to the average person.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/07/bring-back-crossfire
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike G| 8.7.12 @ 12:06PM
"...by having the left represented by Democratic hacks rather than liberal journalists."
Liberal journalists have become a rare breed. Maybe they couldn't find any more.
Scott| 8.7.12 @ 12:37PM
"The show was ruined ... by having the left represented by Democratic hacks rather than liberal journalists."
That's a common problem on political discussion shows. It's not hard to find someone on the right who's willing to thoughtfully criticize Republicans, but it seems increasingly difficult to find someone on the left who'll do anything other than read Democratic talking points.
JimH| 8.7.12 @ 12:45PM
Back when SNL was funny, they had their own version, Point/Counterpoint I think it was called. The conservative rebuttal of ‘Jane, you ignorant slut’ in every episode was on a par with some of the dialog here.
Crassus| 8.7.12 @ 1:37PM
That SNL skit was a parody of segment which ran on "60 Minutes" for several years between conservative journalist James Kilpatrick and liberal counterpart Shana Alexander. "60 Minutes" ended up killing the segment because SNL skewered it so wickedly.
JimH| 8.7.12 @ 3:01PM
You're right. I had a senior moment and got the CNN and 60 Minutes shows mixed up.
darcy| 8.7.12 @ 3:46PM
Crossfire was little more than a screaming match, people talking over each other, and very disconcerting to watch. We don't need Crossfire, we need Firing Line, where DISCUSSION actually took place. But I can't think of a single conservative host who could come anywhere close to the great William F. Buckley; today's conservatives -- in the public arena -- are largely confused about what conservatism is. Take for example Rich Lowry -- he permitted National Review to sit out the repeal of don't ask don't tell, with nary a whimper of protest of what it means for our military, much less our society.
No, most conservatives in the public eye skate easy over the cultural Marxism that dominates debate; most conservatives -- if they do hold to traditional values and Founding principles -- don't have the guts to speak out. That's why the country is in free-fall. The left has succeeded in emasculating our men and radicalizing our women.
political_proxy| 8.7.12 @ 6:20PM
To mention Crossfire with out mention of Robert Novak...wow.
Bob Grant| 8.7.12 @ 11:15PM
The beauty about Crossfire, as Mr. Antle noted, is that it was a 30 minute, 1 issue show.
Guests had no choice but to go beyond the standard insipid talking points and demonstrate their depth of knowledge of the issue.
No smiley faced moppets garbling canned answers. No sir. That didn't fly on Crossfire...and certainly not on Firing Line.