Crossfired

The new president of CNN is shaking things up at the network and Jon Stewart's appearance last fall may have got the ball rolling on one longtime fixture on the CNN schedule.

CNN has ended its relationship with the conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and will shortly cancel its long-running daily political discussion program, "Crossfire," the new president of CNN, Jonathan Klein, said last night.

I don't believe it serves anyone's interest to be overly cynical. Certainly the move away from partisan hackery is a positive one. Klein:

Mr. Klein said he wanted to move CNN away from what he called "head-butting debate shows," which have become the staple of much of all-news television in the prime-time hours, especially at the top-rated Fox News Channel.

"CNN is a different animal," Mr. Klein said. "We report the news. Fox talks about the news. They're very good at what they do and we're very good at what we do."

Mr. Klein specifically cited the criticism that the comedian Jon Stewart leveled at "Crossfire" when he was a guest on the program during the presidential campaign. Mr. Stewart said that ranting partisan political shows on cable were "hurting America."

Mr. Klein said last night, "I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart's overall premise." He said he believed that especially after the terror attacks on 9/11, viewers are interested in information, not opinion.

Information not opinion. Is that the issue Stewart took the CNN to task over?

Klein frames the debate in terms of "reporting" the news and "informing" the citizenry versus shows which focus much more on opinion than fact. Of course the first thing that must be noted is that the whole selection process of what goes on the air and what doesn't and who is selected to explain and expound on the issue in question by its very nature has a profound impact on how one understands the current state of our world and thus is a form of editorializing. To portray oneself solely as a neutral reporter of information is denying the responsibility of being a journalist.

That issue aside, I don't believe Klein quite gets what Stewart was saying. Let's look at a couple of Stewart's comments last October 15 on Crossfire. In the following exchange I believe it evident that Stewart's claim regarding 'ranting partisan political shows on cable were "hurting America," does not necessarily lead to Klein's conclusion that "viewers are interested in information, not opinion."

Stewart: see, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

Stewart is not advising a shift away from debate to simply information gathering and reporting. It is not that that opinions are being presented, rather it is the manner in which they are presented, ie blind partisanship and a thorough lack of professionalism and competence. Later on in the show:

BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that...

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show...

STEWART: I would love to see a debate show.

BEGALA: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.

Most certainly, honest, spirited, professional debates are sorely lacking on American television. Misinformed, childish shouting matches dominate much of the so-called cable new programs and virtually all of talk radio. It is clearly not the concept of debating itself that is the problem. Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post cites a comment by Klein that does get to the point of what Stewart was saying:

CNN/U.S. President Jonathan Klein sided yesterday with comedian Jon Stewart, who used a "Crossfire" appearance last fall to rip the program as partisan hackery. "I think he made a good point about the noise level of these types of shows, which does nothing to illuminate the issues of the day," Klein said in an interview. Viewers need "useful" information in a dangerous world, he said, "and a bunch of guys screaming at each other simply doesn't accomplish that."

If the move at CNN is simply one away from 'a bunch of guys screaming at each other' then great. However, the idea that the network will become a neutral reporter of information is a naive one. Furthermore that should never be the aim of any journalistic organization. The public desperately needs informed, civilized debate in order to fully understand the profound issues of importance in today's dangerous times. Up until now this has rarely been the case. As Stewart said:

[Y]ou have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

Comments

[Connor Coyne]

My name is Connor Coyne, and I recently visited your blog through Globe of
Blogs.

I've enjoyed your recent posts very much. I was ultimately looking for your perspectives on Latin America, but also found your political commentary to be sharp and relevant.

I am going to link to you. My blog name is
http://blueskiesfalling.blogspot.com. I don't ask or expect linking back,
though of course, it's appreciated.

I look forward to following your writing!

Best,

Connor Coyne

[b.hunter]

thanks connor, i appreciate it.
and i will link you.. i like your word of the day, photo of the day, news of the day, etc, format... ( i should study the word of the day on a regular basis and get away from using the thesaurus all the time)