Here's the video of Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire. The program was broadcast live. Quite live. If you can't see the video, here are a couple of good rundowns in Salon and the Washington Post.
If Tucker Carlson is right that Stewart doesn't ask hard enough questions on his show, then I think it's fair to say that Crossfire just isn't funny enough to be worth a bucket of warm spit.
Then again, how the hell would I know? I guess I'm just going by their web site, where the hosts aren't mugging quite enough for the camera, which accidentally makes their show look like a mid-season replacement for The Profiler. Not funny. Not funny, like that. Granted, using the word "debate" three times in their 77-word description of the show is pretty funny, so maybe Crossfire is worth a bucket of warm spit after all.
Turn off the cable news channels. Please. My God, they make my blood boil.
(Via Long Pauses)
Also...
The challenge that most of these political debate-style shows face is to be entertaining but appear logical. To make that happen, they've wholeheartedly embraced the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. With this handy tool someone can say, "We're fair because we present both sides of every issue," as if every issue has exactly two sides when actually few do.
Once you've reduced an issue to a dilemma, it's fairly easy to paint your opponents into corners or catch them in inconsistencies. Look how Paul Begala attempted to reduce Jon Stewart's complaints about Crossfire not being a real debate show. Whipping his trusty false dilemma out of its holster — heck, why wear a holster? Just keep that thing drawn! — Begala attempted to rephrase Stewart's complaint as "you're not tough enough." Then later he could easily spot an example where — ah HA — Stewart thinks the opposite. Or Begala's partner— err, opponent, Tucker Carlson, could whip out an example of Stewart himself not being tough enough, that wily hypocrite.
In the show's final minute, Begala and Carlson broke ranks to team up against Stewart, whose final retort was a look that just said, "idiots." While Begala and Carlson would love to stay on their respective left and right sides, nobody but nobody can pry their favorite fallacy from their cold, shameless hands. On that, I'm sure these sworn opponents agree.
Rob--it makes my blood boil too.
This might sound surreal, but about a year ago, I cancelled my cable/satellite service and threw out my rabbit ears in disgust. And so, I literally had watched no TV for a year until I saw the Crossfire clip on the web.
I felt this strong deja vu of disgust, all over again!
When I called my satellite provider to cancel my service a year ago, there was a long pause of inredulity and then in a sanctimonious, censuring, irony-free voice he said, "You don't want to watch any TV?...But that's.....UN-AMERICAN!!!"
I've thought about doing that, too. I don't watch much TV, but I recently got a TiVo and it allowed me to sample some of these "news" shows I had heard about but not actually dialed up. My God.
I know a number of people who've killed their televisions (except for movies). One of these days....
(Funny, I just posted about your site as you were posting here.)
By the way, I've noticed that the Crossfire home page no longer has the 77-word description of the program that I mentioned. I'd like to take credit for having that impact (ahem), but I assume they just needed to make space for the "campaign countdown."
But here's the old version of the page, from the Wayback Machine. "Debating the issues that impact life."
actually i like jon.
it's those other two crossfire cretins that i found insufferable!
I know this can be found anywhere online, but since for the time being you're right here, I'll point you to Jon's followup on his show last night.
I haven't owned a TV in about 15 years. I've honestly never missed it.
"The challenge that most of these political debate-style shows face is to be entertaining but appear logical. To make that happen, they've wholeheartedly embraced the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. With this handy tool someone can say, "We're fair because we present both sides of every issue," as if every issue has exactly two sides when actually few do."
This is so true, Rob, and well-stated. In fact, it's my current number one criticism of corporate media (and even NPR) that with any story, regardless of its objectivity or tuth component, a "dissenting voice" will be provided, even if it's not until the end. It's maddening. Like you write, as if there's only two sides, anyway. But more than that, it fundamentally perpetuates middle class passivity and regards the world as a conglomeration of opinions rather than facts and lies. A news story about the earth being round today would inevitably prove its "objectivity" by stating that there are, in fact, flat-earth people who disagree with the notion.
I am so out-of-touch with cable shows that I've only very recently began watching Stewart's program online. If I did have cable, I think I could become addicted to The Daily Show.