Newt Gingrich says that a deal is close that would have him starring on the right-wing wing of a revival of Crossfire on CNN. Of course, Newt Gingrich once claimed he'd all but won the 2012 Republican nomination for president so take that with a grain of sodium chloride. Then he also says of the period when the hosts of Crossfire were Tom Braden and Pat Buchanan…
People forget but for the first 10 years it was a very serious program. I remember doing it as a junior member. It was a real workout. It was a destination for people to hear both sides discuss serious issues in an entertaining way.
I remember it not unlike a rowdy pro wrestling match where half the time you couldn't hear what one person was yelling because the other person was yelling louder. I suppose there were moments like Mr. Gingrich recalls but the show wasn't about them. There was a period when Michael Kinsley represented the left and his gentle nature seemed to dial down the fire-exhalation a bit. Or maybe it wasn't his manner so much as the fact that he wasn't that liberal. He was slightly left of center and didn't disagree that much with most of his opposition. I don't recall the show having too many liberals who were as liberal as its conservatives were conservative.
I do recall a lot of hosts who were fierce about their side "winning" to the stage of intellectual dishonesty. Among those who deal in opinion journalism and punditry, there's a kind of person who strikes me as being an advocate for a position they truly and deeply hold. There's also a kind who seems to have discovered that there's money and fame in spouting a certain viewpoint…so spout that viewpoint they do — incessantly and giving no ground lest it diminish their careers. Crossfire, to me, had too many of the latter kind.
Anyway, knowing full well no one from CNN reads this site and that if they did, they'd dismiss the following suggestion as unlikely to draw ratings, I would like to present an idea. The idea is to revive Crossfire not with Newt Gingrich or his left-wing equivalent, but with two people who won't nuke their future careers if they occasionally admit the other guy has a point there. The Newts of the world have too much to lose if they're viewed as squishy by the rabid elements of their base. At times, the old Crossfire seemed like you had opposing versions of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail squabbling, each denying he'd just had a limb severed. The goal wasn't even to win so much as to act like you'd won.
Furthermore, I would add to the mix a third individual — a good, non-partisan Fact Checker who, when one combatant claimed GDP was up and the other insisted it was down, could weigh in and settle the dispute. If I were CNN, promoting myself as the most trusted name in news, I'd be concerned about a show on my network throwing off so many unsupported, misleading "facts." Whenever I see a not-on-Fox-News interview of Brit Hume or Chris Wallace — two men who purport to be newsmen first and advocates second — I feel the squirming over things said during the "opinion" hours of their network. It's like a station with the word "news" in its name isn't responsible for outright disinformation on certain of its shows. On my version of Crossfire, the debaters could offer hard evidence that the Fact Checker was in error but would agree to accept his or her final rulings the way lawyers in a courtroom must provisionally accept the judge's.
No one will ever put such a show on the air. There might not be enough shouting on it to qualify for the current definition of Good Television, measured as it is by tune-ins of people aged 18-49. But I've had political discussions that ended with one side admitting the other side was right about something…or of both finding areas of agreement and common ground. I just can't recall seeing too many of them on television, particularly on a show with the name, "Crossfire."