New ‘Crossfire’ Offers Partisanship With A Side of Fake Friendly

CNN’s reincarnated segment reflects its ambivalence about where to fit into a crowded field of televised political commentary.

(Twitter/CrossfireCNN)
National Journal
Marin Cogan
See more stories about...
Marin Cogan
Sept. 10, 2013, 7:38 a.m.

Cross­fire was ori­gin­ally sup­posed to start Sept. 16, but CNN moved up the premi­er to Monday night due to the break­ing news on Syr­ia.

The de­cision was ques­tion­able — the show aired on the same night the pres­id­ent gave sit-down in­ter­views to the ma­jor tele­vi­sion net­works — but it is one that re­flec­ted the pre­vail­ing mood of Wash­ing­ton, with law­makers and staff re­turn­ing from Au­gust re­cess anxious to do something about the pres­id­ent’s pro­pos­al for in­ter­ven­tion in Syr­ia, even if that something is ac­tu­ally noth­ing, and amid deep skep­ti­cism that Wash­ing­ton is even cap­able of de­cid­ing, let alone ex­ecut­ing, a de­cision on one of the most im­port­ant is­sues it has de­bated in years.

It was only nine years ago that Jon Stew­art em­bar­rassed former Cross­fire host Tuck­er Carlson in the show’s most mem­or­able per­form­ance for hurt­ing the na­tion­al dis­course with its polit­ic­al hack­ery. When the show was can­celed a few months later, CNN’s pres­id­ent con­ceded Stew­art’s point.

Times have changed. (It is hard to ima­gine, in 2013, Carlson and Stew­art’s squab­bling over wheth­er Stew­art was in fact John Kerry’s “butt boy.”) But in hir­ing two of Wash­ing­ton’s most high-pro­file hacks — former GOP pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate Newt Gin­grich and former Obama deputy cam­paign man­ager Stephanie Cut­ter — CNN ap­peared to be try­ing to strike a bal­ance between the cri­ti­cism that chased it off the air in 2005 and the un­deni­able suc­cess their com­pet­it­ors have had in rep­lic­at­ing its format.

Were they able to have it both ways? Both hosts seemed con­scious of upend­ing ex­pect­a­tions. In its first epis­ode, view­ers were treated to a wink­ing, con­geni­al Gin­grich, an un­fa­mil­i­ar sight to those who watched his un­likely rise as a can­did­ate for the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­a­tion last year, and a nervous, hu­man-seem­ing Cut­ter, fam­ous in polit­ic­al circles for her hard-bit­ten ap­proach to polit­ics. They sat a little too close while Gin­grich re­coun­ted the latest news about the Rus­si­an of­fer to help se­cure Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al-weapons stock­pile.

They en­gaged in a stil­ted back and forth, em­ploy­ing false fa­mili­ar­ity by us­ing each oth­er’s first names too of­ten: “Now Stephanie, I’ve heard of lead­ing from be­hind, but did you ever think you’d see Putin bail­ing out Pres­id­ent Obama?” Gin­grich asked. “Well, Newt, I don’t know where you’ve been over the last two years, but we couldn’t even get Putin to ac­know­ledge that Syr­ia was a risk,” Cut­ter said in ri­poste.

The show broke down along the usu­al par­tis­an lines, with Cut­ter and Demo­crat­ic Sen. Robert Men­en­dez ar­guing in sup­port of the pres­id­ent’s po­s­i­tion and Gin­grich and Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Rand Paul ar­guing against it. But this time the po­s­i­tions were flipped in a way that re­flec­ted how much the polit­ics have changed since Cross­fire went off the air, with Men­en­dez mak­ing the hawk­ish case and Paul po­s­i­tion­ing him­self as the an­ti­war politi­cian.

In a nod to the show’s at­tempt at par­tis­an­ship without pu­er­il­ity, it ended with a seg­ment called “Cease­fire,” where the co-hosts make nice by re­cit­ing a few points they found they can agree on. But the seg­ment felt too pat, and their points of agree­ment were too ano­dyne to be in­ter­est­ing. Cut­ter said that the two agreed that the pos­sib­il­ity of a Rus­si­an pro­pos­al to se­cure chem­ic­al weapons was a good thing, and that the polling showed Obama would have a tough time get­ting Con­gress to ap­prove mil­it­ary ac­tion. Gin­grich said that they could agree that the break­ing news of the last 48 hours had been “tu­mul­tu­ous.”

Cut­ter said that they could agree that the polling show­ing most Amer­ic­ans op­posed to a Syr­i­an in­ter­ven­tion was not an ac­cur­ate as­sess­ment of pop­u­lar opin­ion be­cause “they were duped in­to war 10 years ago with weapons of mass de­struc­tion that didn’t ex­ist and now they’re forced to make a de­cision on weapons of mass de­struc­tion that do ex­ist.” Gin­grich cocked an eye­brow — ap­par­ently on this they didn’t agree — but, he ad­ded, they both agreed that you can fol­low the show on Face­book and Twit­ter to share your thoughts.

It was a per­fect re­flec­tion of CNN’s am­bi­val­ence about where it fits in­to the great­er tele­vi­sion land­scape. If the net­work can’t pick a side, it can at least let their hosts pick one.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×