No change. Very few people watch television politics with the goal of questioning their own assumptions, and those who do have probably gone to Blogging Heads. Crossfire let people root for their side for sport, and there's little chance of Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann converting any partisans. How long would a show that featured intelligent, good-mannered, cross-ideological dialogue last?

Professor Drezner, big fan of your blog and of Jon Stewart and I believe Jon Stewart was exactly right in his criticism on Crossfire. I am surprised CNN and others responded by actually canceling some of those shows but that apparently was only temporary. The emergence of Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, et al., represents simply the networks' calculus that these shows are good for ratings and, as far as Jon Stewart is concerned, represents the fact that his criticisms did not stick. Incidentally, having watched Jon on The Daily Show most nights for the last several years, he's just as critical of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and others as he was when Hannity had Colmes and when Tucker Carlson had Paul Begala.

While Crossfire and other shows provided more balanced opposing views, they still catered to an interested subset of the viewing public.

I think what is needed now more than ever to engage the public in civil and informed discourse is a tv talk show format similar to the Phil Donahue show.

In the new format the host would be independent minded (more center than Phil) and engaging. A few guests from opposing views could provide input on a topic such as foreclosures, nuclear non-proliferation, bank failures, global warming, health care, etc.. The host would then engage the audience (preferably not bearing weapons)in an interactive discussion on the subject.

The challenge is to make the show less expensive than reality shows and more appealing than Dancing with the Stars and American Idol. Perhaps the very reason a great idea like this does not come to fruition. If any young producers are reading this and salivating at the concept, I am ready to host!! Let the discussions begin...

From what I've heard, while obviously a liberal, she does do fairly good debates with conservatives on a regular basis. That said, I don't watch cable news in the absence of a particular interview I'm following or a major crisis. If a few good shows with obvious viewpoints emerge, I'll take that and some demagogues above balanced shows that at best achieve mediocrity.

That is not a half-assed, but a full-assed blog question. Maybe the people hurting America are actually the people hurting America.

Prof Drezner,

Though I admire much of what you have to say I have to question the comparison of Beck and Hannity on one hand and Olbermann on the other. A quick perusal of Factcheck.org, for instance, makes the point. While one may question Mr. Olbermann's overheated delivery style he does not engage in anything like the misrepresentation and distortion of facts that the Fox News people make regular use of. I regret that you have fallen into the same lazy habit as the so-called MSM of trying to create the appearance of balance by naming parties on both sides as though they are equally to blame for the same transgressions. You do your credibility no service and dilute the point you were trying to make by this sloppy use of false equivalency. It seems to me that the point misses the mark anyway. Opinions are fine, everybody is entitled to them but everybody is not entitled to their own facts. If opinion shows use facts then they do no harm, it is when they try to shape opinion by shaping the facts that we head down a dangerous path. I don't see Olbermann fomenting riots based on false premises but I do see Beck doing so. YMMV.

I think Jon was actually recognizing the problem before it got worse. I think this post is a serious case of blaming the messenger.

Besides, I think Stewart is actually really good at interviewing. He (normally) does it in a non-confrontational way yet manages to ask probing questions. It's the reason why (serious) conservatives flock to his show and avoid the shriek-house madness that is Hannity, Beck, etc.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/08/why_conservative_pundits_love.html

Why other interviewers can't do this, I have no idea. And you can't honestly say that Hannity and Colmes was a balanced, reasonable discussion...

Personality-based pundit shows are digital poison. (And a strangely American phenomenon... I can't think of another nation with them...) Whether it is a one-headed or two-headed monster makes little difference.

I hadn't thought much about this, because I so seldom watch cable talk shows. I remember rolling my eyes many times while watching the old McLaughlin Group show. I didn't think it added much to public understanding of anything. On the other hand, it must have added something, enough for me to watch it (as I recall, it was usually something Jack Germond or Robert Novak had about the Hill or the White House that no one else did). The one-man (woman) shows on now add...what?

"I regret that you have fallen into the same lazy habit as the so-called MSM of trying to create the appearance of balance by naming parties on both sides as though they are equally to blame for the same transgressions."

Indeed. I agree that I find Olbermann to be much more honest and intelligent then his so called counterparts on the right. I mean, how exactly do you compare somebody who runs around calling people communists, inciting fears about FEMA constructed concentration camps for Republicans with somebody who reports stories that--while they stoke liberal loathing of republicans-are based on facts and supported with interviews with generally psychologically well adjusted people?

If anything, I would guess that the polarization of TV news may, in the long run, be beneficial. It's much easier for people to evaluate the credibility of two perspectives when you allow the respective ideological camps to run unchecked by some false premise that they must stick to the "middle."

Perhaps that is too optimistic, and people will become more entrenched in their predisposed ideas--but on the other hand, I don't see Republicans gaining too much traction with the younger generation who are much quicker to realize how absurd Fox News is compared to, IDK, say the New York Times. And polls consistently show that people have grown very distrusting of cable news.

But if you really want to solve the problem of pandering to ratings, you've got to cut corporations out of the equation. Little debates over how far the two sides have moved apart from the center miss the larger point: companies still determine what goes in the circle. I.E. people need to pay for content, like books, the New Yorker, the economist, magazines, etc... where the majority of real journalism occurs today.

I disagree with all sentiments above. I view Stewart as the template for the Becks and Olbermanns of the world; underneath their partisan portrayal of facts for all these folks lurks a clown figure. The clown/entertainer is the figure they retreat to when they're exposed as lairs or fools. Stewart is just more open about it, largely because his audience is primarily young and gullible, and because irony (a purely destructive force to begin with) is seen as hip. Of course you can trace this schtick directly back to one person, Rush Limbaugh.

Why don't you stipulate that Jon Stewart has nothing to do with how news networks program their shows. It's about ratings. Are ratings hurting America? Are professors who ask full-assed questions and blog hurting America? Try to stay focused on the actual problem or should I have written this on your Facebook page?

"did Jon Stewart hurt America by driving these shows off the air?"

I think the blogger gives Stewart too much credit here, but if that is the basis of his argument to propose that perhaps their demise was a bad thing, then okay I'll go with it.

That these dueling views scream fests where even on the air and considered newsworthy or valuable is a stretch. So good riddance. The presumption made that because they provided opposing views as being something useful is shortsighted. People come to these shows and the ones that replaced them with already well formed opinions, and watch them only to seek validation of their particular views.

Being forced to hear the other side isn't going to do anything but add strength to their resolve to continue to be opposed to it. So the separation into autonomous opposing camps is beneficial, because then they can both develop a leisurely and well thought out plan of attack against one another. And while those that would benefit from listening to the oppositions view frequently don't, and I agree do become hardened in their narrow mindedness. It is the rest of us without a vested interest who do watch and listen, and learn, and are able to then form a more balanced opinion of each camp's views and methodologies. We can see the forest from the trees. And Stewart and his counterpart Colbert provide a mirror that reflects all of the dead wood found there.

And they are good for a laugh, too.

your argument only works if you considered these sorts of shows "debate"; a notion that Stewart rejected outright.

does anyone think there's a difference between Begala and Carlson engaging in the same partisan hackery together on the same show or separately on different shows? Begala's punditry on Crossfire was the same as Begala's punditry today on CNN; Carlson on Crossfire is the same as Carlson on CNN... or is it MSNBC... or is it Fox? since Stewart went on that show the downward trajectory of his career has been hard to track.

as for Hannity and Colmes, well, Hannity's tone is about the same (if you compensate for the collective loss of sanity on the right since the 2008 election) and no doubt Colmes' would be as well if he could get a gig, which of course he can't because he is utterly without charisma, which of course is exactly why Fox picked him to be Hannity's punching bag in the first place.

and all of this, if you'll notice, was exactly Stewart's point when he made it years ago on Crossfire: that there isn't any substantial engagement between the 2 "debaters"; they are both simply shooting their respective partisan talking points past one another. whether or not the 2 mouthpieces for the left and right are on the same show or different shows is irrelevant; there is still no real dialogue.

There might be some truth to the matter of debates, but speculating on whether or not Jon Stewart is damaging the United States is simply ludicrous. You might as well say that the Katie Couric damaged the United States by having a devastating interview with Sarah Palin, or that the comic strip Dilbert is damaging the United States by creating cynicism about corporate culture amongst engineers.

Jon Stewart seems a bit of a red herring here.

I think the problem is that now most of the news presenters are poorly informed on what they are reporting about, and seem to be selected more for there appearence.

Whether or not a person agreed with Cronkite, Sevaried, Huntley, Brinkley et al you could be sure they reached their opinion(s) as a matter of some degree of experience and thought and were not simply reading from a prompter.

Now most news presenters frequently don't seem to have any better understanding of what they are reporting on than a viewer.

Even worse the media seems to think giving every claim and headline equal staus immaterial of the merits is balanced coverage. It is not! There is sometimes just fact and fiction and not just equal opinion. The media should and could be much more of a referee than just a gossip... he said... she said...

As an example in the present Health Care debate, you have opponents claiming that the US is number 1 in health care or people are dying in waiting rooms across Canada and Europe. That is blatantly false and reporters should be pointing this out rather than simply repeating baseless claims.

anyone with university aged kids knows, and polls bear this out, that Stewart's show is viewed as real news, not 'fake news', as you say - and seeing how on his show he stumped shamelessly for Obama and that the 'news' he reports panders to a left wing ethos I'd say Stewart was something of a hypocrite to be accusing others of a lack of objectivity - in other words, Stewart's just a funnier, more palatable version of the Becks et al.

Working in TV myself I understand the talent, the skill required to do what Stewart does and I also understand how the manipulation works, how an invited guest who holds an opposing opinion to that preferred by the show, someone who may be better informed than Stewart, more logical, more intelligent but lacks the skills required to perform within the context, the format, can come off looking bad. Stewart's a pro at exploiting the format to serve an idealogical end - again, no different from the hacks he inveighs against.

So is Stewart bad for America? If one believes well reasoned, well informed, unbiased public discourse is a good thing, then yes he's bad - they're all bad - but hell, it's America, what do we care what anybody thinks?

Mr. Drezner,

As an avid Daily Show viewer and self-avowed, unrequited Jon Stewart life-partner, I enjoyed your historical jaunt into the Bush era from which we have recently eloped.

Jon's uncharacteristically callous presentation on Crossfire years ago was his own rage finally reaching a wider (network) audience; his daily monologue--I believe can largely be called "his" given the unipolar writers on his staff--and his interviews would often focus on a person's inability to think outside party lines.

He saw the post-Bush world as two sides screaming across a divide and wished to be a bridge across. For instance, responding to his crowd heckling Bill Kristol for giving a decidedly conservative response to a question and Jon actually reprimanded his own audience for the booing that ensued.

He clearly believes that media _creates_ news.. instead of reporting it. And I don't think he is wrong.

Whether or not he _caused_ Glenn Beck...? I'll leave the ascension of the ideological propagandists-as-news-anchors to another rhetorical argument...

I especially loved watching the growing sense of total disbelief that took hold in Tucker Carlson, and how Paul Bagala obviously thought that somewhere along the line there was going to be a punch-line and any moment they could get back to just yucking it up. But John grabbed 'em by the nose and kicked 'em in the arse in the best Patton style. Kudos!

That said, I miss the "Capitol Gang." I thought it was one of the more serious cable news shows. What I especially liked was Bob Novack's conservative contrarianism. He always strongly denied that there was any evidence for the presence of WMD in Iraq, and so we know that he had sources -- in the military, the CIA, or the State Department -- who knew perfectly well that the whole Bush-regime line on Saddam was completely bogus. Who knew? Who could have predicted? Obviously Novack did. We could use some more independent conservatives with real news experience. Joe Scarborough sometimes shows some of that but he's basically a pol and a hack, not a real newsman like Novack was.

You're giving Jon Stewart far too much credit. He goes on Crossfire once and gives them a lecture. You can't extrapolate from that the hypothesis that Jon Stewart is the reason all those shows are gone now. He doesn't have that kind of power.

For the life of me, I don't understand why so many people have praised Jon Stewart's performance on Crossfire those many years ago.

Listen to what Stewart said --- he said that both Begala and Carlson are "partisan hacks", that both should say more nice things about the opposite side. Jon Stewart was extolling the same kind of "on-the-one-hand/on-the-other" false equivalency between "left and right" that the MSM does, which is what really harms America.

I like Jon Stewart, I think he's funny and often makes very good points, but he is a person and as such can be a hypocritical blow-hard, which is exactly what he came across to me as on Crossfire that night. I can't stand the doting so many of my fellow liberals give Stewart.

I guess the Friday night quarterbacking between Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS "News Hour" is the only venue where left & right news commentators still exist, or would you count "McLaughlin Group" as one (usually there's one leftie, one center-right and two right-wingers there)?cel