For a change, I'm going to write about something I really know about. As the former CEO of CNN, and the creator of Crossfire (the show, not the name -- Paul Bissonette, CNN's PR man, came up with that), I think I'm qualified to comment on the new, not to be called Crossfire, television program created for Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker.
To be blunt, I can't think of a worse idea. The original Crossfire featured Pat Buchanan and Tom Braden, whose name you rarely hear these days. The program was not intended as a shouting match -- our goal was to put the number one news maker of the day on CNN air at 10pm every night and to have him reply to questions from the right, Buchanan, and from the moderate left, Braden. The guest would be caught in the crossfire.
Both Braden and Buchanan were men of distinction. Braden was a liberal Republican, who had parachuted behind German lines during the Second World War as an OSS (forerunner of the CIA) agent. In 1950, he returned to the CIA where he became head of the International Organizations Division and worked closely with Alan Dulles and Frank Wisner, and ran covert operations for the agency. But he is also remembered as the author of Eight is Enough, which spawned a popular television show, with the lead actor playing the real life Tom Braden.
Buchanan, who may be the most intelligent newsman I've ever worked with, started out as a twenty-three year old editorial writer for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, promoting an extremely conservative agenda. An early supporter of Barry Goldwater, he joined the Richard Nixon team and served in the White House from 1969 through 1974, and I still think of him as the smartest man in the Nixon administration. Despite differences in opinion, Buchanan and Braden got along very well -- as conservative as Buchanan was, he could easily respect a liberal who had actually gone to war and returned a hero.
But Ted Turner didn't like the idea of the show, and refused to schedule it. Ted and I had a fight -- I lost, and I got fired. But I, as CEO of CNN, had signed a contract with Braden and Buchanan. They threatened a lawsuit. I was to be a witness, and Ted was advised to settle the lawsuit. He agreed, and put Crossfire on the air for a half an hour at 11:30pm, and within six months, Ted moved it to 7:30pm. It quickly became the highest rated show on CNN.
Braden and Buchanan were friends, they did not shout and they did not demean. They treated each other and their guests with great courtesy. Their show was a winner, but it required a lot of effort. Booking the top news maker of the day every day was no easy task. Even getting second or third best was difficult.
In 1985, Buchanan left the program to join the Reagan administration, he was replaced by Robert Novak, who was hired in 1980 as a "columnist" and had impeccable conservative credentials. Buchanan came back in '87, but Braden left in '89 and after that the show became a free for all cacophony. I was appalled by it, and remained so for the next fifteen years -- lazy bookers, second-rate guests, a crowded stage and a shouting match. Its ratings had decreased, and once FoxNews launched, Crossfire was overmatched and overwhelmed. It's a sad and painful story, so I wasn't too disappointed when CNN's current President, Jonathan Klein, killed it. I didn't think anything could be worse than that, but Klein has proven me wrong.
Now, in what seems to be one last desperate attempt to save his job, Klein has created a pale imitation of the original Crossfire. The dictatorial Eliot Spitzer is the antithesis of the strong, but cordially polite, Tom Braden, and Kathleen Parker is no Pat Buchanan. According to the New York Times, she characterizes herself as "pro-life...But I don't go around carrying a fetus in a jar." Buchanan, like Barry Goldwater before him, was not afraid of being considered extreme. Parker seems to avoid it at all costs.
CNN was created as a news network, and the 10pm hour, where the Crossfire show had been originally scheduled, was supposed to make news. By interviewing the protagonist of the day's leading story, we hoped we could get him to say something that would advance the story by at least one news cycle, and have everybody quoting us in the next day's newspaper. The guest was supposed to deliver fresh information, not controversy. Unfortunately, for twenty years, Crossfire shed more heat than light, and I suspect Spitzer-Parker will do the same.
Spitzer, Parker to Co-host CNN News Hour
In the News: Abramoff's New Gig, Skilling's Possible Loophole, and Spitzer's ...
The EXACT state of any "news" program that you will find today.
Anyone else notice that?
I wonder if anyone has run stats on it? Which side gets caught doing the strangest things the most often?
I'm not surprised however from CNN. It would have been too much for them to have had a real liberal vs a conservative. And now what do they have? Kathleen Parker is what? I don't even know her and Spitzer is egotistical and will command all the speaking time I'm sure.
No thanks!
Spitzer does have a positive side, namely his intelligence and the fact that he was virtually the only one who was tough on Wall Street before it was fashionable.
So you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to wait and see how the program plays out, before I make a judgment
How weird is that?
- MBG
That says more than enough about the Crossfire creator.
I used to be a CNN fan. But after this, no more CNN on my internet bookmark and no more CNN on my cell phone. CNN has fed right from the bottom for ratings and I'm no longer interested. The producer who pitched this should get a new job at TMZ.
Bye Bye CNN.
As to your other comment: "...and Kathleen Parker is no Pat Buchanan." I say AMEN to that and THANK HEAVEN!
Looking at the election maps it's obvious that that's just not true. I think both Spitzer have much more mixed and nuanced views with a real practical aspect. I'm really looking forward to it and hope we can get away from the Colmes/Hannnity models which has really dumbed down news shows.
Mr. Schoenfeld has it right - at the beginning it was amazing. Two intelligent hosts getting together with an intelligent guest and talking about it in an unhurried way.
And I agree with Mr. Schoenfeld's assessment of Buchanan. Note that he did not say that he agreed with Buchanan's politics. Goodness knows I usually don't. But for those on this thread that don't think Buchanan's intelligent, don't let his extreme political positions blind you to his brilliance. He was never going to be Buckley. Buckley was probably more extreme than Buchanan but had such an eloquent delivery that you didn't realize you had gotten slapped until you were on your way home from the studio. Buchanan was always a brawler and waded in without a moment's hesitation.
I disagree with Schoenfeld partially. I think Spitzer's gonna be great. While he is dictatorial, he's smart as a whip and I think his guests are going to push him and he'll respond accordingly. Parker's a horrible choice. I say put Buchanan back in the driver's seat!!!! He still ignores all traditional debate taboos and I think half the people tuning in would do so just to see if he's going to say something controversial.
And I think this is what is so tough about race relations in our country. Only bigots feel comfortable wading into the waters because they usually don't care if they are labeled racist. Everyone else hangs back, regardless of their true thoughts.
Racism aside, Buchanan is brilliant - it is sad that someone so smart can have such a dumb opinion on something.
Buchanan???? "the most intelligent newsman"????? plllleeeease
The right wing only wants to hear from Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Hanity, and King-O'Reily, and have no tolerance for smart, articulate, and on the issues discussion.
As far as Spitzer's so called sinful life, I say ... all the right-wing-NON-Hypocrites with no sins can cast the first stone!!!
All they have to do is look at their own back yard before they become such puritans.
"...as conservative as Buchanan was, he could easily respect a liberal who had actually gone to war and returned a hero."
Are you kidding me? Pat Buchanan, chicken hawk extraordinaire, never served a day because of "arthritis of the knee" at such a young age yet he had no problem jogging. These are the type republicans that send your children to war while their cowardly arses stayed home AND they are still doing the same thing today. Yet, they are quick to yell about and swiftboat somebody else's service.
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-a-brief-for-whitey-969
The thing about Buchanan is, he inflames but not because he's not brilliant, because he is, but because he doesn't care if you think he's racist, insensitive or unkind. He calls it like he sees it. You think he's racist, but his core message in this essay is almost identical to Bill Cosby's core message he's been preaching the last 20 years. Does the skin color of the messenger affect the accuracy and validity of the message?
This is a contradiction and an impossibility.