| Political commentary is easy to come by these days.
Good political commentary, on the other hand, is as easy to find as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some of the best in a long while recently came from a very unlikely source: CNN’s Crossfire.
Jon Stewart was invited onto the so-called political debate show a couple of weeks ago to talk about his latest book, America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction. Co-hosts Paul Begala (representing the left) and Tucker Carlson (representing the right) tried to get Stewart (representing common sense) to stay within the confines of their scripted questions, but they failed.
Stewart started the segment by asking the two co-hosts why they always argue. They laughed the question away. Stewart didn’t.
Within minutes, Stewart had successfully switched the given roles, taking upon himself the position of interviewer and forcing Begala and Carlson to answer his direct and pointed questions, savaging them both in the process. It was a thing of beauty: a bright shaft of light in the otherwise dark intellectual wasteland of political television.
Once Stewart had the reins he rode hard and fast, saying Crossfire is a bad show that’s "hurting America" because it’s helping out politicians and corporations. Begala and Carlson sputtered indignantly in response. Stewart clarified the point by stating simply that both of the co-hosts are "partisan hacks."
With that, the gauntlet was thrown down, and Carlson responded as best he could (which was not very well). Begala wisely kept quiet, avoiding the camera and most of the attention for the rest of the segment. Carlson was left to fry alone.
After a few lame attempts by Carlson to discredit Stewart as a news provider – he is a comedian, Tucker, not a journalist – Stewart persisted in his relentless lambasting of the show and its hosts. Perhaps it can all be summed up in this line that was a sort of thesis for Stewart’s tirade: "You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably."
For a moment, all was laid bare: the absurdity of so-called political debate that is, as Stewart pointed out, theatrical; the willing complicity of major news organizations (like CNN) in partisan agendas; the noticeable lack of real discussion about important issues.
A lot of pre-election media attention in America has focused on the presidential candidates’ thoughts and attitudes towards a war 30 years ago. Over and over, Vietnam has been brought up, a card played by both Republicans and Democrats. Both television and print media outlets took the bait, throwing their spotlights into the past and letting today’s analysts speculate.
But thousands of stories, countless accusations and one fallen CBS newscaster later, what does the American public have to show for this "discussion?" Absolutely nothing. It’s been a waste of speech, newsprint and airwaves, useful only so far as it served to distract voters’ minds from more pertinent questions.
How about this question: What will the presidential candidates’ foreign policy be in the future?
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), we know the answer for at least one candidate, thanks to Bush’s holy war against All Bad People Everywhere. Kerry’s plans are less clear.
A lot of talk on shows like Crossfire has focused on peripheral issues such as Vietnam. Even when Stewart was on, Carlson tried desperately to get him off the point. "What do you think of the Bill O’Reilly vibrator story?" Carlson asked, referring to allegations that the Fox News host sexually harassed one of his producers. Carlson probably thought he was very wise in propping up a prominent conservative for Stewart to knock down. Doubtless, Carlson hoped it would save him from Stewart’s vitriol. But Stewart refused to buy into it, responding simply: "I don’t."
Stewart was asked which candidate would provide him with better comedic material for his show. He responded by saying "Mr. T." (By this point, Republicans everywhere were beginning to pity that bow-tied fool, Tucker Carlson, as Stewart sunk his teeth deeper and deeper into his jugular.) But on a more serious note, Stewart said that "the absurdity of the system" provides him with the most material for his show.
The state of politics in America is truly absurd. Self-professed political pundits lob softballs at each other, and then a comedian shows up and throws back the curtains, exposing the partisan hacks for what they are. He shows that they debate using scripted over-simplifications that make thoughtful debate difficult, if not impossible. At the end of the day, the comedian can be trusted more than CNN.
Politics are not black and white. Political discussion doesn’t necessarily have to be pro-war versus antiwar, pro-choice versus pro-life, conservative versus liberal, or right versus left. These labels might serve a purpose, but only to a point. They can often be used by politicians and mimicked by the media to draw up a limiting framework where discussion can take place.
The discussion has to come out of those tired boxes. Stewart yanked it free from "partisan hackery" and for just over 13 rare and glorious minutes, truth got some airtime on CNN. Do yourself a favour and watch the Crossfire segment (it’s available all over the Internet). The clip is more insightful than Fahrenheit 9/11, just as entertaining, and takes only a fraction of the time to watch. It may be the best piece of American television to be broadcast in the last year.
If only Stewart could have moderated the presidential debates. Now those would have been debates worth watching. |
Copyright ©2004 FFWD. All rights reserved.