Reviews & Ratings for
"Crossfire" More at IMDbPro »

15 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
In the words of Jon Stewart, Partisan Hackery!, 21 October 2004
Author: dancerwh86 from Savannah, Georgia

"Crossfire" like many other politically minded shows tries to make itself off to be a debate show and as Jon Stewart pointed out in what will no doubt became one of the most infamous incidents on the show: It isn't. It is theater. The hosts work under this false pretense that they are showing opposite sides, but really they represent their parties and not the viewpoints of the people. While, it is a little more two sided than say the O'Reilly Factor, it really doesn't debate the real issues anymore than a newsreport does.This show is again in Jon Stewart's words, "Hurting America!" They represent the politicians and the corporations that already have shows like Crossfire worked into their strategies. The people's viewpoint though plays little to no part in the show.

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
A show where even discussion about the weather is partisan., 24 December 2004
Author: Pepper Anne from Orlando, Florida

"Crossfire" is a mind-numbingly poor excuse for political discussion. The show has been on CNN for quite awhile, but the recent hosts (as of 2004) are James Carville and Paul Begala representing the "left" (despite views that are not very progressive) and Robert Novak and Tucker "I wear this bow tie for maximum ass kissing" Carlson representing "the right" (although they tend to lean more toward the extreme right).

The rules are the following: you can't discuss anything, no matter how important, for more than two minutes. (Imagine how much meaningful debate can arise from this). It is a half-hour talk show, and something like a boxing ring bell sounds every time the hosts are supposed to move on to a new subject. Second, you can't do anything or say anything without having a bias position (notice they don't have anyone representing "independents" or "non-partisans"), so every situation is supposed to be clear cut, black and white: either Democratic or Republican in viewpoint. Third, if you're the host, no matter which side you sit on, you have to either pre-apologize for anything you say about another person (extreme political correctness) or you can't directly address the other person (James Carville almost never looks at Novak). And fourth, and this is the most important rule for the show, don't present real or unambiguous facts. That is why any counterargument generalizes about "liberals" or "conservatives" rather than addressing the issue at hand and any legitimate counterarguments. If it were a legitimate debate show, they would ask academics and other "experts" on their shows rather than the usual career politicians and other hacks.

If you have seen the recent documentary, "Outfoxed" and thought FOX was the only problem as far as corporate news networks and their failures to present meaningful political discussion and information rather than partisan bickering and mindless entertainment, then you probably haven't watched CNN, who seems to have taken the cue from FOX. To sum up what a poor mockery this show really is, check out the October 2004 (or November?) show when Jon Stewart was a guest. Shows like these encourage arbitrary extreme partisanship, and are responsible for the extreme competitiveness and polarization of most of the American populace. It doesn't matter what the situation is, what the facts are, shows like these only want you to keep two things in mind: there are two sides (and only two sides) to everything, and there is only one winner.

Like it don't like it, 2 September 2005
Author: mm-39 from Winnipeg

The show was one of the few the viewer heard a message from the right. Now right wing TV is a staple and contains a very big niche market. Cross-Fire was a show ahead of its time. I like it and don't like it depending on who is hosting the show. Pat and the other guy were the best chemistry the shows has. A little too much yelling and Springer now. You can throw in the Springer antics for 10% of the show. Anymore, the show starts to look silly. Tucker got that tie, and Carvel has those crazy hand gestures. Maybe this crossfire and the many copies have run the gambit. I would like to see maybe just one more type of show where they pit Lou Dobbs against Aaron Brown, and they would agree on many things which makes the show a little less silly. I'll watch Crossfire next year to see who is on it.

4 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Crossfire makes Hannity and Colmes look like a watery turd, 19 January 2004
Author: anthembites from USA

Crossfire is by-far the best political debate show on TV. It's ten times better than that right-wing propaganda platform, HANNITY and colmes. Paul Begala and Jim Carville actually stand up for liberalism unlike colmes who is more HANNITY's sidekick who he makes derogatory jokes about. Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak actually stand up for Conservatism even though it's CNN which does tilt left although not as blatantly and far as Fox New's propaganda. Plus, every show, they have one Liberal guest and on Conservative guest unless they're focusing on a person or direct and they have one expert on that person or issue who could be of either side. HANNITY and Colmes always has conservatives on to help HANNITY try paint moderate Liberals as out of touch with Americans while far-Right Nazi Republicans are labeled as America's great hope even though Conservatives already have power.

Add another review

Related Links