Within a Politico article which outlines the hiatus of the CNN Show “CrossFire” you find the following detail:
Crossfire brought the 6:30 p.m. ratings down 25 percent in total viewers and 23 percent in the 25-to-54 demo when compared to the nine months leading up to its launch. (link)
This is exactly as we predicted eight months ago.
Original Article From September 8th 2013 – CNN SET TO FAIL: Next week (on Monday) CNN is set to rework the old Crossfire Show with a new cast. Unfortunately, because of pundit selection, it is set-up to fail before it even starts. The problem is best defined as “intellectual dishonesty”.
The cast is being sold as two progressives, Van Jones / Stephanie Cutter, versus two conservatives Newt Gingrich / S.E. Cupp.
Both Jones and Gingrich are good choices as each can present strong intellectual arguments around modern/current political aspects of current events. However, both Stephanie Cutter and S.E. Cupp are dishonest to a fault in almost all of their professional pontifications.
If you use the twenty point scale for political positioning, where 1 represents the furthest left one could be (Big Government – Communism), and 20 represents the furthest right one could be (No Government – Anarchy) , I would scale the panel as follows:
- Van Jones – 4 / 5
- Stephanie Cutter – 4 / 5
- Newt Gingrich – 13 / 14
- S.E. Cupp – 10 / 11
A pure Democracy (Majority/Mob rule) would be around 10. A constitutional Republic around a 16. For context: President Obama is probably around a 4, Bill Clinton around 8, Ronald Reagan around 15, George W Bush in the 11/12 range.
You can see the problem from this aspect. The entire panel (scaled) tilts left with both Cutter and Jones being, essentially, sock puppet mouthpieces for the current administration. Newt Gingrich being the furthest panel member toward conservatism, and SE Cupp being a fulcrum sitter.
That skew is to be expected from a Jeff Zucker construct; but that skew alone is not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is the dishonest historical nature of both Stephanie Cutter and S.E Cupp. Dishonest in the extreme.
Stephanie Cutter is perhaps most recently famous for her lies during the 2012 Presidential Campaign. She even claimed that Romney/Ryan made Benghazi the political hot button issue of the campaign.
Cutter has such a propensity for lying that when her falsehoods are called out she breaks out in a visible rash.
S.E Cupp, on the other hand, is well beyond insufferable with her ridiculous definitions of “conservative”. She is the ultimate “poser”.
She proclaims herself an atheist, in the first paragraph about a book constructed around defending the liberal attacks on Christianity. She claims a particular affection to gay issues, even refusing to attend CPAC over it.
About Rush Limbaugh she claimed: “We can’t be afraid to call out Rush Limbaugh, If we can get three Republicans on three different networks saying, ‘What Rush Limbaugh said is crazy and stupid and dangerous,’ maybe that’ll give other Republicans cover to denounce the talk-show host as well.” Jeffrey Lord summed her up very well.
Cutter is a notorious liar without any intellectual honesty/credibility at all. Cupp is a notorious pleaser more worried about being liked by the ‘in-crowd’ than actually standing for anything; like Cutter, Cupp is devoid of credibility and immature beneath her years.
One of the worst things a network can do is to highlight discussions by dishonest people. Both Cutter and Cupp are notorious in that regard.
Those who do follow political punditry weight honest presentations with full merit, and they will not tune in to characters who have already solidified themselves in the land of the dishonest.
Those potential viewers who don’t know their background are: a) not the type who would tune in to see a point and counter-point discussion to begin with; and b) would soon see the insufferable hypocrisy present in both Cutter/Cupp presentations.
At least Van Jones and Newt Gingrich, while not close on views, are honest with their advocacy and willing to admit when their side is on the losing position. Unlike Cutter and Cupp who have honed their skill at denying the obvious.
Zucker has constructed a weak framework. The show will fail.
If CNN via Jeff Zucker actually wanted the show to succeed, and considering the gender and racial component along with optical pleasantries that are an unfortunate aspect to Madison Avenue TV presentations, there are two female pundits who would give the show a fighting chance.
If Kirsten Powers and Deneen Borelli were positioned beside Jones and Gingrich you would have the foundation of one heck of a great panel debate.
The scaled balance would also be just about right with:
- Van Jones – 4/5
- Kirsten Powers – 8/9
- Newt Gingrich – 13/14
- and Deneen Borelli – 15/16
If you do not know, or are not familiar with, Deneen Borelli – you should. She is a solid constitutional conservative, a great intellectual and a highly underappreciated asset in the conservative media sphere.
Alas, this assembly would never pass Zucker’s muster – It would be an audience driven expectation and structurally honest, not one of CNN’s known fortes.