BROOKE GLADSTONE: As we reported last month one of the first moves taken by new CNN President Jonathan Klein was to cancel the network's signature shoutfest Crossfire. In so doing, he explicitly allied himself with the show's most famous detractor, comedian turned social critic Jon Stewart who turned an October appearance on the show into a biting critique.

JON STEWART: It's not so much that it's bad as it's hurting America. [LAUGHTER]

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Granted, there were probably non-ideological components to Jonathan Klein's decision. The show's ratings had plummeted since its prime time heyday. Nevertheless Klein is being held for the move in editorial pages ranging from the Chicago Tribune to the Augusta Georgia Chronicle. CNN Washington Bureau Chief David Bohrman summed up the reaction when the told the Washington Post that, "There was a sense that Crossfire had developed into people asking each other if they still beat their wife." [MUSIC UP AND UNDER]

MAN: On the left Paul Begala. On the right Robert Novak. [SEVERAL AT ONCE]

MAN: Because they should vote for all of them. He says-- [OVERTALK] He says--

MAN: If he says what? The Constitution says advise and consent.

MAN: He says that--but he says the President should be entitled to the people he wants-- [SOUND OF GONG] [OFF-MIKE COMMENTS]

BROOKE GLADSTONE: At least one pundit doesn't agree that this model of political debate is hurting America. Michael Kinsley, one-time host of Crossfire and current opinion and editorial editor at the L.A. Times wrote a fond eulogy for the show. And he joins us now. Michael, welcome back.

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Thanks, Brooke.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So I get the impression that you were annoyed by the vigor with which your colleagues jumped on the funeral procession.

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Canceling Crossfire is not, you know, the worst thing in the world but Jon Klein, who is doing a lot of interesting and good things at CNN, sort of agreed with Jon Stewart about it, which was a little unseemly while he was sticking in the knife, I thought. And I think that the genre of shoutfest, as you call them, has some value.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So then how would you respond to Jon Stewart in this criticism?

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Well, let me say a few things. First of all, do you still beat your wife is a pretty good question.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: [LAUGHS]

MICHAEL KINSLEY: You know. You have to make a question that'll force the politician to say something interesting. And, you know, a question where any of the obvious alternatives leaves no good escape is a good question because he or she will either have to say something interesting, or flagrantly avoid it.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Okay, so then let's continue this conversation in true Crossfire style. [MUSIC, APPLAUSE FROM SHOW] Now on the intriguingly contrarian yet vaguely self-interested side, Michael Kinsley. [APPLAUSE, CHEERS] And on the sanctimonious, not of the real world side, Bob Garfield. [CLAPPING] In the crossfire, Crossfire, threat or menace? The former host says that Crossfire penetrated the American public in ways that more nuanced media can't. The holier than thou outsider says that the adversarial format of Crossfire crowds out complexity and degrades the national political discourse. Is the end of Crossfire good or bad for America? Garfield?

BOB GARFIELD: It's good for America. Michael, you've been the host of Crossfire, I've been on the show exactly once.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: [LAUGHS]

BOB GARFIELD: But the whole time I felt like Jimmy Swaggart in a whorehouse, caught up in the excitement but dirty, dirty, dirty all at the same time. It's not just that complex social policy issues are distilled to cheap theatrics and a few bumper sticker oneliners; after all, that's how political discourse is mass marketed in this country. The point is that journalism should be about getting beyond the trivial sloganeering. It should be seeking genuine understanding, not pressing hot buttons. The sin of Crossfire was that it was so busy playing to an entrenched opinion that it failed to enlighten anyone. Rockem, Sockem Robots is a good game, but it's a game for children. [APPLAUSE]

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Well Bob, first of all, democracy is conducted on many levels. And, you know, I've worked for many years at the New Republic magazine and I'm now at the Los Angeles Times editorial page. And yes, you get more a thoughtful and more detailed analysis there. You also reach fewer people. On a show like Crossfire you are appealing, at least in its heyday, to millions of people. It's like a shot right to the heart of the body politic. You have to deal on a different level. Not everybody reads the New York Review of Books or the New Republic. And if you give up on any attempt to reach people directly, I think you're not playing the game of democracy, which is a very good game. [APPLAUSE, CHEERS]

BOB GARFIELD: It's interesting you should use the phrase "a shot to the heart of American democracy" because, as we both know, a shot to the heart tends to be fatal. But let me change metaphors. [VOICES IN BACKGROUND] You seem to be suggesting that because it's palatable it therefore has some level of goodness. But, you know, some parents can't get their kids to eat broccoli, so they give them potato chips. I say that's not good parenting. Me, I just exposed my kids to broccoli early, and they love broccoli. And, by the way, they read the New York Times. [CLAPPING]

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Well you're fortunate in both of those. But we can't live on broccoli. [APPLAUSE, WHISTLES, LAUGHTER] I think Crossfire, in some ways, was more intellectually honest than other shows that people find more respectable. On Meet the Press and these formal interview shows you have to pretend that you're totally objective when you're asking someone the questions. And then on the shows which are sort of panel discussions, you have to pretend that you know everything. When I worked on Crossfire I felt very comfortable that I was asking questions, but at the same time not having to hide my viewpoint. And that seemed more honest. There actually wasn't all that much shouting on Crossfire. I think what politicians like to dismiss as shouting was relentless pressure on them to answer and follow-ups that prevented them from answering with nonsense. And that creates a lot of tension, and for instance-- [OVERTALK]

BOB GARFIELD: Oh, isn't it like you pundits to just oversimplify! [SOUND OF GONG]

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Well-- [OVERTALK]

BOB GARFIELD: You know Michael, vanilla extract isn't vanilla. Oh, it tastes and smells good but it's just a distillation that exaggerates, and Michael, ultimately distorts the actual bean's intrinsic quality. [LAUGHTER] You can ask the questions-- [GONG SOUND] --but if no answers come forth-- [VOICES IN BACKGROUND] --haven't you just given the public vanilla--extract? [GONG SOUNDS GOING OFF, VOICES]

MICHAEL KINSLEY: I'm not sure I follow the metaphor.

BOB GARFIELD: Yeah, I'm--frankly, I'm lost too.

MICHAEL KINSLEY: But I think the crossfire method actually extracted more information and true views from politicians or exposed them more clearly for evading the answer than other shows. And I think that that was a strength, not a weakness. [MUSIC, APPLAUSE]

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Tomorrow's topic, Bob Novak, Threat or Menace. [APPLAUSE] Michael, thank you so much for doing this.

MICHAEL KINSLEY: You're welcome, Brooke. And I look forward to that one tomorrow. [APPLAUSE]

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Michael Kinsley has edited Harper's and the New Republic, founded and edited the on-line journal Slate, and written columns for the Wall Street Journal, the Times of London and the New Republic, among other things. Since 2004 he's been the editorial and opinion editor for the L.A. Times. [MUSIC]

BOB GARFIELD: Coming up, a recipe for Superman. Take two gangsters, add geeks, and stir.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: This is On the Media from NPR.