Comedy Central may be well known for its expertise in fake news, but in 2004, its show “Crossballs” showed an equal aptitude for fake debate shows. Created by Matt Besser, alumnus of the subversive cult hit “Upright Citizens Brigade,” “Crossballs” pitted real experts against stand-up comedians posing as experts. In light of fake news anchor Jon Stewart’s recent appearance on CNN’s “serious” debate show, “Crossfire,” the Guardian looked to this creator of this show for insight into the state of U.S. media today:
Guardian: On “Crossballs,” even though you populate your debate show with a bunch of loony sketch-comedy characters, the tone isn’t that far off from the reality of these other big-time TV debate shows. What’s wrong here?
Besser: You know, Jon Stewart was pretty much attacking the host [on “Crossfire”], but I think that the people who go on the shows need equal scrutiny because the way they debate is so ridiculous: whether they use hyperbole, or just use facts that their own organizations have come up with.
G: One of the “facts” that is thrown around a lot is the daily Reuters poll which shows Bush or Kerry up by one point in a poll with a margin of error of four points …
B: Well, first off, I don’t understand “undecided” voters [from these polls], or that people even need to listen to a debate or a debate show to make up their mind. It just seems that you can see from the actions of [President Bush], or the actions of [Senator Kerry], and make up your own mind. But we actually listen to people, and listen to them debate, and it’s unfortunate when you see someone who’s even someone you agree with, and they’re arguing like an idiot.
Obviously, everyone should be able to state their opinion, but there does need to be better moderators to keep people in line and tell them when they’re not saying something that is factual. But, it seems like most of the time, the moderator has their own agenda, and they’re pretty much controlling the debate the way they want it to go.
G: Like the hosts’ agenda on “Crossfire” when Jon Stewart was told to shut up if he tried to be serious. Is that a responsible way to hold a so-called debate?
B: It’s the viewer’s responsibility, too, to know that they’re not watching something factual that they should be forming their opinion on. I don’t think that most people are. But then again, I’ve driven cross-country and listened to talk radio, and when you hear what most Americans are listening to — it’s this talk radio. When Clinton was in office, I listened to an hour of these talk radio hosts talking about how Hillary didn’t know how to bake a pie! And they weren’t being ironic or funny, they were just really mad about it!
So then, you realize that people form their opinions more on things like Monica Lewinsky – that upsets them way more than lying about weapons of mass destruction. When you see that, you [realize the viewers are] just as responsible for what they care about. And that’s not the debate show’s fault, it’s just easier for people to get upset about certain things that are easier to handle … like calling Dick Cheney’s daughter a lesbian. You don’t have to be too educated or knowledgeable about what’s going on in the world to have an opinion on whether somebody’s daughter should be called a lesbian or not.
G: As a trained misinformation artist with the “Upright Citizens Brigade,” what advice do you have for wading through all of the spin in these last days before the election?
B: Don’t trust the news tickers. They pretend to be innocent little words there to inform you, but they have just as many opinions and their own agenda. I love Fox News — how they do this. They say: “Kerry: against home security?” as if that’s a neutral question, when “Kerry: for home security?” means the same thing. If [the ticker] was on Fox, they’re going to say “against,” and if it’s on CNN they’re going to say “for.” Because the viewer doesn’t read the question mark.
