{"id":1657,"date":"2010-06-23T12:23:33","date_gmt":"2010-06-23T16:23:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/000af36.netsolhost.com\/wordpress1\/2010\/06\/23\/parker-and-spitzer-on-cnn\/"},"modified":"2010-06-23T12:23:33","modified_gmt":"2010-06-23T16:23:33","slug":"parker-and-spitzer-on-cnn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2010\/06\/23\/parker-and-spitzer-on-cnn\/","title":{"rendered":"Parker and Spitzer on CNN"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kathleen Parker is one conservative I find thoughtful and fair, even if I don\u2019t always agree with her.  Eliot Spitzer, given his background as a politician, will need to prove that he\u2019s not just a partisan apologist as the two team up for an 8 p.m. nightly CNN show.<\/p>\n

So far, they\u2019re saying<\/a> the right things:<\/p>\n

\n

Parker: \u201cIf people want to just hear what they already believe, they have plenty of places to go. And so what we\u2019re to do with this show is have a conversation and help people reach a conclusion through rational conversation, versus debate. We\u2019ll come at it from different directions, because we\u2019re very different people. It\u2019s going to be a conversation \u2014 a roundtable \u2014 with guests and with some regular contributors. \u2026 We feel like we\u2019re different enough to be interesting, but share the goal of trying to enlighten and advance the conversation about things we care about.\u201d <\/p>\n

Spitzer: \u201cIt\u2019s going to be more to inform and challenge and be thoughtful. Where we disagree, we\u2019ll be open about disagreements, but do it in a way that is obviously not only polite but is reasoned and say, \u2018OK, I can see why you think that, but here is where I come out on the issue. <\/p>\n

Then Spitzer took a shot: \u201cThe premise is that if people want to be validated in their underlying ideology and be made comfortable at 8 o\u2019clock, they have a place to go. And that\u2019s wonderful, and we applaud that. But if they want to be challenged and hear dissenting views and be informed, then we think we can create something very exciting and different. \u2026 People will be surprised how often we agree. This is not just an effort to highlight disagreement. It\u2019s an effort to highlight agreement.\u201d <\/p>\n

Asked how they\u2019ll make it exciting rather than snoozy, Parker said: \u201cRather than snoozy!? Come one, Mike, you really think we\u2019d be boring?\u201d <\/p>\n

Spitzer: \u201cI don\u2019t think boredom is the issue. The issue is how you transform cantankerous argument into thoughtful conversation. And the answer there is fact \u2014 facts and cleverness. Kathleen will be the wit and the charm. And we\u2019ll come back to facts over and over again, because so much of what you hear on TV these days is ideology untethered from facts. What we\u2019re going to do is be rigorous about coming to facts and being true to them.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This will test the theory that people actually want informed, rationale discussion.  But the format has not been set, and no one expects (hopefully prays) that the program will be just the two of them discussing the issues.  All we know is that it\u2019s not a new \u201cCrossfire or a combative battle of conservative talking points,\u201d according to CNN executives.  That\u2019s good, but what does that leave them?<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what I\u2019d like to see:<\/p>\n