It has always been difficult to discern the difference between whether or not the news companies are actually informational, or if they are only after ratings through entertainment.  The news companies have created shows such as "Crossfire" in such a way as to raise their ratings all the while still relaying the news.  The question is whether or not they are actually succeeding in relaying the news while raising said station ratings.

The episode that contained Jon Stewart was particularly interesting due to Stewart's ability to fight humorous condescending remarks with some of his own.  The difference, however, quickly became realized when Stewart not only made his comical remarks, but in the way he delivered said remarks in a calm and collective manner.  The manner in which he spoke would not have mattered except for the fact that the show as well as the other two members of the illegitimate debate thrived upon exhibited emotions and outbursts as a way to bring in views.  The two men "cross firing" Stewart seemed to realize this and took to attacking Stewart as a person rather than to debate his views or beliefs.  An argument is a dispute between two or more beliefs or views on a subject.  Some trigger strong emotions due to someone’s passion for the subject or matter at hand; most of the time the ones arguing rarely open their minds to one other.  That did not happen in this case.  Stewart made sure he got his point across by not chasing after the white rabbit that was heading down a burrow of unrelated and immature topics.

The show did have more flare due to the intense fighting, but had it lost its purpose, or was it exactly what they were hoping for?  One will have to question that for themselves.