CNN, the granddaddy of cable news, has won accolades for its coverage of the unfolding disaster in Haiti. Working with a far larger number of reporters and producers than its competitors at MSNBC or Fox, the network has provided valuable and affecting on the ground coverage—and plenty of it.
CNN saw a ratings spike as they covered this important story, surpassing MSNBC in the ratings after a summer where, save for a fat period surrounding Michael Jackson’s death and funeral, they battled with MSNBC for a distant second in the nightly ratings, far behind Fox.
The network’s marketing approach these days is to proclaim that they are neither red nor blue—“No bias, no bull” and so forth. These claims seem designed to draw contrasts with their more ideologically strident competitors. Maybe those claims—and the down-the-middle orientation they are meant to highlight—appeal to some viewers. But they aren’t winning the ratings race.
In this fragmented and highly partisan era, do you think there’s a mass audience excited to watch a cable news station that tries not to take sides? If you are a CNN watcher, why do you prefer the network
over its competitors? And if you’re not, is there anything they could do to make you want to watch?
Just like CJR, CNN is realizing too late that Political Activists are the most information savvy people on the planet.
When Anderson Cooper and Susan Roesgen attacked the Tea party protests but turned a blind eye to protests duruing the last Administration, it was noted that sides were being played.
The job of any news outlet is to relay information and let the consumer decide.
Just like CJR never holds a critical eye to Frank Rich, American prospect or The nation magazine because of the conflict of interest with Victor Navasky, CNN's played the same game and lost.
Again, who holds Victor Navasky accountable for fundraising at the Nation using CJR's letterhead? A true reporter would start investigating, but there are none here.
#1 Posted by JSF, CJR on Tue 2 Feb 2010 at 03:59 PM
Sadly, the tide has shifted towards punditry to such an extreme degree that media outlets who attempt to be as balanced as possible end up enraging both sides because they fail to shill full-force for either cause. We've come to expect that particular media outlets will expose the other side more than ours, and it's lead to widespread disenchantment. FOX News has dramatically affected these expectations.
The Internet seems to be affecting public discourse in the opposite way that some "glass is half full analysts" expected.
Now, the cause for this transition can be blamed on the forty some odd years of attack by Republicans on what they feel is the "Liberal media." This criticism has lead to the birth of FOX News. Conservatives have simply outspent Liberals in that regard.
Interestingly, before 9/11 it was common to hear Conservatives lambaste the "Liberal, Jew run media." However the most recent holy alliance against Islamic fundamentalism, has effectively sidelined this criticism.
From my perspective, we have entered into a media free-fall similar to that of the turn of the century, up until FDR's "New Deal."
While the most recent transformation of the media into a kind of Orwellian joke machine seems abominable to my generation (Generation X), the media seems to be settling back into it's early role as a monolithic propaganda unit.
If modern American society wasn't so lazy, and disengaged regarding intellectual issues, and politics in general, then such a transformation wouldn't resonate with me as much as it does. Unfortunately, the cable news phenomenon has effectively dumbed down our society to the point that even the most egregious arguments have legs.
Since the death of the "Fairness Doctrine" media outlets have indulged in pseudo-reality television, and our ability to decipher, or even consider nuance, has diminished dramatically. Of course,w e warned about all of this, but we received cheap housing, and other goods that now seem superfluous. We were catatonic.
The patients are now officially in charge of the asylum.
#2 Posted by Michael, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 04:52 AM
For the record, JSF is wrong about Victor Navasky and CJR's letterhead. Bad facts have not slowed JSF down in the past, however.
#3 Posted by mike hoyt, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 09:59 AM
Maybe CNN should be more like CNN International. On CNN I get more serious reporting than anywhere on cable, but that's not saying a lot. It often feels fractured, sometimes hyped, and regularly interrupted with analysis and spin. CNN International comes closer to what I am looking for: just tell me the significant news.
#4 Posted by mike hoyt, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 10:03 AM
I think they have been able to preserve their brand as the channel that's best able to provide strong reporting when big news breaks, and you see that reflected in the ratings gains they made with their Haiti coverage. People who don't regularly watch cable news look at CNN as a place to get news when they want it.
But I don't see how that carries over to making inroads among people who do watch cable news. Those folks are in general highly politically engaged, and almost all people who are highly politically engaged have a lot of political opinions. And for the most part they want to see that opinion reflected (or, in same cases, challenged) when they watch TV. So the market for day-to-day politics coverage that is self-consciously unopinionated may be limited.
#5 Posted by greg marx, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 10:17 AM
Re: JSF's comment. As publisher emeritus of The Nation, I occasionally send out letters on Nation letterhead—for Nation business. However, my main job is chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review, and CJR business proudly goes out on CJR letterhead. My secretary has strict instructions about that.
#6 Posted by victor navasky, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 10:36 AM
At this point, I feel like CNN is in an entirely different game than FOX and MSNBC. And while I’m not an expert in the economics of cable TV, I’m sure CNN is making Time Warner a good deal of money. Obviously, they’d make more if they had the kind of ratings FOX does, but it’s not clear to me how they’d do that.
Even if CNN’s staff, leadership, and owners were comfortable with such a gambit, MSNBC has already staked out the ideological space on the left. It’s often said of that by increasing the quality and quantity of reporting, more people might watch. And maybe that’s the case. But producing Frontline and 60 Minutes style work is very expensive, and the evidence suggests that cable news programmers have long ago made the rational cost benefit analysis that that kind of programming isn’t worth the time, money, and effort when they can turn a profit with the live news streams, shouting head matches, and spin zones we’re often getting now.
It’s a pity, and I’d love for a network to try to prove me wrong.
#7 Posted by Clint Hendler, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 11:33 AM
Mr. Navasky,
Thank you for the reply.
However, ashead of CJR ("the press in all it's forms," I still see you fundraise for The Nation Magazine.
And the lack of criticism on The nation, American Prospect, Frank Rich, etc. et. al is due to your "emeratus" status as Nation magazine Publisher.
All I am asking Mr. Navasky is to choose: To work at CJR means you should be a neutral observer (Again, "the press in ALL it's forms) or go back to The Nation and fundraise to your heart's content and find another perosn who is unafraid of taking on the Left magazines as well as the Right.
The best rebut would be an article explaining who you can be a Neutral observer and still fundraise for The Nation. That is threading a small needle, but this is a question of CJR's conflict of Interest.
I await your article Mr. Navasky, but for now you are at the center of a Conflict of Interest. Explain it and then fire yourself from one job.
Would CJR accept Howard Kurtz complaining about the media on one hand and raising funds for the National Review on the other?
I wouldn't accept and neither should you. Explain and choose Mr. Navasky, this is a campaign issue for some of us.
#8 Posted by JSF, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 12:03 PM
Too many of CNN's anchors fail to do their proper job. For example, Wolf Blitzer's presentation is poor on just about all counts. It's painful to watch him blither through convoluted questions in which he too often appears to making a speech or pushing a personal point. From the beginning of his remark to the end it's easy to forget what the hell he's on about. And he too often sounds like he's pushing a point of view rather than revealing issues. Betty Nguyen's another. She, like too many CNN anchors, constantly injects her opinion, her approval or disapproval of bits of news, if not verbally, then by facial expression. And generally, much of what CNN calls news is nothing more than an opinion show of personal advocacy, fluffed up by Twitter and Facebook: Rick Sanchez, for example, is simply annoying. The use of Twitter and Facebook comes off as nothing more than cheapness - CNN doesn't want to pay for serious investigative journalism, so we get tweets instead. I don't want to hear what Joe Doe in Bootheel, Montana has to say on Twitter or Facebook. I want a damned professional newsperson to present facts, without bias, without making faces, without demonstrating approval or disapproval. Nor do I want presentations that claim to be objective and fair by presenting two viewpoints, one, for example, held by ten thousand legitimate scientists and opposed by two cranks. Frankly, CNN comes off as amateur night at the news. Fox lies and distorts and makes no bones about it (or are at least completely deluded), but CNN bills itself as a professional news organization. It would be nice if they started acting like one.
#9 Posted by Ric Gerace, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 03:32 PM
I`m only wahtching Cnn International where i think that t5he reporting are more serious
pariuri sportive
#10 Posted by pariuri sportive, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 04:03 PM
The "middle" shifts according to whom is is power. The test of genuinely unbiased reporting is not whether it reports this side and that side, but by the focus and depth of its questions to whomever is in power. "In power" could be a politician, a CEO, an advocate. Core issues are rarely examined because it's easier to pretend that all perspectives - flat earth anyone?- are equally valuable, when some are simply wrong.
CNN, like all the networks, fails to ask even mildly probing questions of people in power. Instead, they grab political footballs that distract from vital issues. Is abortion really a hot issue or is it easy to start a fire with it? Consider how coverage would change if the issue wasn't abortion, but how much control a political group or a particular religious belief should hold over governance and, by extension, those governed. That's a more difficult story to tell because it requires rethinking the nature of public presentation of an issue that raises hackles.
Getting attention has become the default of the news networks. CNN fails miserably at separating issue from personality and in so doing they have displaced the intellectual rigor that might distinguish them from the blatantly biased programs. Has no one heard of Britain's news bulldog Jeremy Paxton?
Neutral is not the same as unbiased. No one is neutral, and we shouldn't be because we are human. Being unbiased is different than forcing everything into a single narrative like Fox News does. CNN isn't losing the ratings battle because they are middle of the road, they're losing because they do not seem interested in or knowledgeable about the stories they tell, because their personalities engage only where there's an picturesque crisis.
#11 Posted by Mary McF, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 06:05 PM
Most of those watching Fox seem to be like my 94-year-old father who watches 3 stations and one is Fox. He knew what was right in the 30's and it won't change!!!! We have too many non-thinkers from high school on up. They learn some thing one way and forever and a day it must stay the same. Pushing religion as their reason for thinking as they do on Fox doesn't help--yet most don't realize that until Rove came on Evangelicals and Catholics wouldn't talk to one another let alone listen and send money to the same causes. I mentioned something detrimental regarding Reagan in the 1990's and was cut off. Nothing like that can be talked about him. He was born and raised through 18 years old in Dixon, IL which was 13 miles away. Horrors--to think that someone somewhere disapproved of Reagan's actions. When Fox uses security and the supposed difference between cultures or between religions everyone watching gets all excited and happy. CNN needs more factual news activity. Most of what they talk about is never mentioned in the newspapers. Obama's debate in Baltimore was one of the first for this year but I didn't see if there was any discussion later to analyze the information from him or the Republicans. Jon Stewart showed the distinction between CNN and Fox by showing that Fox News had already decided what they were going to say about Obama's performance PRIOR TO the action. How did Fox know what he would say or what they would ask him when all of it was "off the cuff."? TOO many don't think there is any difference anyway. Others were working or at school so they could only get a re-run on their computers--IF THEY WERE INTERESTED or anyone told them it was there. I watch CNN for 30 minutes in AM but seldom return since what they talk about is the same or a repeat from 2-4 days ago. They spend a lot of time chasing lost children and runaway husbands in TX or GA or FL but that tells me little since I'm in CA and in a back apt. so I don't even see people much here. State and national and international news I look for but find most of it on BBC--TV and computer. BBC will have 12-15 items in 25 minutes from 3-4 different continents and most of them are not talked about even in NYTimes until one or two days later if at all. Even analysis is more thorough in BBC. CNN did a fantastic job with the Haiti earthquake and BBC came in second. I checked Fox a couple of times and very little was talked about. It was mentioned but not with the thoroughness that they did in Katrina. But since Fox is white male and Haiti is coal-black, why would they bother????
#12 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 07:10 PM
You have GOT to be kidding me!
You mean to tell me that that the Chairman of this "Journalism Review" is the publisher emeritus for The Nation?!... And that splits he splits his time between "impartially" monitoring the state of professional journalism and pandering for his liberal rag?
How in the Hell can any of the Junior "Watchdogs" on the CJR masthead maintain any sense of self-respect under these circumstances? Do they issue your kneepads at the job interview, or on the first day of "impartially" watchdogging?
Thanks for the enlightening education, JSF.
What a damned joke this review has become.
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 08:02 PM
Two days of poor CNN "reporters" standing around New Orleans with rain slickers and microphones hyping the second coming of the storm of the century and nothing. Just the typical, seasonal storm from the Carribean. Was it George Soros, TimeWarner, CNN management or what? They are so pathetic. Now, Larry King can report on the storm tonight, yuk!
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/smoke-relief-review-does-free-trial-work-1697939.html
#14 Posted by noiserime, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 10:58 PM
Padi,
Don't worry, there are more people to be told.
I have friends working with candidates on both coasts, the moment any Newspaper article mis-represents any candidate on the Right, we only have to cite Navasky's presence here at CJR and fundraisng for The Nation as the love affair betwen the Left and the media.
And the fact that Navasky went on his fundraising cruise in December is all the proof any candidate needs.
We can flog it until 2012. Fun times ahead.
The only way this will stop is if Navasky explains and makes his choice.
#15 Posted by JSF, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 02:48 AM
CNN is mistaken to go after the "intelligent person" demographic. Intelligent people don't watch TV news. Television can transmit a brief stream of specific information, like a weather report, but it really isn't a good medium for learning about complex issues.
TV is a passive medium that doesn't really foster thinking. Cable TV doesn't yet have a feature that allows you to Google every dubious statement that comes out of a pundit's mouth in real time. People who sit down to watch TV news are just looking to have "The Truth" fired at them out of a cannon without having to do any of their own thinking, just like people who watch Leno and Letterman are looking to have "Something That'll Make Me Laugh" launched at them.
CNN should do like Roger Ailes and just boil everything down to a few Neanderthalic talking points each morning, if they're looking to attract the type of people who watch TV news.
#16 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 10:25 AM
you can't beat cnn for hurricanes and other natural disasters but
fox success with the roger ailes version of rupert murdoch political media has turned cable news into political theater
the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and MSNBC have adapted to the challenge
cnn has not adapted
cnn claims to be the best political news team but they do not attract viewers
like their competitors
they look like they are trying to recreate the techo-format of the original MSNBC
#17 Posted by jamzo, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 11:06 AM
I watch CNN. Why? Because it has the fewest haters. Fox leads the pack with its haters, but MSNBC has its share.
Less rabid but just as tiresome are the ardent partisans. JSR falls into this category.
The haters I feel sorry for -- completely lost cause. The JSRs just leave me thinking "really, is it worth all the mental energy you're putting into this?"
#18 Posted by keatonr, CJR on Mon 8 Feb 2010 at 09:38 PM
Mr. Navasky & Mr. Ailes are just opposite sides of the coin. Both are likely more blinkered than agenda driven.
And has anyone listened to Ted Turner lately? He has to be the leading media kook. Global warming will cause mass cannibalism? Right, Ted...
CNN commits the unpardonable sin of being deadly dull. It used to be the only option here in Asia, but the internet has made it obsolete.
#19 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 07:47 AM