"... so that they don't tarnish CNN's journalism brand.... Licht doesn't want to necessarily shy away from personality programming, especially in prime time, but he wants to ensure that partisan voices don't dominate in a way that harms CNN, a source notes.... Licht said he agrees with complaints from 'people both inside and outside the organization' that the network overuses the 'Breaking News' banner. 'We are truth-tellers, focused on informing, not alarming our viewers,' he said...."
It still sounds as though journalistic values are a means to an end, the end being profit. If the overheated sensationalism and Breaking News!!!! alarms were working, would they perceive a problem to be solved?
What TV news do I watch? That's easy: None. I read the news, and if there's a video clip I need to see, I find it on line. No change to the programming could bring me back. I wouldn't even notice it.
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
MSNBC has the hard left nailed down. Fox has center right. That should leave a pretty large swath for CNN.
But I'm really skeptical that they can reign in blowhards (and light weight thinkers) like Don Lemon.
Or hyper partisan hacks like Tater.
So a few heads will roll if they are serious.
But how do they get people to tune in after decades of hype and distortion?
More Avenatti/cowbell!!!!
Journalistic values are a way of giving customers what they actually want, which is objective news. That, in turn, creates more viewers. That then creates more profit. Actually giving a customer what they want is a mechanism to create more profits! Who would have thought of that?
Why is that a bad thing?
I too, read the news. I find it much more efficient to get to details...if there are any. If no details, I don't read the piece. I rarely go to the video. It is always edited to push the narrative of who ever is in charge.
CNN copied the bad habits of Fox News but flipped it to the left wing. This involved stacking panels so one side always won, excessive "breaking news." Fox had a habit of breathless reporting on any police car chase they could find.
I stopped watching both 10+ years ago, as they became nothing more than scream-fests.
Read the news and get emotional feedback from real people, not TV talking heads.
May appear to be polarizing? Hell, CNN invented biased Fake News.
If this new guy was smart, rerun an episode of Anthony Tucci in Italy every night.
If a non-news network (i.e., ABC, NBC, CBS) overuses "Breaking News" to interrupt regular programming, that's an annoyance I would complain about. But if I'm watching the news and they call what I'm watching "Breaking News" even though it's not, I don't see why I should bothered.
Neither will any rejigging ever convince me to again watch televised news other than for a national emergency such as 9-11. It's a shame newspapers - for the most part - suck too.
Is it possible that the fact CNN has a new owner has anything to do with this?
A new owner who self-identified as libertarian?
A new owner wh paid for president Trump's inauguration ball in 17?
A new owner who owns one of the largest cable and phone companies?
Naaah... Probably just coinkydink
I'll be a little surprised, but not a lot surprised if CNN starts covering 2020 election fraud along about August.
It would be especially cool if they made Don lemon and joy Reid host it
Will CNN come out in favor of kamala resigning so pedjt can become vp then prez in 2023? (givi g him potentially 6 more years)
Stay tuned and invest in popcorn. Shit is gonna get real
John LGKTQ Henry
"What TV news do I watch? That's easy: None. I read the news, and if there's a video clip I need to see, I find it online. No change to the programming could bring me back. I wouldn't even notice it."
That holds true for me also. I can peruse websites and headlines and sort out what I want to read or see way faster than I can obtain information by watching a whole show or the news. In fact, I get a little irritated on how long some of the deliverers take to get to the point.
Prof A: Wait…you don’t watch MSM? Oh noes! All this time I had been counting on you to do that dirty and dangerous job, sparing me direct exposure and much tedium. Being serious here: I can’t stomach more than a minute of that stuff, and only then as comic contrast to the Real News, found only here at Chez Meadhouse.
Keep up the great work. Your parsings are a tonic.
---I read the news,
Are you sure? Bari says not.
She says those ace NYT reporters, who took those jobs solely to get a chance to break meaningful news -- not merely to preen as Journolists from The Times and go first-name with powerful Democrats -- are held back from fulfilling their mission by "cowardice at the top of the masthead."
At least, that's what I read on Althouse.
Honestly, I think so many people have either been turned off by the entire corporate media over the last 20 years, or they've found their 'acceptable' niche and have called it home. To wit, if you haven't been annoyed yet by CNN over the past 12 years, you'll never be annoyed by CNN and you might even like the new 'civil even-handedness' they're trying to promote as the future of that network.
CNN making a statement to the world about upcoming changes in their approach has the same impact on viewers as the sound of that tree that just fell over in Yosemite. I know I didn't hear it.
Those who can stomach MSNBC will continue there, those who get juicy watching Fox News will stay put. Those who don't think Chuck Todd is a child's mind in a man's body playing 'journalist' will continue to view Meet the Press as 'must-watch'. And those who can read the NY Times without getting annoyed at their 'paper of record' dance they do as they withhold stories that might reflect badly on one of the parties, will continue to read the NY Times in hopes of finding a positive story on life today. And that, just by itself is difficult, unless the person telling the positive story has some victimhood class they can promote within the story.
Getting news these days is a matter of choice. Which is why some of us think there is not any way possible that 81 million Americans could have possibly voted for Joe Biden, while others think that the Russia Collusion case was real and deadly serious.
""... so that they don't tarnish CNN's journalism brand"
That's so rich it's wealthy.
I don't watch the news either. I quit during the 2012 election & joined Twitter to follow only people I trust. I quit watching fox News when they called Biden's theft early. I read links that I am interested in. I can't read the local paper. It has become Leftist propaganda, especially after Bezos funded two reporters to report on the "underserved."
why? why does CNN try? No One is going to believe them.
Well, i suppose the people (like igna?) that already believe, will take this as validation??
When you consider the viewership that CNN has lost in the past couple of years or the downward trend over the past decade; how is ending "Breaking News" banners solving the problem? If CNN posts a "Breaking News" banner and nobody is tuned it to see it; does it discourage them from tuning in? I'm not an expert in managing news media, but I'm not seeing how this solution solves CNN's problem.
Newton Minow got it right sixty years ago: “Television is a vast wasteland.”
Likewise. I'll watch local news now and then to discover the latest political scandal or how many people were shot/carjacked/assaulted the day before, or to learn what restaurants or businesses are closing. And that's usually enough exposure.
If I watch the news at all it's the morning show on one of the local channels. I used to be a tv news junkie with Fox being my default channel, then about 6 years ago I dropped cable after deciding that paying $200+ a month for content I mostly didn't watch was stupid. After a few months I found that I wasn't any less informed and to my surprise I was in generally a better mood. Which I guess is a long way to get to the point that I don't really care what changes CNN (or any other news channel) makes, I'm not going to watch them.
"Neither will any rejigging ever convince me to again watch televised news other than for a national emergency such as 9-11."
I don't even have our TV set up to use TV news even then. I would find a feed on YouTube to watch if there was something that needed to be seen. But with 9/11, I watched TV and because of that, I saw the planes hit the towers over and over, thousands of times! It will never be like that again.
I always find it amusing when I hear the accusation "you just heard that on Fox News" (against me or other people). First, it is usually used as a way to shut up an opposing view and often Progressive male against conservative female. But not only do I not watch Fox or any other network news (elections and national emergencies only) but I don't even get Fox, CNN or MSNBC in my cable package by choice.
And, for those who have never ventured into the more conservative center websites, they do include articles from Huffington Post and other progressive sites as part of the news. I don't discuss politics with many people but those who can only talk about Tucker Carlson or any MSNBC talking head are not in that inner circle.
In my opinion, you ask 10 people about issues with true freedom to answer, you will get 10 different answers whether it is a diverse group or 10 people in the same racial and ethnic group. Lived experience counts for something. My aunt immigrated from Mexico and devoted much of her life to helping others legally immigrate and to expand options for legal immigration. She had little patience for illegal immigration. A wise politician would look for the overlapping issues and then delve deeper into the ones where opinions diverge.
Honestly, my main source of news is this blog. I really appreciate Althouse’s point of view on current events. I feel like by reading the blog I’m tuned in to what’s happening in the so-called mainstream, even though Althouse’s style of thinking isn’t necessarily mainstream.
Breaking news... Trump is a Russian Spy! A Russian Tool! Alfa Bank Connection - uncovered! The walls are closing in!
oh wait - that's MSDNC.
What TV news do I watch? That's easy: None. I read Althouse. Anything important shows up there, and someone I watch the clip she provides.
I haven't watched a TV news show for about three years. I do listen to Megyn Kelly on SiriusXM because I like her long-form interviews, she asks good questions, and she calls out BS. Yesterday she got into a verbal punch-up with one of her guests (Jason Calacanis) over mass shootings as a deflection from the inadequacies of social justices prosecutors. I have also selectively watched Tucker Carlson's long form interviews on Fox Nation. I subscribe to Glenn Greenwald on Substack because I think he is honest even though I often disagree with him on politics. (Bernie Sanders? Really? The man should be a joke.) I subscribe to Matt Taibbi for the same reason.
I only have Antenna TV. No cable. (plus streaming)
I tried to make myself watch the PBS News-hour a few weeks ago. Did so a few times for clarity.
PBS Newshour is no different than NPR, MSNBC or CNN. Never ending yammering about Trump. Calling all Republicans terrorists and racists... and all soft-touch on their Potemkin old crotchety crook.
I happened to tune in during a PBS newshour interviewer with a guy from the disgraced Southern Poverty Law center. Seriously. That is not journalism - it's advocacy for the democrat party. Like the Washington Post.
Seek independent sources.
the entire US (both left and right) know Amber Heard is a liar and a person who has a history of inter-relationship physical violence.
CNN spent 300 million on CNN+ and it collapsed in 21 days. If the left didn't promote itself with Kimmel-Colbert-Joy Behar etc heavy cultural dis-information - they would lose and they know it. Which is why leftist-Soviet Chi com Democrat party disinformation is everywhere.
What brand? What journalism? What values?
Not much will change, because the environment CNN personalities move in is devoted to covering for Biden. Doing the administration's work is the way talking heads rise in esteem among their peers. It isn't really a conscious or willed thing. It's the air they breath.
Also, being divisive is good for ratings. What you may get is somebody who appears "serious" and "authoritative" (older, white, straight, male?) but makes all the same talking points as the current personalities.
The Future is Bari Weiss
"We are truth-tellers, focused on informing, not alarming our viewers"
Licht seems to be positioning CNN to compete with Comedy Central.
Right wing news is always news about the crazy thing that the left has just said. CNN will probably continue as a good source.
Left wing news is soap opera. It's all about target audience.
There's no market for hard news so those are the choices.
I threw out my TV in 1970. So I haven't seen, for instance, Archie Bunker, or 50 years of bad TV.
rhhardin said...
I threw out my TV in 1970. So I haven't seen, for instance, Archie Bunker, or 50 years of bad TV.
6/8/22, 8:43 AM
You missed some GREAT TV. Archie Bunker was the BEST!!!!
rhhardin said...
Right wing news is always news about the crazy thing that the left has just said. CNN will probably continue as a good source.
BAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA.....You are JOKING, right?? If not you really ARE out of the loop. CNN was a main contributor of the FAKE RUSSIAN HOAX the left wing media ran with for 5 years. CNN is a good source of MANURE for news. PERIOD.
LOL - creepy creepy creepy. with a smidge hilarious.
Blow up your TV. Not arsed to make a proper link. I'm a cranky old man.
That said, this is not nutritional advice.
I said, "You must know the answer"
She said, "No, but I'll give it a try"
And to this very day, we've been livin' our way
Here is the reason why
We blew up our TV
Threw away our paper
Went to the country
Built us a home
Had a lot of children
Fed 'em on peaches
They all found Jesus on their own
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLSGLOLsuTo&ab_channel=JohnPrine
Creepy stuff. Do people who read WaPo with religious fervor, buy WaPo's insecure and obvious creepy garbage?
I don't watch any TV news except the occassional Gunfeld comedy news group on Fox, or clips of Tucker on Youtube. Even with Tucker or Ingraham, I'd rather read the transcript.
It wasn't until we "cut the cord" and got rid of TV altogether, that I realized how I'd conditioned myself to turn on the TV, and use it as background noise, or a time waster. My wife still uses Netflix and other services to watch "her shows", but I've given it all up except for the occassional Tennis or Golf match.
And I feel much better for doing so.
As for CNN, what a Fake. The exec is going to give Zukerberg's mini-me and Don Lemon ANOTHER chance? Really? They've been DNC operatives for 6 years, but now they'll be "Objective"? LOL.
I don't watch any TV news except the occassional Gunfeld comedy news group on Fox, or clips of Tucker on Youtube. Even with Tucker or Ingraham, I'd rather read the transcript.
It wasn't until we "cut the cord" and got rid of TV altogether, that I realized how I'd conditioned myself to turn on the TV, and use it as background noise, or a time waster. My wife still uses Netflix and other services to watch "her shows", but I've given it all up except for the occassional Tennis or Golf match.
And I feel much better for doing so.
As for CNN, what a Fake. The exec is going to give Zukerberg's mini-me and Don Lemon ANOTHER chance? Really? They've been DNC operatives for 6 years, but now they'll be "Objective"? LOL.
.Always have preferred print. I read every blogger known to man (or on the Instapundit blog roll) in the early years. Today, though, my only paid subscription is WSJ digital. I’ll probably let that go at some point because it’s just too bleeding expensive. Have never liked TV news…not national or 24 hour. Maybe local if something is going on.
I’m not sure CNN can ever regain audience it once had. I would think society and culture have moved on. They’d only regain older folks - do younger adults watch TV news?
If CNN is getting rid of "Breaking news" maybe they and Fox can get rid of the endless distracting scrolls underneath the picture. Its really annoying to watch a TV program about subject X, and then have a scroll underneath constantly giving you news of ABC, of DEF. Like we all Attention Deficeit syndrome and are bored with the conversation.
Will CNN continue to censor their reporting to "retain access" to sources, as they did when they famously remained the final Western news agency in Saddam Hussein's Baghdad, and elsewhere, but did not report atrocities they witnessed? Because what I look for in TV journalism is a news team that tells me up front that they won't report what is happening right in front of their faces.
CNN also reports endlessly on completely fabricated stories that they know to be complete fabrications, over several years of "BREAKING NEWS," and continuing for years after the exposure of the fraud. That makes watching them the equivalent of watching a soap opera, lacking only the better dialogue of the latter.
Oh, how I yearn for the days when CNN talking heads basically read headlines from newspapers, repeating every 15 to 30 minutes because that was all they did. It was much more informative than the Dem-narrative opinion service offered today.
I would watch circa 1990 CNN if something was going on, but I don't believe they can go back to news gathering and reporting beyond checking their inboxes for Democrat talking points.
I sometimes watch the ABC News with David Muir show. It's as biased as all the others, but Muir gives a good performance in the role of a serious adult in search of the truth. Lots of gravitas.....I marvel at the coverage of Joe Biden. In the brief snippets, Biden appears purposeful and crisp. David Muir reports on the circumstances surrounding those snippets with somber approval. You are left with feeling that God's in his heaven, and the world will be set right......I've seen some movies where an agile young woman takes on and defeats two or three heavyweight thugs. It's done with jump cuts and choreographed moves. It's not credible, but sometimes it's plausible. I feel the same way about the reporting on Joe Biden. It's really amazing the way Muir makes Biden look crisp and decisive.
What was really funny was using the word "talent" in the same sentence as "Brian Seltzer."
I often get accused of being a Fox news person.
I dont even have cable, I dont watch news on tv. I rememeber the exact day I stopped. Benghazi. Watching and hearing David Gregory ask questions of Susan Rice. She said, some "video". I found that youtube video.
My news department consists of me. Meet the Press has thousands of journalists.
That video, 2 weeks after Benghazi had about 4000 views.
Doing the math, it looks like many "journalists" didnt even look for that video.
I found it in less than 2 minutes. I didnt stop after I found the one. I kept looking. This cant be. 2 weeks AFTER the video that sparked the Benghazi incident had only 4000 views. I must have the wrong video, but it was the only one I found. All I remember is it was a bad video, bad costumes, bad acting and I watched it for maybe 30 seconds here and there.
But Gregory just sat there nodding and his follow ups were ridiculous.
Utter BS
News, ha
It actually started all before that after reading a couple of Chomsky books. Talk about a guy with fluctuating morals. The anti-capitalist Capitalist.
Another example of self correction. Too little to help these midterms. The dims should have started this house cleaning in 2017.
I will occasionally watch opinion shows but almost never news shows.
I prefer to read about the 'news' from various sources.
"What TV news do I watch? That's easy: None. I read the news"
Same. I particularly loathe "local" TV news. So formulaic and transparently calculated that only a retard could think they're seeing an accounting of the actual news. The WWE of journalism.
For those not having Sirius, Megan Kelly shows ar available as a free podcast.
I use the Podcast Addict app for 5-10 years now for all podcast listening. I subscribe to her so all shows, with summaries show up in the app.
I download perhaps 1 of 3 when it looks interesting.
John LGKTQ Henry
Ha. I knew a lot of CNN writers in the 80's and early 90's.
I often worked on the train tracks under their building. They made Anchorman look like serious journalists. They singlehandedly dumbed down tv news, and that was an accomplishment. And it was one of their former writers who told me that, a good writer and smart guy.
"so that they don't tarnish CNN's journalism brand" HAHAHAHA
My far left FBI daughter told me a few months ago, as I took her out to dinner, "Daddy, you have to stop watching Fox News." I don't watch Fox News although I do watch Tucker Carlson there and on Fox Nation. I don't watch any other TV. Has anyone else noticed that Conservative Tree House and Ace of Spades have both begun posting Tucker's monologues frequently ?
"Also, being divisive is good for ratings. What you may get is somebody who appears "serious" and "authoritative" (older, white, straight, male?) but makes all the same talking points as the current personalities."
Don't forget the English accent. That's super authoritative.
CNN has a brand, even if it not the one that Licht might prefer. It is the media outlet of the DNC. Changing a brand is not easy, though it would be nice to have print and TV media outlets that presented multiple sides fairly.
In order to uphold values, one needs to actually have some.
"What TV news do I watch? That's easy: None. I read the news"
Well, it seems as if you only read the NYT and WaPo, soooooo. . . . . .
"uphold the network's values...don't tarnish CNN's journalism brand..."
So Don Lemon's gone?
Let's assume for the moment that Malone is going to take CNN to the right of Fox.
He can't do it to quickly or obviously. If he does, current viewers will drop it like a rock. The target audience (as evidenced by many comments here) will be dubious and won't watch. Viewership will drop even more.
If he is subtle, he could really have some fun with demmies. Specials like "donald trump was a horrible president and person but he did do some good things"
Or "Nancy delessandro pelosi is a really smart person. Dumb people don't get as rich as her!" maybe a segment on her family's pillage of Baltimore.
I like many here, I really do believe that in 1-2 years we won't recognize CNN. And I think I will like the result.
Malone is a huge Trump/ultramaga supporter. Why would he let CNN continue with the bashing?
John LGKTQ Henry
You know, I grew up in a house where my parents didn't watch the news on TV. They subscribed to a morning and an evening newspaper and they read the news. I didn't get into the American practice of watching the network news on TV until a few years after I graduated from college, when we scraped together $15 to buy somebody's used black & white TV. I liked Huntley and Brinkley better than Walter Cronkite. Maybe it was the Beethoven. Anyway, I did that pretty steadily for a while. It seemed important to "watch the news" every evening. In the mid-80s, when we moved to Wisconsin and got cable TV, it was exciting to switch to CNN and watch the TV news whenever we wanted. But I think I mostly stuck with the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour in the 1980s. It was rebroadcast at 10 pm, so that was something to watch and fall asleep to. It seemed wonderful to be able to set the TV to turn itself off after an hour. MacNeil Lehrer really seemed important, and CNN was appreciated whenever something was happening in the news — election returns, a big oil spill, a distant war. I had the NYT delivered in the morning, and I read that ritualistically. I still read the NYT every morning — and also throughout the day. I don't get and don't want the paper copy. I look around quickly to see what's important and what's interesting, and I'm almost never reading it in a way that's disaggregated from writing this blog. At this point, it's easier for me to imagine giving up on keeping up with the news and looking for everything interesting that isn't the news than it is to imagine becoming a consumer of TV news.
If Warner Bros Disney thinks there's money in straight news (or something substantially less skewed), it needs to start a new channel with exclusively new anchors and reporters. CNN is a dead brand for that type of reporting, and its 'talent' tarnished beyond repair.
MacNeil Lehrer was an event in our house. I'd only seen them as a child. After producer Vecchione died, it went downhill.
Our tax dollars should never have supported that show, though. Smarmy beltway blowjob bias. Hatred of the South. Leher's performance at presidential debates were useless, though he was too old and ill. But that great interrogation of Clinton is well worth revisiting. When he gets Clinton to say "I was just trying to control my natural impulses," the gig was up. And Lehrer didn't bat an eye. He just went on to the next question. Not a muscle in his face twitched.
I'll take McLaughlin over then any day. Real political diversity.
I met a man in grad school who worked for MacNeil. Real abusive bastard, he said. Could never treat his employees like that in the real world. Not sexual abuse:just abuse. Starlet, he was. They all were. Cronkite was no better. Britain has "newsreaders" who don't pretend to investigate their own stories.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा