The Sad, Pathetic Foxinization of CNN

By Alyce Koruna
Follow me on Twitter at @chocolatemama38
Email me at chocolatemamascafe@gmail.com


This morning I reached my tipping point with CNN.  I turned in my viewer's card - gave up my multi-year habit of having CNN as the default channel for all my home's televisions.  This severing of our relationship was much like a painful divorce, filled with multiple "second" chances, acrimony and, ultimately,  the final break.  That split happened for me when, despite other networks' findings to the contrary, CNN's oft-cited snap poll reported Congressman Paul Ryan getting a draw in last night's debate after an obvious trouncing by Vice President Joe Biden.  What brought CNN to this low point when they can no longer be my "most trusted name in news?"


Let me begin by saying I am a loyal person by nature, a marketer's dream.  Once I start with a beloved product, you have to pry me away from it.  Splenda. iPhone. Acura. CNN. I never thought I'd leave CNN.  Never.  I am old enough to remember the network's launch, and its salad days in the 1990's.  When anything happened, we'd turned to CNN immediately -- everyone did, even the 'bad guys' around the world!  People everywhere simply trusted CNN as the most reliable source internationally for breaking news. It had staked out territory as being the first-on-the-scene, non-partisan, highly rated team of top-quality journalists.  Sadly, it cannot make that claim any longer. 

In 1996, after the network's successful coverage of the Persian Gulf War a few years earlier, media mogul and network owner Ted Turner sold CNN to Time Warner.  In my humble opinion, that was the beginning of the process that led to the carcass of a network we see today.  It was not just this sale, but the simultaneous rise of the internet and other nontraditional news sources.  Fox soon became the most highly rated news show, despite its not being news, but rather "entertainment" due to its widely known (except to partisan Republicans and low information voters/nonvoters) propensity for being fast and loose with the facts. Here's Jon Stewart on the subject -- a little dated, but you get the point: 

 

In 2007, Harvard University published a study that documented "significant" perceived liberal media bias at CNN as compared with its nemesis, Fox.  What I found interesting -- no, mildly hysterical -- is that even Fox was perceived to be mildly left-leaning in that study.  I imagine that non-partisan CNN had to bristle at a finding that came just as so many of its viewers had flocked to Fox -- its conservative viewers.  Ouch.  Well, kick your competitor when he's down, why don't you, Fox?  It did.  In 2008, Fox -- the network that had come to be known as Faux News -- launched a bold assault against its competitor.  In a Roveian strategy, Fox dubbed CNN "partisan" in this ad (courtesy of newscorpse.com):

This ad was supposedly the result of a Pew study that found 51% of CNN viewers to be Democratic and 18% to be Republican in 2008.  This should have made Fox happy.  According to Pew, "Between 1998 and 2008, the share of Republicans saying they regularly watch Fox News rose 22 points, from 14% to 36%. Meanwhile, the share who regularly watch network evening news fell 15 points and the share who regularly watch CNN declined by eight points." That 36% nearly doubles the Republican viewership of any other network and is the inverse of the Democratic-leaning national population.  

Despite this pot-calling-kettle-black situation, these criticisms must have hurt.  However, I posit it wasn't the Harvard or Pew studies, or even the ad that crystallized CNN's march toward its current new GOP bias.  It was, like everything else, all about the Benjamins. The aforementioned big corporation status meant a distancing from the heart and soul of the real journalism and an embracing of the dollars and cents reality of the competitive market.  How could the corporate powers that be regain those lost conservative viewers?  How could they stop the dizzying drop in ratings (see ratings chart below)? One answer:  Think like a Fox.

Notice 2008-2012's free fall for CNN.

Let's face it.  The only cable "news" outlet that was and is doing relatively well in the ratings is the one that courts conservatives, Fox. MSNBC, unabashedly partisan, has given Fox a run for its money in a few time slots but they both laugh at has-been CNN's programming.  With a huge staff and bureaus they hope will get back to glory days, CNN is flailing about.  Although still generally perceived as neutral or perhaps even liberal by the general audiences, CNN's startling turn did not go unnoticed by progressive viewers whose interests have been broadsided in the process.  The interviewing of guests has taken a decidedly soft approach when it comes to GOP issues.  Even in the face of complete fabrications -- the known GOP strategy in this year's presidential election -- CNN reporters have failed to go hard against the culprits.  It is no longer even expected of them.  Rather, they feed conservative guests softball pitches.  I'm not just belly-aching -- I expect actual journalism for all sides.  One by one, the various reporters and anchors have left their neutrality and serious reporting by the door.  Wolf Blitzer -- gone. John King -- gone.  Candy Crowley -- really gone. Anderson Cooper -- sniff, gone. Don Lemon -- gone if he ever had gravitas.  Soledad O'Brien -- go ... wait not so fast.  



Soledad (@soledad_obrien) also went through a period of giving everyone a pass, but -- out of nowhere -- began assertively challenging people who came on her morning show, "Starting Point."  The progressives with whom I kibitz on Twitter and I couldn't believe it!  We'd say "Turn to CNN!" words we'd rarely -- if ever -- say in the days before her metamorphosis   "Soledad, stop this!" was the plea from former Republican New Hampshire Governor John Sununu that still makes me cackle with glee (watch the very entertaining YouTube video above)!  Despite her show's abysmal ratings, Soledad seems to at least once per day give someone -- usually a condescending GOPer -- a shellacking for trying to lie to her and the American people.  She actually is a journalist.  Quite often I do not agree with her or her approach but I respect her for being willing to engage these bullies and demagogues.  They are used to facing wusses who capitulate to them like her CNN peers and the so-called Democrat on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski.  I'll take  50 Soledads for one wishy-washy Mika.  I fear for Soledad's job.  Really.  It's obvious that's not the CNN way any longer.  The CNN way is more in line with making conservatives feel happier and more at ease watching this sad, desperate network.  

So, "Starting Point" is now 50% watchable.  The rest of the day is completely unwatchable.  Media expert Michael Massing came to the same conclusion but cited inanity as his primary reason for the tanking of the network in the June 2012 Columbia Journalism Review piece "Dumb and Dumber:  How Far Can CNN Sink?" He suggests that in its quest not to offend the former cable giant has become utterly bland.  "Overall the words that kept coming to mind while I viewed CNN were: conventional, unimaginative, repetitive, and—most damning of all—boring," Massing writes.  He is woefully unaware of the partisan shift that has occurred at CNN, and I encourage him to do more than the 7-hour marathon  he conducted to get insight into this change.  He's right about this, however:  "What’s really striking about CNN, though, is how little actual news—how little reporting—there is on it. Amid all the chatter, talking points, and spinning, there are very few stories from the field. In general, I get more nourishment from the half hour of The CBS Evening News (much improved under Scott Pelley) than from the seven prime-time hours on CNN."

Generally, I think Massing's reasons for the downfall are not quite on the mark since he rarely watches the network.  As I've stated, I have watched the network's demise day by day for years.  The blandness is not just to designed appeal to its existing base, but it has extended itself to reaching out and pandering to conservatives to gain a larger audience.  I do know CNN is paddling water out of their sinking vessel and, like the global economy, they can't just maintain -- they must GROW.  The path they've chosen is to take on their old foe, Fox.  Fox doesn't even feel it, though!  Why?  1) the pandering plan isn't working,  and 2) the far right wing conservatives don't even realized there is a pandering action afoot!  It has to be in-your-face Hannity/Limbaugh style for them not to call any media outlet liberal.  However, despite my progressive leanings, I believe in giving credit where it's due and in sticking with my team.  I don't always want to hear my views parroted back to me on MSNBC (sorry -- love you, Rachel!),  Sometimes I just want objective, real, hard journalism even if the "victim" is a fellow progressive.  That is not happening in the endangered species that is CNN. 

Now, what about those polls?  Why did that end my 32-year marriage with CNN (yes I watched as a newborn!!)? I hate, hate, hate liars and it is obvious that the "most trusted name in news" has abdicated its position in favor of KNOWINGLY placating the right.  Let's look at the facts.  The first snap poll was conducted after the presidential debate October 3.  

From CNN Oct 3 Presidential debate:

Romney

67%

Obama

25%

Source: CNN/ORC International

Date conducted: 10/3/2012

Sample: 430 adult Americans

Margin of error: +/- 4.5% pts

More About: Barack Obama , CNN/ORC International , Mitt Romney , Presidential debates

According to This Poll

This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate. The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 37% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about five points more Democratic and about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, for a small advantage for the Republicans in the sample of debate-watchers. The poll was conducted after the October 3rd presidential debate.

Notice that the fine print mentions the three-point difference in Republicans oversampled in this poll.  That is actually quite significant because if you ask three percentage points more people their opinion about a topic, you will get quite different results.  However, that wasn't a deal breaker because look at the gap -- three points couldn't truly change perceptions.  However, last night's debate was another story and shows that CNN should have been called out on this practice even after October 3.   Once again, conservative-hungry (do you believe me now?) CNN oversampled Republicans AGAIN and AGAIN did not preface its findings with this vital information when it announced the results, which were used even on other broadcast news outlets including MSNBC.  It said Ryan won or it was a draw but within the margin of error.  What people do not realize is that is not true at all -- it's a BIG OLE LIE!!  In the vice presidential election poll, 31% of respondents were Democratic and 37% were Republican -- an 8 point difference than the national population.  There are more Democrats than Republicans, but now the difference is EIGHT points and the resultant poll results show Ryan ahead within the supposed statistical margin of error.  Yet this is wrong!  This poll should have been either polled better, prefaced, or trashed if they have any integrity left at CNN.  They have people thinking this debate is a draw or a Ryan win when it clearly is not. That is as duplicitous and misleading to the American people as the strategies of the political party CNN is trying to attract. See the fine print at the bottom that should have been clearly noted by CNN.  No other poll found this close result!!

From CNN after the Oct 11 VP debate:

Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the best job in the debate - Joe Biden or Paul Ryan?

Ryan

48%

Biden

44%

Source: CNN/ORC International

Date conducted: 10/11/2012

Sample: 381 registered voters who watched the debate

Margin of error: +/- 5% pts

More About: CNN/ORC International , Joe Biden , Paul Ryan

According to This Poll

A CNN/ORC International post-debate poll shows that 48% of likely voters think Paul Ryan won the vice-presidential debate, while 44% think Joe Biden won. SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #1: This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate. SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public.

The CNN transformation is nearly complete but it hasn't taken hold.  All CNN's Foxinization has served to do has been to cause progressives to begin to leave in droves for other pastures much in the same way as conservatives did in their migration to Fox in the early part of the 21st century. My prescription for you, CNN?  Go back to your roots.  Embrace good, solid reporting.  Cut back on some bureaus -- you're not that big any longer but do a GREAT job at the work you do.  Look at the only real reporter you have, Soledad, and encourage her to get better and do more calling people on the carpet both Democratic and Republican.  When I hear you have really, really done that, you'll get this loyal viewer back -- and I'll tell my friends.
________________________________
Cable Ratings October 10, 2012:

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Wednesday, October 10, 2012

		P2+ (000s)	25-54 (000s)	35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC (Fox)		1,701	378	760
CNN		328	99	150
MSNBC		617	201	297
CNBC		177	44	95
FBN		62	12	25
HLN (Headline news)		190	72	99

______________________________

From Twitter:



‏@docrocktex26
Look at CNN, a once reputable & respected network, now reduced to fraternizing w/the Tea Party & skewing debate polls for the GOP. Pathetic.


‏@benjibrown1
I'm stunned that CNN.. Hold up CNN calling the debate basically a draw? I'd expect that from Fox News but CNN?



@ErikaRingor
What debate were these @CNN commentators watching?? A draw??? Please! Joe Biden mopped the floor with this guy. ...


 ‏@ChicoDelainky
"Last night, @CNN called the #VPDebate a draw. In related news, @CNN also called World War II a draw..."


‏@leia_bee05
CNN is an upgraded Faux News


_____________________________