CNN and the landscape of cable news - SPTO's Blog

SPTO's Blog

CNN and the landscape of cable news

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 02:26 PM.

(8)

The Mumbai terrorist attacks proved once again that CNN is still the most trusted name in news in a lot of ways. CNN is still the first place most people go for breaking news events. Over the course of the Mumbai bombing news coverage CNN led in the 25-54 demo over the three days of coverage and won the Thursday rating overall. FNC still had the most viewers from sign on to sign off but if anything CNN is the first place most people go when there's breaking news of huge import. Yet, I still hear the grumbling about how CNN is a mickey mouse news organization and so on so forth.

Let's face it, cable news today is only a step above the yellow journalism of the Hearst newspapers of a century ago. The main difference is that at least all three networks have some credibility in some areas and will produce some interesting programming especially the long form documentary programming. It's also virtually impossible to be unbiased in anything. Even the acclaimed news programs that OSers talk about such as the BBC has a history of being criticized for bias. The BBC is a UK government funded news agency and for YEARS people over there have complained about the network being too tightly tied to the government. So in essence what we get from their international news broadcasts are seen through the prism of UK governmental policy.

Going back to CNN though, you may hate their editorial slant but there's no single news organization on this continent that has the resources, the people on the ground and the coverage that CNN does. CNN is still the best at covering breaking news. FNC has to rely more on opinion makers and less on actual news gatherers on the ground. More often then not FNC has to lean heavily on other FOX owned foreign news outlets to get the pictures and sounds of what's going on on the ground. That's not to say CNN doesn't do that, because they do but CNN more often then not actually has someone working there whereas FNC doesn't have a very strong international news bureau which is surprising when they make money hand over fist.

As to the positives of the cable news outlets? CNN and MSNBC/CNBC have very strong documentary divisions. (though MSNBC just slashed their longform budget substantially)Both networks have strong ties news magazines (Newsweek for MSNBC, TIME for CNN) and both have a versatile group of opinion makers and analysts. FNC is brilliant at channeling the news through the prism of its editorial vision. Surprisingly, for such a successful news network they're devoid of actual good newscasters/hard journalism types. Brit Hume is retiring and the only other one that is serious with journalism is Chris Wallace. FNC has a small cadre of opinion makers/analysts who are very good distilling the news into the cauldron of conservatism. Most of these people are dye in the wool right wingers who are stringent in their dogma. The main personalities of the network are essentially nothing more then over caffeinated editorialists.

One last thing about FNC. It's a little disturbing how one sided the network is, out of all the main personalities on the network only one is an out and out democrat/liberal and that would be Geraldo Rivera. The other left leaning personality Allan Colmes has decided to leave the network. At least the other two networks have people who go against the grain of the overall editorial policy. Lou Dobbs at CNN and Joe Scarborough of MSNBC. (although Scarborough has softened considerably)

In the end we can't just sit there and hope for unbiased news on TV. The best thing anyone can do is to watch all three networks when it comes to a single topic, read the blogs, read some online editions of newspapers and listen to the radio. A lot of people don't bother to do that and it leads to fragmentation, especially those who watch FNC. I believe I saw a statistic where 80% of FNC viewers use that network alone to shape their opinion on the news. That's pretty disturbing and probably explains some of the tunnel vision that you get with some conservatives. All in all, all three networks have a distinct personality. CNN is middle of the road leaning left and doesn't really have a true identity but is still the best in terms of resources, MSNBC is like a young activist shouting out his/her opinions. The network has created the image of one that's very politics oriented and finally FNC is the brash, somewhat bullyish guy with big opinions and is not afraid to air them.

Comments

# 1 rudyjuly2 @ Dec 4

Very interesting.

# 2 JohnDoe8865 @ Dec 4

Good read.

# 3 fugazi @ Dec 4

This does not, however, addres the issue of quality. As in many news stories similar to this one, important things are left unmentioned. For instance, there is reason to suspect that the 'culprits' were not Muslim, but perhaps Hindi.

CNN may be the 'most trusted', but that has nothing to do with the accuracy of its reporting.

# 4 SPTO @ Dec 4

Fugazi, this is problem with all networks when it comes to live breaking events. Many times you get wildly inaccurate details as the events are happening. It's only after the fact that some of the finer points of a breaking story are corrected and looked at more deeply.

Hell just look at 9/11. There were TONS of inaccurate reporting as the event was going on. Even when it comes to political news stories or other news stories where things are very fluid you get inaccuracies.

It's not a CNN issue, it's a news issue. When live breaking events occur there is no time to really study the issue in depth.

# 5 fugazi @ Dec 6

i understand, SPTO...really, I do. I should just come out and say that I believe that, more often than we should be comfortable with, they (all of them) are either lying or providing half truths. They are bought and paid for, i would say 90%. Of course, innocuous stories are left as is...but most important news stories are either completely ignored (usually in favor of a kidnapping of a 3 yr old in lichtenstein, or a story about how cute a puppy is) or, to put it bluntly, filled with prevarications.

I wish I could believe otherwise, and I know that my skepticism discredits me in the eyes of many...but I have spent too long watching and learning to believe anymore.

# 6 bucksfan07 @ Dec 6

I agree with most of what you said, the key thing is the media today is awful compared too say 50 years ago. The media today isn't about informing the people with accurate news, it's all about ratings and slanting news to better fit the networks political association. That's why I don't watch the Communist News Network or Fixed News with the angry leprechaun. I listen too Michael Savage and go to sites like BBC for my news. Mind you, Savage is conservative but he reports news the big networks don't cover and does in a way where he says "this is what happened, here's my opinion".

# 7 SportsTop @ Dec 6

I don't think the "breaking events" issue is as much to blame as much as the 24 hour news cycle is. In a world of news right now, networks are willing to push raw information out as news to beat out their competitors.

CNN is no better than FNC in my opinion. They are both cookie cutters of the same format.