Is CNN Sick? Or Merely Slick?
There is much to find fault with the cable television news networks, but it has puzzled me how many bloggers waste their time — and bandwidth — endlessly harping about the perceived shortcomings and biases of CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.
God knows that they have plenty of both, but aside from occasionally giving CNN the back of my hand over its fascination with stories on missing blondes to the exclusion of arguably more important matters, I’ve got better things to blog about.
But a story by Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times caught my attention because of his contention that CNN‘s embrace of hyperbole in this presidential campaign season is not merely bad journalism, but a coldly calculated effort to position itself ideologically the way that Fox and MSNBC have.
In fact, writes Rutten:
“We now have a situation in which the three all-news cable networks each have aligned themselves with a point on the political compass: Fox went first and consciously became the Republican network; MSNBC, which would have sold its soul to the devil for six ratings points, instead found a less-demanding buyer in the Democrats. Now, CNN has decided to reinvent itself as the independent, populist network cursing both sides of the conventional political aisle — along with immigrants and free trade, of course.
“In other words, for the first time since the advent of television news as a major force in American life, the 2008 presidential campaign will be fought out with individual networks committed to particular political perspectives. Why does that matter? As far back as 2004, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that ‘cable now trails only local TV news as a regular source for (presidential) campaign information. In several key demographic categories — young people, college graduates and wealthy Americans — cable is the leading source for election news.’ Thus, for key segments of the electorate — groups rich in what the pollsters call ‘likely voters’ — the main source of political news is now a partisan, or at least, a politicized one.”
And so the long slide of the mainstream television news media continues apace.
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
35 Responses to “Is CNN Sick? Or Merely Slick?”
I absolutely agree that CNN has gone the way of FOX and MSNBC in terms of becoming a blatant advocacy forum instead of anything deseving being called ‘news’ channels.
Its populism extends only to immigration and trade. Otherwise, it’s strictly a corporate interests channel and aimed at the wealthy classes. There is no more money, BTW, there is only ‘wealth
management’
That’s three channels, running night and day, brainwashing the public. I hear the drip, drip, drip of democracy being flushed down the pipes..
But I thought the network founded by Ted Turner was going far Left. I really enjoy the Glenn Beck
Che GueveraShow. On a serious note I do watch the GBS, he’s somewhat entertaining(watching car accident) compared to Billo and Hannity.[...] Original post by Shaun Mullen [...]
This is too confusing for words when it comes to CNN. (One of the only networks I’ll come close to trusting these days.) So you’re saying that by taking a “populist” POV where they criticize both parties, they are being “partisan” somehow? Shouldn’t the news networks always be critical of both parties when they are found lacking, rather than giving them a pass like Fox “news” does for the GOP or MSNBC for the Dems?
What would it take to satisfy you? Not covering politics at all?
Jazz:
Good questions.
The compulsion of the front-offices execs and marketing geniuses at CNN to “brand” it not as the leader but as a “flavor” of news, advocacy and presentation different from its major competitors takes it far from what its core mission has been and should still be.
I don’t yearn for simpler times — like 1991 when we were enthralled by CNN‘s coverage of the opening hours of the first Gulf War from a hotel rooftop in Baghdad. That was then and now is now, but CNN is going down a road from which it will be very difficult to turn back.
CNN criticizing both parties would be fine if they did so in a meaningful way.
Instead, it’s shallow andr sensaionalist commentary, the proportion being 5 seconds of news content followed by 5 minutes of melodramatic commentary.
Worst of all, the news content is shrinking so fast, it’a quiickly approaching zero.
What about CNN’s “This Week in War”, I’m currently watching the show and no mention of dead and missing WHITE girls and moms. There is some good cable, just be a smart consumer. Turn the “War on Christmas/Easter” into a “War on Jingoism/Sensationalism”.
Rudi,
“Just be a smart consumer’ is good advice only for those who are smart consumers.
My indictment of all cable news channels is that they target those many who are not smart consumers, and who turn on CNN and the like because they’re under the false impression that they’ll be getting the news When advocacy is called news, .it’s false advertisement at its worst.
Jesus Christ, Shawn, are you trying to piss me off?
Read the Daily Howler for a month. If you keep posting crap like this, I’ll know you’re actually a liar, and not just ignorant.
Look, MSNBC is in no way Democratic! It’s main personalities were hired by a very rich republican war pimp named Jack Welch, and they regularly make fun of Democratic candidates. (Read the Howler!!!)
What you may be referring to is the way all the news media (except for PBS) is owned by corporations and controlled by incredibly rich Republicans, who employ staffs of potemkin “liberals” (among others) who sell their integrity to get ahead.
There is no liberal media anymore. Any article which tries to be “even-handed” in charging competing biases is either more right-wing propaganda or the product of an ignorant mind.
Considering Pepperdine is advertising in your RSS feed, I’m starting to be inclined towards propaganda. Mazel Tov, hack!
ATTENTION COMMENTERS:
We have a comments policy below that you might want to review before you click the ‘Submit Comment’ button. Please stick to the topic and avoid attacks on our bloggers or each other.
Look, my criticism of Shawn is completely warranted, and I have yet to hear any argument against any of my comments that are critical of him. I have serious doubts about whether he is posting in good faith. Sending mom out to scold me hardly allays them.
beaverton — the board, which controls PBS, is mostly Republican. And the CEO is a former co-chair of the RNC.
The board at PBS is mostly Republican (by a large margin) and the CEO is a former co-chair of the RNC.
sorry for the double-post — I’m having time-outs on this site.
BJ, I am (fortunately) not your mother. Name-calling will get your comments edited or deleted.
lol, don’t be talkin’ shit about my mother!!!
BJ – Am I safe in assuming that you are a Librul, or have I missed most of your comments seem to lean Left. Shaun was pilloried here at TMV for being too Left, a couple of bloggers left who routinely thought he read Mao’s RedBook as a Bible. If your calling Shaun a corporate lackey I’m amused, no I’m LMAO.
Seriously, us lefties have let the need to be “polite” cow us for the last 20 years. What has it gotten us? Stolen elections, horrible leadership, and hundreds of thousands of corpses. Lives ended.
If you think I’m going to let up on your right-wing-masquerading-as-moderate BS just because of a few hard words you must really think I’m a moron or a coward.
rudi got in while i was posting.
I don’t care why Shawn’s gotten pilloried. Rightwingers, if you haven’t noticed, are insane.
Shawn’s posts reflect an odd sort of right-wing bias. You have to read the Daily Howler for a month to understand. He’s what we’d call a “potemkin liberal” – his personal politics may be leftist, but when it comes to media commentary he carries water for the right.
I am a center-left Democrat who won’t pay to watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Although it is fairly obvious that Fox swings right while CNN and MSNBC swing left, I don’t really care because I get my news from a variety of sources and don’t unrealistically expect journalists to have no opinion.
AT TMV, you must be polite. Don’t call us (or our visitors) names – we don’t like to ban anybody but name-calling forces us to consider it.
BJ – Shaun is the token Libral here at TMV. Some commentors and two previous front pagers(M van der Galien and J Steck) demand his head on a platter for being a SDS and Weathermen radical. LMAO – Now your saying he’s too Right. I risked banishment from the two mentioned above because of my politics and some comments. Because of these two, I took my comments farther to the Left because of their claims. The Indian front pagers also “left” because some here whined about their Leftist agenda. Please go back into the archives to see Shaun’s ties to LaRouche.
BJ – I’ll try one more time, based on his body of work and reaction from the Righties at TMV, Shaun is a Liberal. I was threatened with “being barred” and people complained(via email) because of my “attacking comments” and “Librul views”. If Shaun isn’t Liberal enough for you, go to NewHoggers for a left-of center viewpoint.
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/ (Highly recommended)
TMV is a moderate site, with some left and some right, but none really to the extreme(anymore).
[...] towards the Democrats. Shaun Mullen over at The Moderate Voice finds an interesting story about MSM ideological positioning by Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times: [A] story by Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times caught my [...]
Shaun is carrying water for the right… Rudi is conservative…
April 1st isn’t for another 4+ months… Upside down day, perhaps?
Ideas, not false left/right dichotomy bullcrapola, please. Sensationalism and shallowness is the modus du jour and you’d be hard-pressed to not find it across the board of cable news offerings.
Outside of Lou Dobbs, I’m not sure how populist CNN really is coming across… I still hear more “Clinton News Network” criticism than anything else. Unlike you, Shaun, I DO yearn for the good old days of Bernie Shaw and John Holliman reporting from under a table in the Al Rashid while Peter Arnett went hopping around on rooftops like a lunatic with his VW-sized “portable” sat dish
ID – But in the “good ole days” CNN was owned by Ted Turner and IMHO was definitely Liberal back then. But Shaw,Hollimanand and Arnett would be collaborators by todays standard.
Don’t tell but these sites are amongst my favs.
http://larison.org/
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122069.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/JWalking/
http://globalparadigms.blogspot.com/
http://globalparadigms.blogspot.com/
http://www.4pundits.com/
http://lewrockwell.com/
http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html
It’s not always a good idea to only read The Progressive, The Nation or The Fifth Estate(Detroit). Guess what group isn’t included in the list above.
So now a commentor is accusing Shaun Mullen—of all people—of “[carrying] water for the right.”
I think I’ve heard it all folks.
Rudi, Reason’s Hit n’ Run blog rocks! One of the snarkiest blog commenter communities out there…
Hey Nick, thanks for ignoring my ideas and relying on sarcasm.
Remember folks: just accepting received “wisdom” and trying to choose a point in the middle of heated debates is the heart and soul of moderatism. Don’t actually think about anything!
As I’ve said this whole thread, his calling MSNBC democratic-leaning means that Shaun is either ignorant, or a right-winger in liberal’s clothing. MSNBC has a clear Republican bias.
But I guess pretending that there is still some parity in the news between right- and left-leaning content is the price one pays to be considered a “reasonable” “moderate” around here.
But it just makes you either (a) ignorant, or (b) a right-wing stooge. How is this not clear? I’ve repeated myself like five times now, and all I get back is “you can’t be serious that goes against teh conventional wizdum lol”. Give me a break.
Rudy -
I don’t really get your point, but I’ll check out those blogs.
The blog I mostly read, the one I referenced multiple times, is the Daily Howler. As I said, read it for a month, to understand where I’m coming from in this thread. You won’t watch the news the same way.
-bjb
dear Rudi, since I’m the rookie here, may I ask who are the ‘Indian front pagers” you speak about? I assume you aren’t
talking about a mighty fine classic ‘sickle’ and not small young attendents to the king….
dr.e
dear beaverton_jewboy
I read Daily Howler religiously, and assign it to my journo students. It’s one of several places online that actually looks into what was said before and after a quote. In my analysis work, that’s the heart. Not just the first-spin report. They (DH) did some phenomenal work on Ann Coulter and others …who media carries the messages from, but doesnt look in depth at the logic, or lack of it, undergirding certain assertions and remarks. Thank you for reminding me to link there more for TMV readers.
dr.e
Aaah, thank you so much!
Oh, and I’ll try to be nicer to Shaun in the future.
BJ,
It seems to me that these days “liberal” and “conservative” are increasingly becoming relative terms and your comments reinforce that perception. I bring this up because most people use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” relative to the average American or based on discrete political, social and economic philosophy and policy positions. If Shaun, who would likely be viewed as left-of-center relative to the average American, is viewed by you as a right-winger, then that tells us you are probably WAY to the left from the median. It makes me wonder whom you might consider more left-wing than yourself. I think it also explains why everyone here who “knows” Shaun based on his writing would not consider him conservative at all.
I also find the idea of “Potemkin liberals” quite amusing. I gather these supposedly GOP executives are stacking the news organizations with liberals, which makes their news coverage…well…conservative? Is that your argument? Sorry, doesn’t make much sense to me.
Beaveton and everyone else -
I’vr had the privilege of many years of debating politics and social philosophies, beginning in college, without once identifying any one in the group with political labels. We debate ideas, not people, and we speak as individuals, not representatives of political tiribes.
I highly recomment that old fashioned approach, because it has the advanage of making thinking more felxible. If you represent only yourself, it’s easier to stay focused on a single topic, without feeling the need to do battle with a whole system of thought (the opponent’s political tribe).
It’s also easier to move to the right or to the left on separate issues, because there is no concern about betraying one’s own political tribe. It’s liberating!
I sense that this craze for assigning political labels to everyone, pigion holes and stereotypes everyone.
Not only that, but it pigeon holes petrifies one’s own thinking.