CNN: Living Proof That Market Dominance Does Not Necessarily Last

People under 30 probably have no direct memory of it, but at one point, CNN equaled news.  And if you did not believe that, Darth Vader told you so.  This week, however, layoffs and "managerial changes" are convulsing the network.

When movies wanted to include realistic news references in the early 1990s, they cited CNN.  They were everywhere and showed everything.  Why wait for Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw's updates at the top of the hour or their full broadcast at 6:30?  You could see it now on CNN.

The era of CNN's ownership of modern news came only a little over a decade after the retirement of CBS' Walter Cronkite.  It also came in most major newspapers' most profitable years.

What happened?

Part of the problem emerged in the 1990s when a personal friend of President Bill Clinton's was chosen to lead CNN.  Regardless of the resulting coverage, this created at least the perception, if not the outcome, of a conflict of interest. 

A real or perceived liberal bias opened the market for competition.  This included the conservative leaning Fox News and (at the time) the even more conservative MSNBC.

Does anyone remember when MSNBC featured Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson?

Viewers latched onto Fox News, which eventually became the leading cable television news outlet.  Others turned away from television (and tangible newspapers) altogether and started using the internet as a primary news source.

CNN struggled to adapt while trying to maintain their image as the "real" news source.  A 2012 Pew survey praised CNN for keeping 55 percent of its broadcast focused on news (as opposed to 45 percent for Fox News and less than 10 percent for MSNBC.) 

Recent hires should have helped.  Jake Tapper headlines one of CNN's premiere spots.  He is one of the few media figures respected from all ideological points of view.

Problems, however, continued. Reports of extravagant overspending in times of declining ratings dog the news of layoffs.  And these layoffs and early retirements affect many of CNN's most senior, most experienced, and core personnel.

Whatever the problems are, clearly CNN has still not discovered the solution to its viewership and profitability woes in this competitive media age.  The network built its reputation and market dominance in an era of no competition. Only figuring out a way to regain competitive advantage can bring it back towards what it once was.

21st Century Cronyism, Same Old New Jersey

Raymond Chafin in Just Good Politics defined democracy as rewarding as much as possible those most responsible for getting you elected.

The former Logan County boss helped to expose the fact that some politicians consider their constituency to start with those who helped with the campaign, then those who cast their votes for you, then, and then only maybe, the rest of the people.  This is an underground culture of politics, lurking beneath the aboveground assertion that all politicians work for "the people."

This is why the New York Times  sounded the tocsin on Newark's Democratic mayor (and some say eventual presidential candidate) Cory Booker's techie startup called Waywire.

Booker's startup oozes with revelations common to the confluence of politics and big business.  He has strong connections with leading lights at Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, and other companies.  Many of them invested heavily in Waywire. Add to the list of investors the ubiquitous Oprah.  Although struggling now, it had been expected to perform strongly.

Even more strange, Waywire's brain trust included the 15 year old son of CNN president Jeff Zucker.

Booker certainly understands how to cover media, business, and political bases.

Columbia Journalism Review in their write up added that "Booker will still owe . . . favors even when it (Waywire) goes under."

This is a new twist on an old game.  In the 1870s, John D. Rockefeller bought out and propped up West Virginia politico Johnson Newlon Camden.  Camden served as Rockefeller's right hand man in West Virginia and rode his patronage to the United States Senate.  Doubtless, Booker had hoped that his company would provide him with enough wealth to start a run for president.

No need to worry about Booker going on relief anytime soon.  Until he announced his Senate campaign, he collected $30,000 for speeches presented at public universities. And yes, he did speak at West Virginia University.

Booker and his backers both worked hard to build this shady enterprise.  Booker expected wealth and strengthening connections with the novae of the tech world.  Certainly the tech riche expected some political help in return if Booker made it to the Senate or farther.

The Power of Old, New, and Social Media to Right a Wrong

Jake Tapper, once of ABC, now with his own show on CNN, tweeted at about 9 PM last night at TMobile's corporate Twitter.  Apparently, they had been billing a KIA's widow for three years for an old phone that was not in her name.

She sent death certificates and pleas to stop sending her husband the bill to no avail.

So Jake Tapper called TMobile out on it.  He asked

@TMobile what does she have to do for you to stop sending her dead KIA soldier ex-husband these bills???

This morning the CEO of TMobile, John Legere sent several responses apologizing and thanking Tapper for bringing the story to light.

He also tweeted:

@jaketapper don't thank me. It's a sickening shame it happened . I am deeply sorry and have already handled it. Thank you for speaking out.

This is exactly how we want our companies to respond when something is clearly wrong.  Take responsibility, apologize, fix it.

Great job to Tapper and Legere.

Defending to the Death His Right to Say It

Lou Dobbs has accomplished quite a bit recently. Bill O'Reilly and the CNN US president defend him while Ann Coulter and liberals from organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center attack him.

Dobbs has reported from CNN since the inception of that network. At one point he concentrated on business matters, but now he has a prime time show. This program focuses on important, but little reported issues.

The birth certificate issue has gotten Dobbs in hot water with some and has led to liberal and left wing calls for his firing from CNN. Dobbs went on the record saying that he believed Obama was born in the United States, but he ran a story about the dissenters that apparently did not represent them as kooky lunatics. The outraged left fought back by trying to get CNN to fire him.

The fact is that this was not like the Dan Rather hatchet case against George W. Bush. The story focused upon those that dissented, it did not try to investigate the issue itself. Even then, so long as Dobbs and his team did not suppress vital information or lie outright, they are still well within the realm of professional journalism.

CNN has much to fear from dismissing or downgrading the sometimes prickly Dobbs. The more popular Fox News would love to have him, although fitting him into a good time slot would be an issue unless he worked for their business network. Dobbs also has a popular national radio show that could be used against CNN if they fired him.

Journalists need to step up for Dobbs. So what if his program reported on a genuine news story and stuck to basic facts? Liberals (remember their root word is supposed to be the same as liberty!) want Dobbs shoved off the air for ideological reasons, not factual, not professional, but ideological.

Fox News handled a controversy of its own when Glenn Beck referred to Obama as a racist due to his comments critical of police in the Gates arrest. He said that Obama may like white people, but also seems to have a problem with them. Fox News released a statement saying that its commentators have freedom to express their opinion "as with all commentators in the cable news arena." Could this have been a shot on behalf of Dobbs?

To his credit, Dobbs did not back off and apologize, but called his critics "limp minded, lily livered, lefty lemmings."

Now that is a man worth keeping around. Right CNN?

The Inappropriate Sense of Humor of Barack Obama

So Barack Obama, as we saw last week, considers dredging up traumatic memories of 9/11 and scaring New Yorkers half to death to be fodder for a joke. The CNN commentator did not even stray from neutrality as she gleefully introduced the poor attempt at humor. He joked about his children taking Air Force One for a joyride.

The real story here is not the fact that Obama made a stupid and crass joke at the Correspondent's Dinner. No one responded or reacted to this.

The amazing thing is the contrast between Obama's humor and his predecessor. President Bush generally, in such situations, had the self-confidence to ridicule himself. The best example was when he brought out the impersonator and spoke alongside him. President Bush understood that he was funny, but also did not push it past the point where he would injure his dignity as president. Obama is not yet aware that his presidential persona is a huge target for ridicule.

There's nothing wrong with a president lightening up and joking around in the right forum. They still need to be respectful when considering joking about the worst attack on this nation within most of our lifetimes.

Interestingly, Obama was caught laughing at a statement about Rush Limbaugh being killed. Now in an unguarded moment, something similar could happen to any of us. However, compare the lack of comment to the heaps of abuse thrown at CBS golf analyst David Faherty. Faherty toured the Middle East and recounted his assessment of US troops' opinions of liberal politicians. "Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death." In his apology, he explained that he was simply trying to explain how US soldiers feel about their current commander-in-chief. CBS and the PGA Tour blasted his statements, which, like the Rush Limbaugh murder joke, were inappropriate.

Will anyone condemn or distance themselves from Obama and his friend yukking it up over their fantasized death of Limbaugh? Probably not.

CNN and the Left

Former CNN reporter, Mauricio Funes, was just elected President of El Salvador. Now many main stream news outlets are leaving out the fact that Funes was a former CNN reporter. The Washington Post reported, "Mauricio Funes, a former TV newsman who was recruited to run for president," and Reuters "Funes -- a former TV journalist and candidate of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front," both mention that he was a TV news journalist, but they fail to mention the the CNN element. Why?

CNN has been accused of left wing bias it their reporting over the years, a fact that they deny. The reality is most of the main stream press has been accused of left leaning bias, so leaving out the fact that Mauricio Funes was CNN Reporter might be done on purpose. The political party, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMNL) which was named for Farabundo Marti the founder of El Salvadors Communist Party. El Salvadors Communist led years of civil war leading to allegations of war crimes.

The facts are a former CNN reporter is a communsit and not just any communist, but now the leader of El Salvador. Why was this fact left out or glossed over in reporting? It is the reporters job to report the facts and not leave anything out. More media bias?

Debatable

Time magazine, rarely a publication with conservative sympathies, declared John McCain the winner of the final presidential debate. The immediate impact of the debate itself did not register the same with other pundits. McCain has a tremendous amount of work to do in the last few weeks to win the election.

I have a problem with the focus so intensely placed upon presidential debates. News outlets and major networks play them up to gain ratings. The billing for them resembles that of a boxing match, especially in CNN's marketing. How much do they really matter?

To me they border on almost the meaningless. A president's strongest attribute ought to be what he decides on important questions and issues after thought and consideration. The debate format reduces significant positions of policy into easily digestible chunks with an emphasis on how such information is delivered. A witty remark trumps five minutes of thoughtful response. Brutus can never compete with Mark Antony.

Picking who you want to be president based upon debate performance is like selecting an NBA first round draft pick based upon how well the player competes in H-O-R-S-E. It reflects one small part of what ought be be consideration of the entire candidate. What has he done? What does he believe? What will he do as president?

History remembers very few debates. Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest communicators to ever sit in the Oval Office, got trounced in a debate with the forgettable Walter Mondale. John F. Kennedy's debate performance (rather than his flagrant and outright lies about the "missile gap" in an election that hinged on the national security debate) is credited in his victory that he won by the skin of his teeth over Nixon.

Some great men would never have consented to debate. Washington (like Adams and most 19th century candidates) considered personal campaigning beneath him, much less a debate. Lincoln famously debated in a Senate campaign with Stephen Douglas, but never met his opponents in 1860 or 64. Lincoln was a master at this art, mixing a great legal mind with the fine art of storytelling.

The election of 2008 has thus far favored the great speaker with nothing to say over the solid man of experience. Speaking and debating reveals nothing of the true substance of a candidate. In stormy times, one should cling to a rock instead of a forsythia bush.

Tot Mom

This piece today is not meant in any way, shape, or form to show sympathy for a woman who, if she did not actually kill her child, she showed amazing callousness in the face of her daughter's complete disappearance from her life.

That being said, can the news coverage provided by CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace be described as anything less than sickly obsessive? I do not tune in to her show every night, but I have seen it enough to know that this tragedy has been about the only thing she has discussed in months. Experts come on to mainly be shown how stupid they are against the awesome intellect of Her Grace. Over and over again the public is treated to racy photos of the attractive mother dancing suggestively with another young woman.

At what point does "coverage" metamorphize into exploitation? The very phrase "tot mom" reflects a dehumanization of the suspect who, in American justice, is supposedly innocent until proven guilty. Yes, she probably did it. Yes she is good looking. But is there not some other interesting case in this entire country that she could discuss? Should the show not try to educate about our justice system rather than constantly titillate viewers?

The night by night onslaught of invective against this young woman resembles a fictional series rather than news coverage. The difference lies in the fact that in a TV series, there is usually something going on. Many nights, Grace rambles about the fact that there is nothing happening. Is this not the cue for the program to find another subject?

The young woman in question has a constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. As a former court officer, Grace ought to respect that presumption. Instead she plumbs the depths of yellow journalism, mixing shocking true crime with sensationalist sexuality. Such "journalism" soils both the media and the audience.

CNN Admits they didn't do their pre-debate homework