How CNN went from breaking records to yesterday's news (Independent)

[arenean]

From 'The Independent' (UK):

How CNN went from breaking records to yesterday's news

<snip>

In an effort to draw a regular crowd, CNN's rivals Fox and MSNBC have decided to shoot for loyal followings (on the right, and left wing respectively) by employing highly-partisan anchors. It, by contrast, insists on remaining doggedly centrist, sometimes to the point of absurdity. As the satirist Jon Stewart recently put it, the network would make sure a guest who insisted the Earth is flat would be given equal airtime to someone who argued that it was spherical.

That even-handedness is at odds with a divided political landscape, where spectrum CNN is now squeezed between Fox, with its headline prone cast of right-leaning pundits such as Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and MSNBC, which boasts left-wing equivalents like Rachel Maddow. Unsurprisingly, its provocative rivals steal the headlines.

"CNN is still a destination news channel for live coverage of unfolding events," says Rachel Sklar, an occasional CNN contributor and editor-in-large of the website Mediaite. "If something happens, check CNN. But in prime time people don't want news. They want to watch what people say about news, and that's where they have struggled." Maintaining standards can also make you clunky, particularly in an era where news stories shift instantly. Today, like the BBC, CNN continues to insist that new facts must be double-sourced before being reported. Sometimes, this works to their credit – they did not get egg on their faces by buying the right-wing smear job on Shirley Sherrod, for example – but it also means rivals can often be far quicker with breaking news.

<snip>

[Radical Activist]

1. The problem is that CNN is garbage.

It isn't the lack of partisan figures that hurts them. Does someone need to remind the writer that Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, and Glenn Beck all had CNN shows?

The problem is that they rarely do decent news coverage anymore. They have been in decline at least since booting Ted Turner and perhaps since it was first sold to Time Warner just in time to become the "all Monica, all the time" network. More recently, devoting so much time to that moronic asshat Wolf Blitzer is destroying the network.

Here's the key quote from the article.

"We are a network for news enthusiasts," Mr Feder says.

No, CNN used to be a network for news enthusiasts. Now it's a pile of dumbed down crap living off the reputation of its former glory days.

[tulsakatz]

2. excellent comment!!

it's no longer the most trusted name in news.......

[Enthusiast]

7. Perfectly well said.

They also had Lou Dobbs, another of the Novack-Buchanan ilk.

I think CNN could capture an audience that hunger for actual news. But they won't.

[Bitwit1234]

3. CNN insists that FACTS be checked.

Oh my God what a lie. I can post here every single article they have on their web page and they are all slanted toward the republicans. The lead in sometimes is a BIG FAT LIE. And if you look for what they mention in the lead in, it is no where to be found. But then you can find Palin all the time. When she sneezes they have an article about it. And don't forget the tea bags get front page also. People are sick of these two subjects but CNN is so republican orientated they can't help themselves. Head up the butt and being over come by fumes will do it every time.

[underpants]

5. My email to CNN on their ACORN reporting - and this is during the 08 election

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/underpants/131

[Enthusiast]

8. That was excellent.

The propaganda effort against ACORN was huge. It was just as egregious on NPR as on CNN.

[Blue_Tires]

4. CNN has been yesterday's news for a decade now...

[bemildred]

6. Nobody watches TV news except in airports anyway. nt

[The Wizard]

9. The reasons they're tanking

are they lurched to the right to try and get back some of the audience they lost when Pox got of the ground. In so doing they lost many from the middle who noticed their bias.
Secondly, they give equal weight to a factual story and the Republican spin of that story as if there's some kind of balance between fact and fiction, not a clear difference.