|
|
|
|
Where'd Ever'body Go?
CNN -- Already on the Right
By Bryan Zepp Jamieson
August 9, 2001 (APJP) -- To a lot of right wing types, the media is this vast liberal conspiracy that is out to burn their Bibles, eat their children, and impregnate their dogs. They demonstrate the truth of this by noting that the media will, in the event that anyone disagrees with the Republican Party or the Christian Coalition, actually say in public what the disagreement is all about, rather than merely calling for the death penalty for the offending party.
Anything reported in the media that isn't straight off a Republican National Committee fax machine is considered liberal. Just the mere fact that they can call Fox "fair and balanced" because nearly 10% of its political guests are Democrats should pretty much show where these people are coming from.
CNN has always been a favorite target of right-wing foamers for the simple reason that it was owned by Ted Turner, notorious environmentalist (wanting clean air and clean water are dangerously liberal traits) who eventually married Jane Fonda (or as she is fondly known among neoconfederate militia nutbags, Satan).
CNN was the first 24 hour "news channel", and it set the stage for our present situation where there is more talk and less information on television then at any point in the history of the medium.
We didn't pay a lot of attention to CNN in the beginning, since we lived in an area where the local cable monopoly only carried 20 channels, and needed three of them to be home shopping clubs and three more to be Bible-banging fests in order to make ends meet (in an hilarious faux-pas, the company briefly had one channel that was Christian programming by day and the Playboy channel by night; I thought that was apropos, and forgave the cable monopoly many sins because of it, but the local Bible thumpers were not amused -- they forced the company to scramble the channel and then still bitched because you could still hear the sighs and grunts). But we heard about the "news lite" and the weird little snippits that they actually called "factoids", and tended to dismiss it as serious news. After all, this was post-Watergate, and people figured they could trust the mainstream media to tell them what they needed to know about what their government was up to.
CNN spread to our house, and the Gulf War came along -- the first really big, dramatic news story since Watergate -- and we learned the advantage of 24 hour news. When a big story was unfolding, you could turn on the boob toob at any time and get an update. No more waiting around until 6PM for Dan Rather to be portentous at us; we could get the very latest instantly from Wolf Blitzer and Peter Arnett.
Of course, what we were getting was pure unadulerated crap, repeated dozens of times a day so it would look topical and timely -- but we didn't know that at the time. CNN ratings soared.
After the war, both George Bush and CNN sagged together. Unlike George, however, CNN had life after Election Day, and gleefully joined in the pile-on-Clinton-fest.
CNN got sold to Time-Warner, and the quality -- such as it was -- vanished altogether. In their early attempts at a web presence, CNN put half-hour installments in .mpg format and put them up in streaming video. In order to save bandwidth, they eliminated the useless weather forecast, the loud and annoying sports babble, the Hollywood fluff, and the ads. What was left, embarrassingly enough, was 12 minutes of actual news out of a half-hour of noise, and much of THAT was news of the "Firefighers rescued this cute little kitten what fell down de well" variety. I used to claim I could get more information in five minutes from NPR's top-of-the-hour newscasts then I could in a half hour of CNN, and I was right.
CNN's ratings slowly declined, from over 750,000 per hour to about 400,000. Television news as a whole declined as outlet after outlet was bought up by corporations, and news departments switched from information providers to synergistic infotainment advertising revenue enhancement devices. News had stopped existing to inform the people, and existed to please the advertisers.
The right wing decided that a free media was no longer tolerable, and started establishing a shadow media of its own; papers and news channels that looked and sounded like mainstream news, but were propaganda devises for the well-heeled right. So the news and commentary, poor to begin with, became dominated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Eva Van Braun, Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Juan Williams, John McLaughlin, G. Gordon Liddy, "Dr." Laura, Michael Medved , Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts, George Will, Ron Reagan Jr., Bob Schieffer, John Hockenberry, Ollie North, Robert Novak, Paul Weyrich, Bill Schneider, Candy Crowley, John Stossel, Howie Kurtz -- right wingers all. Rupert Murdoch, the Australian neo-fascist, bought the Speaker of the House who rewarded him with nearly unlimited rights to snap up as much of America's media as he could. General Electric and Microsoft banded together in your very best interests to keep you informed via MSNBC (names courtesy of Bartcop).
Every time a newspaper had an article about global warming that didn't dismiss the idea as a crackpot anti-tech liberal fantasy, angry letters to the editor -- usually from the same people -- invariably appeared. The constant chant continued from the right: "The media is liberal! The media is liberal! The media is liberal!" Radio commentators and television gasbag shows spend hours telling us how the media was liberal. The informal "poll" that "showed" reporters to be 91% liberals was mentioned ad nauseam, despite the fact that no other poll came within half of that number, and actual scientific polls put the percentage of liberal reporters at about 30-35%.
Even public television was suborned. A labor-relations panel discussion on Lehrer might consist of a rep from the American Association of Manufacturers, the National Chamber of Commerce, and the Heritage Foundation. Quick! What's wrong with this picture?
We've reached the point where eleven corporate entities control over 95% of our media. These entities include the aforementioned Murdoch, General Electric (currently under investigation for tampering with election results reporting at NBC), AOL-Time Warner, and everybody's favorite spokesman for the heart and values of middle America: Reverend Sun Myung Moon.
Turn on your TV. You wont have any trouble finding market reports, ads for portfolios. You will look in vain for reports on labor issues, or news about worker's rights. Those are "liberal issues" in today's media.
No wonder ratings have been falling, not just at CNN, but industry-wide. People know when they are being lied to.
Of course, right wingers are blaming liberals for that, too.
In the past couple of years, CNN (Socialistic liberal corporation Time Warner) has seen its viewership drop further, a result of market share having been siphoned off by MSNBC (Socialistic liberal corporations Microsoft and GE) and Fox (Socialistic liberal News Corp., a wholly Rupert Murdoch production). Right wingers like to paint it as a pair of conservative upstarts fighting against some weird liberal monolith (some of the dumber right wingers invoke Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, apparently unaware that they left years ago) when in fact it's three dogs fighting over the same dirty bone. They are all seeking a share of a market demographic that is older, affluent, and very conservative.
CNN -- liberal? Just watch the ads for the brokerage houses and the big pharmaceuticals and ask why they would be spending all that money to support a liberal network.
Go ahead and mention that to right wingers. The pause between snarls that CNN is liberal is amusing, even if it serves no purpose.
CNN, pressured and already servile to the right, proceeded to have a meeting that, in a country with a free and independent media, would have utterly destroyed whatever credibility they had as a news-gathering organization.
As reported in Roll Call on August 6, 2001:
>CNN Chief Courts GOP
>By John Bresnahan and Mark Preston>In an effort to improve his network's image with conservative leaders,
>new CNN chief Walter Isaacson huddled with House and Senate GOP leaders
>last week to seek advice on how to attract more right-leaning viewers
>to the sagging network. Isaacson met with Speaker Dennis Hastert
>(R-IL.), Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MI), House GOP Conference
>Chairman J.C. Watts (OK), Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Sen. Chuck Hagel
>(R-NB) to talk about CNN's image with conservatives and how it can be
>improved.>Isaacson confirmed that he also reached out to senior White House
>officials, but he denied that he was seeking counsel on how to boost
>CNN's ratings with conservative viewers.
Poor Isaacson was misunderstood. He doesn't want conservative viewers to watch CNN, oh, no! He just wants them to have a better opinion of the network! You believe that, right? Sure you do!
It gets worse:
>"I was trying to reach out to a lot of Republicans who feel that CNN
>has not been as open covering Republicans, and I wanted to hear their
>concerns," Isaacson said in an interview Friday.
Gee, guys, is there anything I can do to make your lives more comfortable? Stop reporting on those pesky Democrats, maybe?
>"I definitely did not say, 'How do we attract the conservative
>viewer?'"said Isaacson, who stressed that his message was, "Let me
>hear what you think of CNN, and I am here to introduce myself."
The last thing this network executive could possibly want is viewers! Let the chips fall where they may! All they want to do is serve Truth, and the Truth is that they want conservatives, that lucrative demographic, to think well of them!
>To Republicans, Isaacson's presence on Capitol Hill is a sign of
>weakness and shows how much Fox News Channel, founded just under five
>years ago, has eroded CNN's lead as the top cable option for
>political news.
Oh, definitely weakness. I'll agree with the grinning GOP plutocrats on capitol hill on that one.
>But Isaacson, the former editorial director of Time Inc., disputed
>assertions that he was on a mission to keep up with Fox.
Why, he would often sent hot breaking stories to Newsweak in the spirit of friendly competition and because he loves the truth so much!
>"It really doesn't have to do with any other network," Isaacson said.
>"It wasn't some programming strategy or our relationship with Fox or
>anything like that."
The last thing on his mind....
>Nevertheless, Isaacson's counterpart at Fox, Roger Ailes, gently
>mocked his competitor's recent swing through Capitol Hill, while
>admitting it was a clever business move.>"I think it is a real sign of progress that after [21] years, CNN has
>found out that there's more than one point of view," jibed Ailes.
And promises never to present it again...
>Democrats, on the other hand, weren't pleased by the spectacle of
>Isaacson courting Republicans.>"That is a byzantine thing for the head of a news organization to
>come up to meet with one political party to ask what can we do or how
>do we make things better," groused a senior Democratic Senator.
Byzantine? I've never associated weakness, cowardice, greed and stupidity with the Byzantines before.
>"That's an interesting idea of balance," a Democratic Senate chairman
>dryly remarked. "It is totally inappropriate."
>Isaacson deflected the criticism by saying that he's planning a
>September visit to Capitol Hill in which he will "meet with Democrats
>and more Republicans."
In much the same way that Tom DeLay, in his exterminator days, used to meet with both clients and insects...
>During this trip Isaacson also intends to sit down with one of CNN's
>most vocal Republican critics, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (Texas).
Speaking of old Bug Spray DeLay...
>DeLay, who has lambasted CNN as the "Clinton News Network" and
>"Communist News Network," actually suggested a boycott of the network
>during a recent bicameral GOP leadership gathering. None of the others
>Republican lawmakers who were in attendance agreed to take part.>It also demonstrates to GOP strategists that their unrelenting attacks
>on the media, in which television and newspaper reporters are accused
>of being biased against Republicans and conservatives, are beginning
>to hit home with those who decide what gets aired on the nightly news.
That's been going on for years. America doesn't have a liberal media of any sort in the mainstream any more, and Conservatives are assiduously stamping out those few remnants that remain. In the name of freedom, of course.
>"[Isaacson] is panicked that he's losing conservative viewers," said a
>top aide to one of the GOP lawmakers who met with Isaacson.>"He said, 'Give us some guidance on how to attract conservatives.' He
>said he 'wanted to change the culture' at CNN. I think he perceived
>that they have a problem, and they do have a problem.">DeLay has been particularly vocal in his criticism of the Atlanta-
>based news organization.>"DeLay is on a jihad against CNN," claimed another GOP aide, who said
>the Texan believes that CNN's coverage of issues clearly favors
>liberal Democrats over conservative Republicans.>In a telephone interview on Friday, DeLay himself said he "won't go on
>CNN. They have such a liberal bias. It's quite evident to everyone."
Even whores have doors on their bathrooms, it seems.
>Watts, for his part, was muted in his critique of CNN and said that the
>network has been fair to him in the past, although he also offered high
>praise for Fox.>"Fox is rocking. There's no question of that," said Watts, who had
>breakfast with Isaacson last Thursday.>"Do I think that [CNN] has a liberal bias? They probably do," said
>Watts, who appeared on the network's "Late Edition" program two Sundays
>ago. "But I am still not willing to concede that venue [to Democrats].">Fox News has cut into CNN's once overwhelming lead in recent months.
>For example, an average of 140,000 people were watching Fox News at any
>given time between Jan. 1 and Aug. 1, 2000, according to Nielsen Media
>Research. During the same time period this year, 282,000 people were
>tuned into Rupert Murdoch's news network.
You add it up, and it's a hair over 400,000.
>In contrast, 308,000 viewers watched CNN between Jan. 1 and Aug. 1,
>2000. During the first seven months of 2001, viewership climbed to
>321,000. CNN is seen in 82 million homes, while Fox News is available
>in 67 million homes, according to Nielsen.
Those are mighty small bones the networks are fighting over. Isaacson is in the position of a hooker who can't remember if her john paid her or not.
>CNN has also suffered from a series of negative stories in recentNotice that even Roll Call didn't ask any Democrats if they thought the media was liberal? Even as they dutifully reported the usual squeaks from the GOP about it being liberal?
Here's an interesting fact (or as CNN liked to say, "factoid"). Less people watch television news than in 1965. That's despite the fact that in 1965, the average household only got three or four channels, the news was on for a half hour in the evening, news from Europe was at least 6 hours old and often 48, it was in black and white, and there were 100 million less people able to watch.
Where did all those people go? The limited, but trustworthy news in 1965 reached 20% of homes they broadcast to. These three right wing networks are scrapping over one sixth of one percent of homes. Where did all the viewers go?
Hint: despite outspending the Democrats and having a near-monopoly on what people heard about the campaign, the GOP lost the popular vote last year. I don't think people left because the media was "too liberal".
I turned on CNN last night to see the "new look" that they had adopted, supposedly to be younger, hipper, and appeal to those young, hip 60-somethings who are the core of the conservative movement. It looked like a poorly designed web page, with the actual broadcast screen reduced to one third of the screen. For all the folks who laid out money to haul home those heavy 36" screen color TVs, this will take you back to the good old days of 19" screens. One quarter of the screen, during a story on tropical storm Barry, provided the following useful information: 70 mph winds, 4-5 storm surge. Mind you, Barry was already gone, so it wasn't even a warning to folks on the coast. They used up a quarter of the screen to make that useless statement, already covered in the narrative. The weather map, never useful, was a little blotchy orange thing in the corner. And I have a good TV. I could just imagine some poor old SS recipient peering at his 13" job on his kitchen table.
I laughed and turned CNN off.
I doubt I'll be going back any time soon.
I don't like news networks that openly whore for a political party -- I wouldn't bother to watch Democratic TV, if there was such a thing -- and the Internet can provide a lot more information and much more comprehensively and thus fairly.
It isn't so bad that CNN are cowardly whores who let themselves be bullied by thugs like Tom DeLay. They are hardly alone on that. But they are also stupid, and unfocused, and seemingly incapable of understanding what they look like from the other side of the camera, and so they will die, not because they were shallow whores, but because they offered a crap product and didn't have the wit to fix it.
Of course, the right wingers will bray that News Incorporated and General Electric/Microsoft, reflecting the will of the Common Man, beat them in the name of conservatism.
And the decline of America will continue.
Copyright © 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
