CNN: What happened!!!???

CNN

I remember CNN in its infancy. I recall CNN’s early days with some measure of nostalgia. I, along with millions of other cable TV viewers, was mesmerized by the slick, 24 hour coverage and the seeming ubiquity of CNN correspondents. For me, the defining moment for the network was when the space shuttle, Challenger, exploded shortly after takeoff in January, 1986. I rushed home from work to watch in horror as the shuttle blew apart.

For some strange reason I needed to see it to make sure that something so ghastly had actually happened. Another milestone: CNN’s coverage of the stock market crash in October 1987 set new standards for professionalism in TV journalism. And when I was traveling overseas, returning to my hotel room in the evenings to relax involved a shower, a cocktail and watching CNN cover world events. Even the venerable BBC’s cable TV news coverage was a pale carbon copy of CNN's.

I was an addict. So what happened? The CNN of today is a very different news channel than it was when it began broadcasting. Indeed it is quite different (and I do not mean “better”) than it was only 5 or 10 years ago. CNN is often accused of having a liberal, or left wing bias. This does not bother me, 1) because the bias is hardly perceptible and 2) they have made efforts to balance their presentation of the news, with equal opportunity given to liberals and conservatives.

Contrast this with the Bill O’Reilly “propaganda” factor, and Fox News in general and CNN emerges as a paragon of omniscience and objectivity. What troubles me most about the CNN of today, however, is that the network has shifted from reporting the news to producing the news. I recognize that CNN is not alone in this, but I had held them- perhaps naively, to higher standards. There is no better evidence of this shift than the latter day Max Headroom character CNN has created in Anderson Cooper.

Gone is the staid, composed, conservative David Brinkley, Roger Grimsby and of course Walter Cronkite treatment of the news. CNN’s new heavyweight of their cable news scene actually appears a lightweight- pretty, stylish and "oh!" so earnest. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Cooper’s journalism. He is a professional. Yet CNN is promoting him and his show, “AC 360” (trendy, trendy, trendy), as if it were a movie feature, or new reality TV show- with Mr. Cooper as the matinee idol.

All you need do is watch the ads that CNN runs throughout the day to validate this statement. And to give Mr. Cooper gravitas, CNN sends him to Iraq, when they already have one of the most polished, capable war correspondents in the world over there- Nic Robertson. So what value is Anderson adding to the war zone coverage? Not much. But he does look so dashing in his carefully studied, rehearsed poses and entreaties to watch his show (no longer "report" or "segment").

These are meant to appear candid. They fall flat. A few weeks ago CNN ran a program that featured Mr. Cooper and his “sidekick”, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, venturing off into the wilds of Africa to save the world from deadly diseases. That was the way CNN promoted the program; that Messrs. Cooper and Gupta were off to, “…..to save the world…” Why not give them tiny, black “Green Hornet” masks and little capes? I cannot wait for the comic book, “The Amazing Adventures of Anderson Cooper!" or the feature film / reality TV show of the same name.

The producers of 360 are clearly “dumbing down” the news when they air the “joke of the day” on 360: tonight’s “joke” was a photo of Prince Harry (or was it William?) flashing a strange hand sign at his audience / the cameras at a polo match. CNN’s stab at what it signified? It was the prince’s new gang sign. Was that supposed to be funny? And if it was, has CNN stooped so low that they feel impelled to do jokes to win over an audience? What’s next? Cheap parlor tricks?

Well if you are into that, then you probably see nothing wrong with Anderson and his comely female accomplice trading cute one-liners at the end of a segment- with him being faux witty, and she being so coquettish. If this is professional TV journalism, then I am a coconut! It is as if CNN is playing to the 8 year olds out in TV land. Aside from CNN’s "creation" of the Anderson Cooper icon, the other things that really bother me about CNN are, in no particular order:

1) The obsessive coverage of disasters: as long as there are flames, smoke, explosions, mass death, plane crashes and “acts of God” they have “Breaking News” for us. CNN seems especially fascinated by force majeure events such as hurricanes, tornados and wild fires. To be sure, other networks indulge in the same vaudevillian antics (correspondents clinging to lamp posts, running from dumpsters to mailboxes to see if it can be done and speculating on how long that Shell station sign will last before being blown away) during hurricanes. But CNN gets first prize for conspicuous lunacy in this category.

2) Lou Dobbs. He was once a peerless journalist and CNN’s best financial news correspondent. Now he is a 1 issue demagogue. If I hear him say “illegal immigration” or “our broken borders” or “outsourcing America” one more time I may throw something at the TV. My ears bleed.

3) Nancy Grace: arguably the best female impersonator on TV today. Her specialty, in case you have never had the chance to watch her in action on CNN’s “Headline News” channel, is covering murders, rapes, kidnappings and all manner of sordid, beastly acts in lurid detail. Her tone is nothing if not shrill. Every man involved in an alleged rape, murder of kidnapping is treated / portrayed as “guilty until proven innocent”. My idea of Hell is not me being prosecuted by Nancy Grace- but having her as my companion in an afterlife.

Admittedly CNN, and any media channel or network that depends heavily upon advertizing revenue, are only playing what we “slack-jawed troglodytes” (to borrow a phrase from The Simpson’s Monty Burns) want to see. I hate to state this, let along accept it but let’s face it- playing to the lowest common denominator is highly profitable. Which would “we” rather see on CNN: coverage of the death of Princess Diana, or the death of Mother Theresa?

They died within 1 week of each other. Mother Theresa devoted her life to humanitarian causes; to working with the poor, the sick, the diseased and the downtrodden. Princess Diana was a celebrated patron of charities and to her eternal credit did much for humanitarian causes. Yet in terms of “yield” or accomplishment Mother Theresa’s life work eclipses that of Diana’s, mostly because she had a 30 year head start (Mother Theresa became a missionary at 18 and arrived in India to begin her life’s work in 1929- 32 years before Diana’s birth).

Yet to paraphrase one cynical observer: Diana was a royal, she was a princess, she was glamorous, lead a jet set life, was a controversial figure and most of all, was a “babe”. As beautiful a spirit as Mother Theresa was, she would never have made the cover of Vogue, or osmopolitan. But I digress. It is true that CNN and other news channels will respond to what “we” really want to see, just as Detroit will oblige “us” and manufacture the steel, gas-guzzling monstrosities that “we” want to drive (until "the market" will ultimately save us from our own profligacy).

Too bad, but helicopters hovering above an overturned school bus with no sign of fire, smoke or casualties are infinitely more spellbinding than an interview with the foreign minister of Iran. I am just sad to see the advertisers and the "slack-jawed troglodytes" prevail, CNN sell out and in so doing, become just another gaggle of talking heads trying to get our attention with non-stop “breaking news”.

July 6, 2008