Why CNN's changes don't bother me all that much ...

[ificandream]

First, I need to state that I am a college grad who majored in journalism and was in the newspaper business for over 35 years, including as an editor of a couple of small sections.

And yes, while some aspects of the CNN changes (the cancellation of Brian Stelter's "Reliable Sources" show, podcast and column -- to which I looked forward to daily) was one thing that did, adding in some conservative opinion isn't necessarily a cause for concern. Notice I said necessarily.

Journalism, the way it was taught to me, is supposed to be impartial. That means all sides of the story need to be presented, though I do grimace at giving time to right-wing fascists. But that said, allowing conservative viewpoints isn't wrong. The problem with journalism is when it doesn't label opinion as opinion. In my day, newspapers always did and kept opinion on editorial pages. But cable news doesn't have an editorial page. I don't want to say the "F" word, but they never do. But neither, unfortunately, do other cable news networks. If only they would. It would clearly show that cable TV is overwhelmed with opinion. While there is a place for opinion on cable news, to fog it as fact is dead wrong. And we know who does that more than anyone. (Again, I don't want to say the "F" word, but ...)

I've always felt that MSNBC did the best job between it and CNN of covering the news before the recent CNN changes. And I also don't hate Chuck Todd or Andrea Mitchell. They are news interviewers. In interviews you ask questions that may make the interviewee or the viewer uncomfortable. (And yes, I have experience doing them.) It's not wrong. One thing we don't want is a network echo chamber. (There's that "F" word again.)

I admittedly didn't watch much CNN in the past few years. They seemed to go away from hard news and too often focus on clickbait stuff. Hell, MSNBC does it a little, too, though not nearly as much. Clickbait is what that "F" word station thrives on, especially on its website. I can only hope CNN turns more to hard news now.

Let me leave you with this: News/journalism isn't always what we want to hear. The purpose of journalism is the truth. We may not agree with everything something like CNN or even MSNBC broadcasts, but just because we disagree doesn't mean they've done something wrong.

It actually could mean they've done something right.

[Joinfortmill]

1. Thank you.

[hlthe2b]

2. Good Heavens. Firing prominent hosts while letting it be known those left who remain under the

microscope sets up a classic atmosphere of fear and intimidation--especially with a few well-placed articles as to the "new direction" of the network and its new leadership (and who "might" be targeted... can you say Acosta, Briana Keillar, Don Limon, Tapper, maybe even John King and Anderson Cooper.

Thus they self-censor, as is already obvious with a few of them, notably Keillar.

From what you say I can only conclude that you don't hate those who see everything as equivalent and agree that there is no truth only two sides. Uggh. No

[ificandream]

5. The correct answer is that there's a difference between journalism and opinion.

Journalism (a news story) must show both sides of an issue to get at the truth. We're not talking whataboutism here but giving the straight facts from both sides. And "facts" shouldn't, IMO anyway, be extreme right-wing garbage.

[hlthe2b]

6. There is a truth and ethical journalists report that when the facts are there. Bothsiderism is NOT

that; False equivalency is not that. Both are irredeemable IMO. It is lazy. It is "safe" It is unethical, but that is what passes today for journalism the majority of the time on tv and digital media--less so in print, but sadly those are disappearing. I don't know why anyone who has had background in journalism falls for that, except that they are now intimidated and extorted to do so in many settings. CNN is apparently engaged in that now.

[ificandream]

14. This whole thing about bothsidesism is really misplaced.

Just because (and I'll use him as an example since people seem to bring him up so much) Chuck Todd asks a question with an aspect of the story from a different side is not wrong. Again, it's the whole thing about journalism and opinion being confused. If I'm interviewing a Democratic Senator and ask him to respond to a question where I take a Republican viewpoint, there's nothing wrong with that. It's my job to get as much information out of that person as I can and that's how I would do it. Just as an aside, IMO, too many interviews are structured to ask only questions the interviewee wants. (That's especially true of celebrities. Yes, I've done those.) Interviewers shouldn't be able to ask questions that are newsworthy. That doesn't always mean the subject (or the viewer) is going to like them. It's not false equivalency to get as much information as possible for the viewer. In fact, it's part of the job.

I could go on about how interviews these days are so predictable because of the source giving them. Interviewees should get mad occasionally. It never happens because for the most part the people doing them are too chickenshit to challenge them.

[hlthe2b]

15. I think we naively ignore what is happening to journalism--especially televised "journalism" at our

own peril. I will leave it at this but suggest you read some of the better (and readily available responsible) reporting on this. It is well past the time to pull our heads out of the sand.

[ificandream]

19. No one has their head in the sand.

But I refuse to jump to conclusions especially those on social media about what is happening. Putting together news is not as simple as it looks or as that "F" station sometimes makes it sound. (Hell, everything to them is "keep it simple".) A great place for information about journalism is https://www.poynter.org/. It's a site that journalists use often. It's also free and you don't need to register.

[hlthe2b]

21. The honorable lawyers in my family painfully have to see the problems with their own and their

profession--just as I do with those doctors in my field

WAKE UP!

[lpbk2713]

24. Well said.

And I concur.

[Demsrule86]

28. This isn't journalism...this is kowtowing to Trump for ratings and calling evil OK so they can

win a few viewers. What they are doing is not journalism. Trump has no side in regards to stealing classified documents for example...the horrendous way Trans kids are being treated has no other 'side'. It is not journalism.

[Demsrule86]

35. What CNN practice isn't journalism...liars got to lie I guess.

[OilemFirchen]

10. "...while letting it be known those left who remain under the microscope..."

Who did that?

[ificandream]

16. I have not seen any evidence of a "microscope" ...

... but I'm sure the shakeup at CNN has not been easy for some. We'll find out down the line as this change evolves more. One thing, though. I think CNN will handle this better than the "F" station would.

[ificandream]

20. See my earlier post. Jumping quickly to conclusions doesn't mean one hits the target.

CNN is not a newcomer. It's been around for a long time and has a storied history. It's also well respected among journalists. (Unlike that "F" word station which loves to go after its competition for things they do.) I'll say again that news doesn't always make us happy all the time. It's not supposed to. If it does you're probably watching the wrong station.

[brooklynite]

23. People leave media outlets for new ones all the time...

I doubt that the folks at CNN are being pressured to report in a way they don't consider professional, and are worried about losing their jobs if they don't comply.

[Demsrule86]

29. I have seen plenty of evidence of the lies told now on CNN.

[Demsrule86]

36. No they won't. They will be just like Fox...and hopefully be gone soon...the sooner the better.

[montanacowboy]

3. Jake Tapper

thinks Biden should invite Dump to the Queen's funeral

enough said

[Cha]

8. That's just Fucking STUPID.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

4. Licht's stated goal isn't to add more conservative "opinion"

it is to have CNN focus more on news and less on opinion.

That would be a plus in my estimation.

As you suggest, good journalism should strive to be impartial and objective.

Good journalism doesn't mean shrinking away from hard-realities or from presenting the truth.

America would benefit from having a great cable news network.

The meritless "hair-on-fire" conspiracy theory that CNN is going "hard right" was floated by the ultra-right Free Beacon and unfortunately compounded by voices that have not applied healthy skepticism.

[Demsrule86]

34. They have just as much opinion only now they present the Repub lies as if it isn't totally

evil which it is...insurrection, making abortion and contraception illegal, LGBTQ attacks,getting rid of Social Security other programs. What you are saying just isn't true. It won't do them any good as they will lose viewers and should. We saw what their new look was when Tapper said we should give Trump an olive branch after he tried to overthrow the government and stole state secrets.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

38. That's not what Jake Tapper said.

Tapper suggested that an invite would be a "clever" way to humiliate TFG by making his "subservience" to Biden crystal clear--and that TFG would therefore likely refuse, making himself look bad in the process.

CNN has not taken up an anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, or anti-Social Security positions.

It is just not any more true than the mischaracterization of Jake Tapper's words.

I don't agree with the concept of inviting TFG as a means of humiliating the man, but that was his take.

[WarGamer]

7. Reality is...

Straight news wouldn't attract many viewers.

People want to hear their own opinions reinforced and their own biases repeated.

That's just human nature.

[ificandream]

12. If that was the case, we'd have all F word stations. We don't.

The real function of news, as I said before, is relaying the truth. Real journalists like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were about truth, not about clickbait. That's a modern day (and dreadful) thing in regards to news. The best news station isn't necessarily the one with the highest ratings. Which is very true today. Unfortunately.

[Demsrule86]

37. Fox has the MAGA got and there are not enough of them to support CNN as they will soon learn.

[wishstar]

9. Don't watch much CNN on TV but I do look at their website often to read articles in depth

I prefer reading online to all the bloat of punditry, spin and commercials. I think they provide an excellent source of news and current events and issues. I haven't seen much change in their coverage on the website.

But I have noticed no recent links lately to any of Brianna Keillar's smackdowns of rightwingers that was a regular feature on their website.

Spouse channel surfs and one day after the Mar a Lago search we briefly caught her interview of a Repub Senator who was downplaying and spinning the Mar a Lago search with Trump talking points for several minutes without any pushback from her so spouse changed channels so don't know what if any response she made to the lies and distortions that he had lots of time to espouse.

[Raine]

11. Exactly. nt

[nini]

13. You'd have a point if truth was being broadcast

It’s propaganda spun into the news.

[Maeve]

18. I also studied journalism back in the day

When reporting and editorializing were supposed to be kept separate. It was easier when there were readers, not news consumers. It was also easier when more people agreed there is such a thing as objective truth.

All things are in flux right now; interesting times. I am still betting on the future being better altho that depends on reasonable voices.
Keep being one.

[ificandream]

22. I agree. Thank you very much.

[Demsrule86]

39. I think you are completely wrong...now we have to stations to attack Democrats non-stop.

The sooner they both fail, the better for this country. They spout lies mostly.

[tenderfoot]

25. My beef with todays journalism is that it's stenography and not actual fact finding reporting

They report what people say and and end there. It's never if what they say is true or not.

[ificandream]

27. To a certain extent, I agree.

Some reporters and sources are better than others. Cable news is really bad for that. That's why, IMO, the New York Times and Washington Post are great sources of information.

[tenderfoot]

33. A few topics involve our Southern Border and immigration in general

I think both are blown waaaaay out of proportion and neither are the crisis that they're made out to be.

[Demsrule86]

26. The problem with that is this...the insurrectionists don't have a side...and when it is presented

as equal to Democrats, It is infuriating. It is not equal and they don't deserve...equal coverage. They stole SCOTUS judges, caged babies, grifted huge amounts of public money (Trump), and staged an insurrection...so don't talk to me about impartial. It is not impartial to give the side of those who hate LGBTQ and attack Trans kids as a valid point of view. Is it impartial to kill women in the name of abortion? No, it is not. CNN is dead to me.

When you see evil, you call it out. And Republicans have crossed over into cheaters, racists, bigots, insurrectionists, and just plain evil. So I have an issue with CNN and will never watch it because they are lying and not being impartial at all. They cover for Trump and the Republicans. Screw them. They don't deserve to call what they do 'news'. Excusing and covering the evil deeds of evil people is not news.

[ificandream]

31. What they do has to be reported.

Which is why the investigative work of the WashPost and New York Times has been so valuable. They have called this stuff out. The problem is a good chunk of people have been told not to trust them and go to places like the "F" word for their information.

[Demsrule86]

40. No it doesn' if it like Fox...it just reinforces the bullshit. I do not watch CNN anymore and won't

[LAS14]

30. Thank you! I couldn't agree with you more!

One thing that has been an improvement over the last few years is for the respectable news outlets to be willing to identify a lie as a factual thing. Without exception as far as I can tell (although I don't watch Fox news) is broadcasters have labeled the idea of a stolen election as "a lie" - no holds barred. There are facts and there are opinions, and I want a society where everyone's opinions, clearly labeled as such, can be heard, but not labeled as facts. And it's getting increasingly harder to find conservative pundits who don't want to wrap their opinions as facts. Thanks to the newscasters who call them on it.

PBS is the best on this front, I think. Then MSNBC. I'll be interested to see how CNN evolves.

I'm really glad to see your post on DU, because I take pride in the idea that Democrats are not ideological bigots like most Republicans have become.

[ificandream]

32. Thank you very much. :)

[iemanja]

41. I don't watch the news to reaffirm my confirmation bias.

and I don't respect the idea that people must agree with everything they watch. It's a sign of the complete breakdown of information in our society. People claim NPR and PBS is right wing because they occasionally see something that bothers them. When people only watch what they agree with, they learn little.

[UTUSN]

42. "all sides" but not letting lies go unchallenged or unnamed as lies.

Am a cord cutter and have gone further to cutting just about all network and cable. I do just about all YouTube now.

The one thing I "watched" (via Tune-In radio) with semi-regularity was Reliable Sources and the lead-in of ZAKARIA. I only see clips of LEMON.

As for MSNBC - stopped Morning Scabs in 2012, I forget whether he was *extra* down against Dems that gave me a tantrum. In the heyday of my watching - especially monitored Tweety for years on an Opposition Research basis. Then did the Rachel/Keith thing, sprinkled with Lawrence. but that wore off eventually.

At the University of YouTube am getting more and better than my two degrees. Alexander, Julius, Cleo, the invention of Jesus, tons of how-to instructionals. I get "news" mostly from the news leads on the internet and DU.

LICHT's wingnut swing of CNN is tanking and will bury it. He's JoeSCABS' protege from MSNBC, not COLBERT's protege. Keith says he undermined Keith and other Lib hosts at JoeSCABS' bidding. He's doomed to flame out at CNN. Why would "adding in some Conservative opinion" at CNN attract more audience away from their staying at Fox. Neither I nor most Libs or DUers are parrotheads who want an "echo chamber" or "what we want to hear."

I *do* dislike Chuck TODD and his ilk who SLANT and shade.