General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDon Lemon, Poppy Harlow and Kaitlan Collins to Anchor New CNN Morning Show
There is no stronger combination of talent than Don, Poppy and Kaitlan to deliver on our promise of a game-changing morning news program, said Licht. They are each uniquely intelligent, reliable and compelling; together they have a rare and palpable chemistry. Combined with CNNs resources and global newsgathering capabilities, we will offer a smart, bold and refreshing way to start the day.
Don Lemon, one of CNNs most recognizable news personalities, will close the curtain on his nightly program Don Lemon Tonight to headline the brand-new morning show. Lemon, a New York Times best-selling author and award-winning journalist whose 30-year career in broadcast news includes 16 at CNN, has played a prominent role in every major news event over the past decade. He helped to reignite CNNs primetime lineup when he landed the coveted 10p timeslot in 2014. During his time at CNN he has produced numerous documentaries and specials; and served as moderator for multiple political town halls and co-moderator for a 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate.
...
John Berman and Brianna Keilar will continue to anchor New Day until the new program premieres. Both will assume new roles at the network later this year. Additional details will be announced in the coming weeks.
https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2022/09/15/don-lemon-poppy-harlow-kaitlan-collins-cnn-morning-show/
hlthe2b
(101,698 posts)a kennedy
(29,458 posts)kentuck
(110,947 posts)It was a good escape from Morning Joe and Mika.
However, lately, it seems like they were prohibited from saying anything about the Trump case? I guess he thought it was getting too much coverage?
Raven123
(4,714 posts)I liked Keilar better as a solo host in the afternoon. For me, the Berman-Keilar duo just didnt work.
Baitball Blogger
(46,570 posts)She's a power that can stand on her own.
CurtEastPoint
(18,548 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Change her name to one with more gravitas. She actually has gravitas. I can't even utter Poppy and Kaitlan in the same sentence tho. Maybe a overzealous high school yearbook type.
Samrob
(4,298 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Have to get up at like 4a
Sympthsical
(8,925 posts)With that famously right-wing fringe personality . . . uh . . . Don Lemon.
I have no idea who the other two are.
brush
(53,467 posts)Sympthsical
(8,925 posts)BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)The horror.
Kingofalldems
(38,359 posts)Sympthsical
(8,925 posts)Points are rather rare to come by.
Particularly when discussing anything CNN.
Doc Sportello
(7,453 posts)Hard to make a point when you admitted you are ignorant of two-thirds of those who re being discussed.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)relentlessly here on DU.
A conspiracy theory concocted by an ultra-right source (the Free Beacon) and seemingly swallowed whole cloth.
It is ripe for sarcasm. To say the least.
Hugin
(32,769 posts)He'll be all, "Drat!".
greatauntoftriplets
(175,691 posts)He's been the morning anchor with Poppy Harlow.
CrispyQ
(36,221 posts)Stick him on a morning show that no one watches.
CNN's shift to the right doesn't make sense to me. Right-wingers don't want Fox light, they want Newsmax & OANN.
jimfields33
(15,450 posts)Does his show beat MSNBC and Foxnews in the evening?
RussBLib
(8,983 posts)Licht will be viewed as a failure.
Sympthsical
(8,925 posts)The time slot is already failing without Licht's input.
Other cable prime time shows are in the 2.5 - 3 million range. Anderson Cooper is CNN's best evening person with around a million viewers. The network isn't a charity. I don't know why people think it should be operated like one. "Sure no one's watching, but it says what I want to hear."
That's not how businesses work. That's not how any of this works.
Doc Sportello
(7,453 posts)From RW sources. According to your "free hand of the market" take why would they do that? They lose money. Of course it's because they want to control the narrative. And your slur on people who recognize this (thanks in large part to Licht and Malone admitting their goals for the network to be more repub friendly) and on anchors who you admit you know nothing about means your input is based on ignorance. So why the hubris about the subject? You one of those Adam Smith acolytes who think it's all about money and not power?
And those "other" prime time shows you speak of, you mean like Hannity, etc.? I guess you agree with Malone and want to see more RW nutjobbery because, hey, it brings in viewers and money. Malone has plenty of money. The difference here is not viewers but narrative. That's how it really works.
Sympthsical
(8,925 posts)You're comparing apples and oranges. Are millions of people being bribed to watch Fox? Where can I get this gig? I'll leave anything on in the background for some ducats.
How is the truth a slur? If objective facts - the measured ratings - are a slur, then any inconvenient fact could be construed as a vicious slur. How does that comport with having an objective, reality-based understanding of the world? This simply isn't a sound way of thinking.
The simple fact of the matter is, if people wanted to watch Don Lemon's evening program, they would be watching it. They aren't. So those who are running a business whose revenues are based on viewership are going to want to try to get more viewers.
And let's not get into the open secret that more Democrats are watching Fox than CNN or MSNBC. I don't watch cable news, but I do often learn in liberal spaces about what Tucker Carlson said the night before. I almost never hear about what Don Lemon had to say. If Sean Hannity farts, it's everywhere. If Anderson Cooper has a thoughtful discussion, it's crickets.
Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it if a liberal host isn't attracting viewers? Whose fault is it that people would rather hate watch Fox News than watch Don Lemon and disseminate his words? The onus isn't on the right-winger to watch a liberal show. The onus is on us.
If we're not even watching these shows, who are you mad at?
Doc Sportello
(7,453 posts)It really isn't hard to understand the point I was making. Your point was it was all about ratings and profits. I made the point that RW funders take a loss when they buy up books to make it appear they are popular. It's called an analogy. Sheesh.
Your slur was obvious with this, and I quote: ""Sure no one's watching, but it says what I want to hear." meaning people on here and elsewhere only watch it to hear things they agree with. Obviously you never saw Keilar's terrific Roll the Tape segments where she used videos of people's own words to catch their hypocrisy and deceit. Same with Stelter. It was great journalism and badly needed during the trump years. She did take on Democrats but mostly it was repubs and you know why? Because as most everyone on here knows it was repubs who were the ones doing the lying and corrupting our government. Also not hard to understand.
And what the hell is that line " the onus in on us" to watch right-wingers and disseminate a different view? Have you tried that on FB or other forums? That is how they disseminate misinformation and trying to prove them wrong with factual information doesn't work, as everyone now understands. That paragraph contains so many misunderstandings of the history of the RW and media in general that it would take many pages to explain it. Buying the media to disseminate their propaganda has been an ongoing enterprise by the RW powers that be. Fox News lost millions when it started and used political influence and paying cable outlets for subscribers instead of the other way around. They also got pols like Guiliani to work behind the scenes to get them on cable.
Frpm Wkki: "To accelerate its adoption by cable providers, Fox News paid systems up to $11 per subscriber to distribute the channel.[36] This contrasted with the normal practice, in which cable operators paid stations carriage fees for programming. When Time Warner bought Ted Turner's Turner Broadcasting System, a federal antitrust consent decree required Time Warner to carry a second all-news channel in addition to its own CNN on its cable systems. Time Warner selected MSNBC as the secondary news channel, not Fox News. Fox News claimed this violated an agreement (to carry Fox News). Citing its agreement to keep its U.S. headquarters and a large studio in New York City, News Corporation enlisted the help of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's administration to pressure Time Warner Cable (one of the city's two cable providers) to transmit Fox News on a city-owned channel."
Your free hand of the market myth would say that was a business decision, but it was more importantly as numerous books and articles and Ailes' own words have shown, first and foremost a political move to gain control of the national narrative. It continues to this day. The hate you talk about is a key strategy move that is a psychological tactic that has horrible consequences. Hey, tonight Erin Burnett had on a DeSantis shill defending the migrant stunt tonight as CNN slowly turns into Fox Lite. You probably would have approved of this "both siderism".
You keep saying "we" are not watching as if you are the only one who counts. People do watch CNN, including many of the people in power. Just because you don't or attack them for ratings (a history lesson: news shows weren't originally created to make money, they were created to fulfill the Founding Fathers mandate of a free press serving as a bulwark against corruption and tyranny in this then-new medium of television) doesn't display your knowledge. It shows the opposite. You admit you don't even know who some of the biggest players are. If I don't have knowledge about a subject, I try not to give opinions as if I do. You should either read up on the history of the media or quit pontificating on a subject you self-admitted you don't know much about.
Sympthsical
(8,925 posts)Look at the selection of what shows are consumed, channels, publications, what news sites are "allowed", what Twitter personalities are promoted, etc. It's a very narrow band of ideologically allowable information. Which is fine if you're aware it is limited in such a way. It's when people narrow down the acceptable sources to that narrow slice and then claim they're getting complete objective information that the trolley goes well off the tracks. Which, unfortunately, is often the case. The number of times I have to laterally read or find correct information because what is spread is twisted completely out of context, omitting salient facts, or just plan false or wrong is staggering.
But you kind of have to read the room with that sort of thing. I know where I am, so I expect that partisan slant on things. It's why I don't rely on any one place as source material. The amount of "What is not being said here?" is often much, much higher in partisan spaces. That's just Internet 101.
I'm not saying "we" as in me. I already noted I don't watch cable news. Frankly, I don't give a shit what happens on those channels. I am as invested in them as I am in Peppa Pig - and both are about as useful to the population. Actually, no. Peppa Pig is probably more useful, because at least kids are learning vaguely useful lessons from it.
I'm saying "we" as in liberals. I remember back in the 00's when Air America tried to be a liberal Rush Limbaugh. Which is a good idea, since right-wing dominance of radio has been a problem in this country for the past thirty or forty years. Then no one listened to it. Even in New York City, it completely failed. Liberals didn't tune in. So, liberal radio didn't succeed, even though partisans claimed there was this vast demand for it.
Whose fault was that? Whose fault is it when the content is available, but our side doesn't consume it?
Cable news channels aren't a public service no matter what the networks did sixty years ago. Again, you are not comparing two like things. You're mashing everything together and hoping it sticks. Everything on cable is a business and is intended as a business. It is designed as a business. That is why they are part of a paid subscription service rather than broadcast over the public airwaves. If you think cable is supposed to be a public service, I'm not sure where you've been for the past four decades of its existence. It has never been one, it will never be one. It is a paid service.
As for not knowing who every single cable news host is, I'll wear that one like a badge of honor. I don't need to watch the channels to know how to look up ratings charts. I also don't need to know who various astronomers are in order to look up astronomy information. Weird how that works.
And just as a total QED of my point. One of the first threads I saw this morning when I opened this page?
This one: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217162955
Ok. Where's the Anderson Cooper posts? Where's Don Lemon? Where is any liberal from cable news? None on the front page.
But Tucker Carlson is right there, first thing in the morning. That's practically every morning.
Again, I'm not so sure you're mad at the right people. If you just want to be angry what you want isn't what you're getting, I get that. My Costco doesn't sell a kind of garlic olive oil I like that I know they sell at other Costco's. But I don't need a vast conspiracy or corporate malfeasance to explain why they don't have it. It's just economics. Doesn't sell well there apparently.
Cable news is junk food. It's fine in moderation. It's when people claim it's significant part of a healthy daily diet that I start to take issue. And then, after consuming that junk food daily, they start looking a little doughy while claiming, "I'm healthier than I've ever been. I'm downright svelte!"
It's like, if people want to convince themselves of that, sure. But mirrors don't lie.
Doc Sportello
(7,453 posts)You are giving unsolicited advice on a topic you admit you don't know anything about. I already answered your "people want agreeable sources". You don't either read or understand or care what others think. Yet you give long responses on a topic that you don't give shit about or know about, according to your own words. You slur posters and anchors you don't know and then try to justify it by saying you wear your ignorance with a badge. Your are right about one thing. Mirrors don't lie. Try looking in one.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)It will take them years to rebuild their audience.
pwb
(11,204 posts)It is all stale. Your talkers, your commercials, your contributors, we all already know what they will say and the questions they will ask and the answers they will give. Its Groundhog Day news to a lot of us. Unwatchable most times. There is not 24 hour of news and every day is not Election Day. You all deserve what is happening to you. We don't like backward.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)Is Larry King still dead?
MLAA
(17,162 posts)the lurch to the right.
skip fox
(19,356 posts)She dug in and didn't let b.s. pass easily.
Marius25
(3,213 posts)She's garbage.
Elessar Zappa
(13,649 posts)I dont require that anchors agree with me on everything. Brianna Keilar does a good job and Ill continue to watch her.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)I like Anderson Cooper but I'm not usually able to watch his show. They had John Avlon doing election coverage the other night. I can't stand that guy. Where was John King? Is he gone too? Goodbye CNN.
applegrove
(118,006 posts)She was great. What a demotion for her.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)After Trump pulled credentials from real journalists.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)I'm waiting and seeing on CNN, but this is a positive development.
As WH correspondent, Collins asked Trump one of the best challenge questions I've ever heard him asked, "Who told you that?" That's a knockout punch question for a guy like Trump. He either has to say he got his lie from someone else or admit he got it from himself. Collins was also briefly banned from the WH by Trump. She's solid.
They still haven't dumped Jake Tapper, but one can dream.
Wonder if Haberman might not make a move from the NYT. She could bring some tough-minded gravitas to a show.