A CNN Alternative View
A lot has been made of the CNN debacle and we have certainly covered that here. However, there is one angle that hasn’t been addressed when it comes to the development of news and commentary industry. If everyone is anything like me, they can remember a time when there was no cable television. There were the major networks and the nightly news was a fixture during everyone’s evening. CNN didn’t even launch until I was seven years old in 1980. For most Americans that was about the time when most families started switching over to something more than basic cable.
The three major networks got to broadcast their programs for free over the airwaves. Families were able to pick up these programs for free as well. Implied in this arrangement was an agreement with the various governmental agencies that regulate the airwaves. In exchange for the freedom to broadcast there was an expectation of some minimal modicum of decency. That governed the news and the entertainment programs as well. Those networks would have to consider the value of these programs before deciding whether to broadcast them on the public airwaves.
Cable stations don’t have that same agreement. They have to jockey for position with the cable and satellite providers instead. Those are their direct customers. They grade everything based on the number of eyeballs they get. So, the idea of whether anything is newsworthy gets skewed by the eyeball test. Moreover, whether something adds to the public discourse and the general improvement of political commentary also takes a back seat.
Of course, one could debate whether cable and satellite television has been good or bad overall for the advancement of culture. With every negative has come some tremendous positives. We’ve watched more sitcoms and other dramas from cable and streaming services than from the basic networks over the years. They are able to take more chances and produce more challenging programming than the majors can. They can also give lesser actors a chance to shine. One could argue that these avenues have launched careers that would never have gotten off the ground otherwise.
Unfortunately, those that launched the 24 hour “news” platform probably miscalculated how these would develop over time. In the beginning we might have thought that they could go further in-depth and really educate the public on the source of numerous issues on the ballot and in society. We could have gotten background information on issues that would increase our collective understanding. We could have done a lot of things. Instead we get an amplification effect where our collective fears, slights, and grievances are magnified beyond any reasonable measure.
In this ecosystem it makes perfect sense that a CNN would give Donald Trump a platform. They might even convince themselves that they are doing right because he is a newsmaker and it would be wrong to editorialize by denying him that platform. The problem is the whole nonsense around bias and the mainstream media. Bias is inherent in the process. It is how we decide this story goes first and that story goes second. It is how we decide this story gets that oversized headline. It is how we decide these other stories are added to Friday story dump. At the end of the day it all goes back to who the customer is. On a national network the customer is the public. Our goal is to inform the public and do right by them. On cable and satellite the customer is the cable company and satellite company. They want eyeballs, advertising dollars, and attention. If we get there with quality programming then so much the better. If the programming sucks but brings eyeballs anyway then so be it.