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.

Before the days of Nate Silver and 538 there was Reader’s Digest. Readers Digest had accurately predicted every presidential election and then came the 1936 election. They proudly announced that Al Landon would be the next president of the United States. In fact, it wasn’t going to be particularly close. They did a simple poll of all of their readers that had a home phone. Oops.

CNN didn’t make as big a blunder as Reader’s Digest, but they are facing the same kind of cruel reality. See, they are beginning to rebrand themselves as a more conservative outfit. Obviously, they can’t outfox Fox News and they certainly don’t want to go crazy like OAN or Newsmax, so they will struggle to find their place in the landscape.

See, most networks focus their attention on the 18-49 demographic group. They are usually the group with the most disposable income, children in school, and make up a majority of the population. Fox learned a long time ago that they weren’t the key demographic to focus on. They focused on the 50+ crowd. Two things are happening that impact the traditional way that television networks look at news coverage. First, the under 50 crowd doesn’t watch nearly as much news. We consume television differently. It’s hard to say whether that will change for us as we approach our fifties. Maybe we will be different from our parents.

The second factor is one area where we will never go back. We cut the cord over ten years ago and is it turned out we were slightly ahead of the curve. As it turns, the under 50 crowd makes up a huge majority of those cutting the cord. Cutting the cord may or may not impact network shows. Essentially, streaming services like Hulu, Paramount Plus, and Peacock offer those shows after the fact.

So, CNN is learning the hard way that there are fewer and fewer people in that key 18-49 group there to watch their network. That leaves the over 50 crowd and the over 50 crowd skews conservative. So, of course they will try to do the same. It’s probably the same reason that talk radio has always been conservative as well. It’s simple demographics.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it. Watch the commercials on network television the next time you actually have access to it. During the day, it is focused at people that likely aren’t working. Why aren’t they working? Personal injury? Need more training? Let’s show a Jim Adler commercial or a ITT Technical Tech commercial. If it’s something like Fox then maybe it’s alternative investing options like gold or reverse mortgages. Maybe it’s one of those apparatus’ that puts on your socks for you. Advertisers have figured it out. It was only a matter of time for CNN.

This is both scary and hopeful at the same time. On the hopeful end, nothing will ever be as bad or scary as it seems. The mainstream media will seemingly have us believing that the world is more dangerous and more right wing than what we think. If the only real options are right wing news then that will be who gets to shape the narrative. The American public is actually more progressive than those sources want you to believe.

The bad news is that people do not remain stagnant. They will change based on the information they receive. If they only receive information skewed to the right then they will also shift to the right. MSNBC has cast their lot. Fox, Newsmax, and OANN have cast their lot. CNN will need to be creative to find their niche in the market. Fox unfortunately has a head start.