The LA Times posted an article today by Scott Collins about CNN's current ratings trouble. We found it to be an interesting read, here's a sample:
"Many industry watchers say change is long overdue, but CNN sees the presidential campaign as an opportunity to prove the doubters wrong. Its new multimillion-dollar studio in Washington is arriving just in time for the President Obama versus Mitt Romney showdown, even if the convention coverage itself doesn't necessarily promise changes that will make viewers snap to attention. The network will start the convention coverage every morning at 5 Eastern time and continue right through a midnight interview show hosted by Piers Morgan, who hosts its flagship prime-time interview program......
But some influential observers wonder if CNN isn't redefining the meaning of corporate denial.
Jacob Weisberg, editor in chief of the Slate group, said that Twitter has sped up the pace of campaign news and information, making TV increasingly an also-ran in political coverage. And CNN is suffering the most, he argues. "CNN's problem is not that it's neutral; it's that it's bad," he said. "They need to fire most of their people and start over."
Here's the link to read the full article.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
CNN Analyzed in Today's LA Times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'm not sure hiring loudmouths who are willing to be provocative is the route CNN needs to go. That's already done - what will CNN do to make themselves distinct. Its a real shame, all that money, resources, and expertise wasted on too much fluff and trivial news which is why CNN is decending into irrelevance. Too disconnected from people who make up their target audience.
After reading the full article from the LA Times, it is not surprising that Ted Turner is quoted as saying: "News is the star."
When News stopped being the Star, CNN got into really big trouble.
When did this happen?
Let's think.
When a certain somebody took over for the now departed Aaron Brown and everything was thrown HIS way.
Sorry.
But this is what happens when News is no longer the star, but a personality in the news is made so important that the News becomes pushed aside and plays second fiddle or as the LA Times called it: Chicken Noodle News.
Viewers are not stupid. Reality stars are bigger than ever and "stars" are eaten alive and brought down.
News goes on forever.
CNN is suffering from making only one person newsworthy and until that stops CNN will continue its slide.
Please tell my why Erin Burnett was made a regular anchor.
At CNBC was she a financial reporter.
Does no one at CNN know the difference between a financial reporter and a regular anchor?
It's like making a bus driver drive a plane just because he has a driver's license.
Oh, she can drive anything.
No she can't and she can't anchor with Wolf Blitzer on what is happening at the convention center because she knows zero about politics.
Why doesn't CNN hire one of us to sit with Wolf Blitzer? Surely we know as much about the political scene as Ms Burnett. In fact, something tells me we know a great deal more and our analysis of the subject would be right on target.
As one commenter here pointed out quite concisely, she and Wolf have NO chemistry. He might as well be speaking to a broom with a long nose. (Unfortunately, the profile of Ms Burnett, though she is attractive enough) in her profile she does have a nose that seems longer than her face or she's off angle.
It matters not, because all she's able to babble is a bunch of nonsense and Wolf, bless his heart, looks as though he's been put through the ringer.
Forgive me but I just couldn't watch their banter for more a few minutes.
Wolf might ask to co-anchor with Snookie for the Democratic Convention. After all, she will make as much sense and she's way beyond 'politically correct.'
Someone must tell Chris Christie that he overshadowed Mitt Romney and the convention is over.
Mitt Romney looked like a wax figure last nite sitting next to his perfect wife Ann, but at least she looked real.
Now I know why the right wing didn't want Mitt. Now WE all know why the GOP didn't want Mitt and it has nothing to do with his being a Mormon.
He doesn't appear human....more like a mummy who nods his head every once in a while so we know that he is able to actually move.
The show is over Mitt, and your young friend who looks nine.
I'm hardly a Chris Christie fan, but at least he's entertaining.
If we pricked Mitt right now, would he bleed?
I'm beginning to look forward to the debates. Obama, the polls are close but one thing is for sure.
HD TV makes Mitt Romney look far worse than Nixon ever did.
I agree with 12:33 a.m. A news network cannot survive with only 1 star---CNN has many good journalists, not just 1. And I am not impressed with AC being an anchor. He needs to be in the field if anywhere. Very disappointed in the programming during prime time of CNN and I have stopped watching it. I just don't feel like I get the news anymore.
Good quote: "They need to fire most of their people and start over."
But Anderson is just a symptom.
A good doctor looks for the causes of the disease, and isn't distracted by symptoms.
In this case, the disease is caused by the decisions of executive vice-presidents.
So CNN needs to fire the management.
Parisa Khosravi, Mark Whitaker, Ellana Lee, Ken Jautz, Tony Maddox, Katherine Green, Amy Entelis -- they all need to go.
Management is stopping CNN from making the news the star.
These executive vice-presidents make multi-million dollar salaries for a reason - and if they don't produce results (which they haven't) --- then they have to go.
Wait a minute??? Wait a minute??
We're blaming Anderson Cooper for all of CNN's ratings woes?????
That statement is beyond moronic?? The man is on for one hour per nite and has the highest ratings of all the evening CNN newscasters. CNN's problems aren't Anderson Cooper. CNN's problems are that its boring. Erin Brunett (the next Deborah Norville) is his lead in. Boring! This is coming obviously from the same people who called Anderson's daytime talk show "A Daytime Disaster" when it came on in the Fall of 2011? Yeah, I can't wait for his second season to start in a few weeks. I actually turned from Fox to CNN to watch Anderson, the best "in the field" journalist that America has do some reporting from New Orleans this past week and instead got Piers Morgan interviewing Jeb Bush. I turned back to Fox. Let's see. Anderson has been a Sixty Minutes correspondent since 2005 and Sixty Minutes has consistently been one of the top ten shows since then. Anderson recently won an award for a segment that he did last fall for Sixty Minutes called "The Garden of the Queens." I guarantee you when the dust settles at the end of the year and 90 percent of these so called journalists/commentators like Erin Burnett are gone, Anderson will still a part of CNN. They know he's the best and so do I.
@10:11PM:
Let's get some facts straight.
Obviously you are an AC fangirl and that's fine.
However, facts are facts.
And it would do you well to start to educate yourself and do a little reading.
As the LA Times so succinctly pointed out, when Anderson is in the field he is 'super'BUT when he is hosting or anchoring he is their word, 'hot doggish and showbiz.'
These two qualities have overshadowed his once pristine journalistic career.
And while YOU may think his talkfest is great it is subpar and if it had not been for telecommunications, a powerhouse, he would have been canceled.
Both of his shows, are very low rated and just because HE decided to switch gears, does not mean, his viewing audience has to.
As for Sixty Minutes, if you were watching the program for as long as its been on, IT IS ALWAYS IN THE TOP 10....with or without Mr Cooper. As a matter of fact, just last week if you cared to look at USA Today, which has listings every week, it was in the top spot and no Mr. Cooper.
My advice, Do your homework.
Post a Comment