What happened to CNN's credibility?
AOL happened.
At least according to a user on Quora, who claims he used to work there:
https://www.quora.com/Is-CNN-a-credible-news-source-anymore
First reply down.
I love Quora, because you get all kinds of insider professionals giving their two cents on a wide range of topics.
Here's the reply I'm talking about:
Is CNN a credible news source anymore?
Rick Lockridge, worked at CNNI'm a former CNN correspondent, and I could answer this question in much greater detail than you'd ever want to read, but I'll give you the short answer.
No, not always. Further they may ignore important items which must form part of your daily feed. Lack of emphasis on ignored item results in biased perception of daily viewer.
CNN under Ted Turner (no journalist he, but he understood what he wanted CNN to be and what it needed to be) was a place where, when you first walked in the door, you were told "there are no stars here, only news." And the staff believed that. For me, after wandering in the wilderness of local TV news for years, it was a great feeling to join a group of folks who (by and large) only really wanted to do the f**ing news.
I covered AOL as part of my beat (technology), and when the "merger" news hit, I knew it was going to be bad news for CNN. AOL, which was acquiring CNN, was all about acquiring customers, refusing to let them leave, and shaking every coin from their pockets. CNN, on the other hand, had a service culture; we really thought we were doing good in the world, even if at times we felt like we were just a bunch of firefighters hanging around the firehouse, bored, waiting for the alarm to ring so we'd have something important to do. It was going to be a big--a catastrophic--clash of workplace cultures. And it was. Managers started to try to please their new AOL overlords instead of focusing on the basic blocking-and-tackling of newsgathering. CNN started listing. (Wags would insist it was to the left, but that's another discussion; I have some strong views about that, too).
At the same time, Fox News was really starting to kick CNN's butt all over the place. And how were they doing that? Well, some of it was the whole "preaching to the choir" thing, where the audience is really into you because you're telling it what it wants to hear, but Fox's execs also understood that the "anti-Ted" approach (making your anchors the stars INSTEAD of the news, and finding the most charismatic and (sometimes) polarizing anchors out there and encouraging them to say whatever they felt like saying on TV -- that such an approach would make CNN seem boring by comparison.
CNN eventually reacted to this by trying the same strategy--that's what made possible abominations like the hiring of Rick Sanchez and Nancy Grace. (I've said it many times: any network that would employ a person like Nancy Grace doesn't really want to be taken seriously, and shouldn't be). And don't even get me started on Piers Morgan!
(Prior to this era, there were only a couple of CNN reporters who could get away with playing by their own rules: Christiane Amanpour, because she had more balls than any man at CNN, and Candy Crowley, who inexplicably then (as now) could get away with saying any crazy shit--one hundred percent opinion, zero percent objective fact--and get away with it).
Even anchors who are smart and capable (Don Lemon comes to mind) are today allowed (encouraged?) to speak their minds freely during news broadcasts, often with embarrassing results. If I were to watch CNN today (unlikely), I would doubtless soon find myself yelling at the TV: "Stop telling me what you think, and start telling me what you KNOW!" And even the estimable Anderson Cooper is guilty of this; you could, in fact, make the argument that he's the CNN anchor who started it. I can't count the number of times I've been put off by Anderson's efforts to pre-digest the news and "explain" it to me.
Note to news anchors everywhere: nobody thinks you're all that smart. We know you're mostly just reading the words from a TelePrompTer; words that were written by someone brighter than you, probably; in between your Tourette's-like fits of opinionating to make yourself seem interesting to viewers. You know what would make you interesting? If you were credible.
Not to excuse the exec producers and line producers from any responsibility for the debacle that is today's CNN; no, there is also some truly terrible news judgment at play (see Anonymous's astute Flight 370 comments above). But the main reason CNN doesn't work is because it can't remember what it used to be and what it needs to be. I say bring back Ted Turner (who we'd occasionally see in the food court at CNN Center back in the day, wearing a rumpled suit and scuffed brown shoes; a thoroughly approachable and engaging guy) and let him kick some ass. Remind CNNers that their job is to be solid (and, all right, perhaps a little bit boring) until the shit hits the fan -- and then you get going on a big story and cover it like no one else can. Don't like the idea of being solid but boring? Well, how's the alternative working out for ya? Not too well, as it turns out.
So I put this question to CNN's brass: if no one's going to watch your air (and virtually no one is watching your air), wouldn't you rather at least have your integrity intact? Go back to "no stars, just the news" and re-earn the trust you have squandered over the past dozen years. Let the Fox Newses and the Huffington Posts and the MSNBCs of the world fracture the media landscape and pick over the shards. You don't have to do that. You could play it down the middle. You could try as hard to be responsible as you're trying now to be interesting. And you might just succeed at the former, whereas you're failing miserably at the latter.
Lol I love Don Lemon. This is the guy who said the 4 blacks who kidnapped a white disabled kid just had "bad home lives" or something along those lines.
So honestly? If CNN is truly about to come under new control, I do hope they do not change this policy of letting their anchors say stupid shit.
We'd miss out on gold from Don Lemon and others.
Honestly CNN isn't that bad until AOL starts pumping money into politics and the fact they lost hundreds of millions of dollars to someone they were assured had no chance of winning has just driven them insane. They are also fighting against alot of very positive things that Trump has been doing which is making them look bad to centrists.
~my 2 cents.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Honestly CNN isn't that bad until AOL starts pumping money into politics and the fact they lost hundreds of millions of dollars to someone they were assured had no chance of winning has just driven them insane. They are also fighting against alot of very positive things that Trump has been doing which is making them look bad to centrists.~my 2 cents.
Speaking of losing hundreds of millions to someone who they thought had no chance of winning, if you had to make an educated guess as to which candidate(Trump or Hilary) received the most funding from journalists..who do you think would get that prize?
Like, one person overwhelming gets more money than the other, that is a fact. If you were a betting man, who would you think gets the most?
Originally posted by SurturHillary raised something like 1.2-1.4 billion and some of her biggest contributors own media companies.
Speaking of losing hundreds of millions to someone who they thought had no chance of winning, if you had to make an educated guess as to which candidate(Trump or Hilary) received the most funding from journalists..who do you think would get that prize?Like, one person overwhelming gets more money than the other. If you were a betting man, who would that person be?
If you only mean journalists themselves, I think it's very obvious. Hillary had far more favorable coverage to the point CNN had given her veto power on stories, editing rights on stories and questions to be asked in interviews and both Donna Brazille and Wolf Blitzer were caught giving her debate questions early.
MSNBC is worse, but their ratings are so low that they really have no impact.