CNN: Everyone Knows Problems, No One Has Answers
If you believe the industry scuttlebutt, CNN may have hired Anthony Bourdain the other day just for the use of his knives — as several people I have talked to personally inside and outside of Time Warner expect some chopping at the cable news network at some point, either in the executive ranks, the on-air talent or both.
And that thinking probably wasn’t hindered by Phil Kent’s straightforward comments Thursday (you definitely should read them here), in which he bluntly said, “We haven’t put the best shows on the air.”
But here’s the interesting thing about the CNN quagmire: No one I talk to really has any idea what the network should do in primetime. Everyone likes to point out the network’s problems, but I never hear solutions. No one I have spoken with has great ideas about who to hire on camera or in the executive ranks, or how to steer the overall voice of the network.
I do hear rumors, thoughts and names from time to time, but they are absolutely nothing more than chatter over breakfasts and drinks at this point. The most eye-catching name I have heard mentioned from a couple people is that of Jeff Zucker, but it is little more than fantasy football, as there is no job available (that we know of) and he is going to be busy launching Katie Couric’s show this fall.
However, since I miss the days of getting nasty calls and emails from NBC rivals’ executives calling me a Zucker apologist, I will offer this: Pretty much everyone I have spoken with about a hypothetical Zucker-to-CNN move thinks it would be great for CNN — even those who weren’t fans of Zucker’s stint at NBC. I don’t disagree.
Phil Kent’s comments Thursday probably won’t make CNN staffers too comfortable (or as I tweeted after I read them, they may be dusting off the old resume) and probably will lead to some more media focus on the network’s primetime struggles — though as Rachel Maddow told our Andrea Morabito in B&C this week, no one really cares about the election right now and cable news ratings across the board are showing it.
But in all the chatter about what is wrong at CNN, I am still waiting to hear some solutions. My email address is bgrossman@nbmedia.com. Tell me what you would do, and we’ll be happy to run some of them. As long as they don’t contain the word “Olbermann.”
Deli commented:
I've had BBC World for more than ten years, most of the time in competition with CNN International. I'd say BBC World it the betetr channel, but not by much. However, it does have a number of excellent programs, like Hardtalk, which is how interviews should be conducted: extended, in depth, polite without excluding the uncomfortable stuff. On the other hand ... CNN International is quite different from (and betetr than!) the US edition of CNN. I have to admit that I've only seen the US edition of CNN a few times - when travelling in the US - but every time I've been shocked how US-centric it is. The International edition contains only some of the programming from the US edition. The international edition would send everything from soccer news, election results in an Asian country, reports from rural Africa etc.
GC Media commented:
I am not sure everyone does know what the problem is. Whatever "it" is it is obvious that CNN does not make an emotional connection with its potential audience.
To make that connection one must really understand the core values that drive that potential audience. This requires a different kind of research. This type of research reveals viewersâ emotional values and concerns, not about TV, but about life. If you understand these you begin the process of determining what CNN should be. In essence it is the first part of building a connected brand.
Once the brand is set internally, everything CNN produces must be based on that brand position. That includes programs and talent.
One might want to look at the ABC owned television stations. They have been âemotionally connectedâ for decades and they consistently win.
Cliff Abromats
President, GC Media
BmoreNewsNerd commented:
Has anyone remarked that CNN has abdicated it's roles as pioneers in news coverage?
1) It demonstrated how to best cover a breaking news event by "flooding the zone" (It's still what it does best)
2) It helped show the value of highlighting different opinions and allowing them to honestly debate (Crossfire)
3) It used to have unique shows which showed how needs could be engaging and interactive pre-Twitter and Facebook (Talkback Live)
4) Once upon a time rather than feed egos they had anchor teams which could plug the gaps and complement one another (Leon Harris and Daryn Kagan, Natalie Allen and Waters, Kyra Phillips and Miles O'Brien)
5) CNN used to really believe in original report (Check some of the pieces done by Beth Nissen on Aaron Brown's "NewsNight")
CNN needs to remember to run it's own race. But maybe that's a bad analogy if Fox and MSNBC are so far ahead. But look what MSNBC has accomplished by branding it's shows and letting it's talent have voices.