In CNN’s Hands, YouTube Loses its Voice

As a former newspaper reporter, I never had much respect for television news. More style than substance, more sound bite than serious, TV journalism was media junk food. I preferred a good steak and still do.

There were exceptions – Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer and, going way back, Ed Murrow (though he served up his share of sugary snacks as well.) And in the early ‘90s, there was a decade-old network called CNN that, with its blog-like first person coverage of the Gulf War, showed that television and journalism could indeed coexist and add reason to public discourse.

But that was, as they say, then – and this, unfortunately for our country and its conscience, is now.

I accepted CNN’s financial need to compete with Fox and MSNBC by taking a side – not conservative like Fox or liberal like MSNBC, but a kind of neo populism characterized by anchor-driven “mad as hell” histrionics. I looked away when the “maddest” of the bunch, Lou Dobbs, made illegal immigration his clarion call.

Then last week, CNN went too far. The network, which hosted the Republican “YouTube Debate,” went from ranting about the election to attempting to rig it.

CNN is no longer a news organization; it is a political action committee. It has gone off the deep end not in search of ratings, but rather in an obsequious bow to Dobbs, his quest for book sales and a possible third-party Presidential bid.

Consider this: the first one-third of the debate centered on immigration, Dobbs one-trick pony, despite national polls showing that only six percent of Americans believe immigration is an important issue in the 2008 election. What are the top issues? Iraq, the economy, healthcare and energy costs. What other topics did CNN producers cull from the 5,000 YouTube submissions? They chose gun control, the Confederate flag and whether the Bible is the true word of God.

I don’t mind the YouTube format – in fact I love its raw sense of immediacy. But don’t for one minute think that the format makes the debate any more real; CNN took care of that, manipulating the event to serve its own puerile purposes.

CNN not only crossed the line, it went into uncharted waters. It used the electoral process, hardly free of abuse itself, to serve its hunger for relevance and ratings. CNN has gone from being an inspiration to journalism to being its enemy – a voice beyond mere bias now bent on Machiavellian power.

Hyperbole? Perhaps. CNN is, after all, just a network – just a business. As I said before, I never had much respect for television news, so maybe I should go eat my steak and shut up. Just sit back, relax and listen -- the news is on.

Comments

[Philippe Borremans]

Hi Gary,

From where I sit (Brussels, Europe) CNN has lost it's credibility a long time ago...

In fact, I remember a great cartoon published in 1991 - I remember I was doing my service in the Navy at the time - where you saw a military recruitment office with a fresh recruit and the sergeant asks: what will it be son ? Army, Navy, Air Force or CNN ?

That one image cartoon really described the situation - media being used/wanting to be the sole voice of the government.

True, in my country all newspapers were born out of political parties or factions and were propaganda in the first place... but at least we know what they stand for or where they came from.

Can you imagine, state owned TV is still a label of good quality over here but then again... you're never sure.

Check out the BBC, it is not bad... ;-)

[Linda/Znetlady]

Great post and persepctive, Gary (as usual!).

Best loved line: "But don’t for one minute think that the format makes the debate any more real..."

Our saving grace is that we do have methods to get the real news. The saddest part of this "consumer generated media" for our democracy is that 'curator's' of mass media have betrayed us, making it vital for us to go around it - and many people don't or can't.