"CNN Is Terrible. Here's Why."
That is the headline on a Huffington Post story written by Jason Linkins and Elyse Siegel. They are certainly correct that "CNN is terrible" but as to the why they present only cosmetic or minor problems. The big why as to why CNN terrible, namely liberal bias, is left unmentioned in their article. They start out on the right track with amusing observations of just how terrible CNN is:
CNN is terrible. A God-awful, wall-to-wall, epic mess. And now, they have, in their hands, the clearest sign yet of how bad things have actually gotten. This past April, CNN posted its lowest ratings in 10 years. The New York Times' Brian Stelter recently noted the slim upside, writing, "people tune in to CNN, the same way they hurry to a hospital when they think they are having a heart attack." But what news channel does CNN have to tune in to, to learn the gory details of its own longrunning, sad disaster? Good news: we are that news channel.
Good start but from here they lose track on what is really ailing CNN to focus on the cosmetics:
For the better part of the past decade, you guys seem to treat the ticky-tack banalities of the modern world as extra-special gimcracks you just discovered yesterday. You are still reading Twitter to people, on live television. On election coverage nights, your anchors paw at "magic screens" like catnip-tweaked felines chasing after a laser pointer. You made Erin Burnett go out there, on live television, to demonstrate "the flick." Except "the flick" did not, strictly speaking, "work" consistently.
And between all the whooshing and flicking and zooming -- and, when, exactly, did the need to touch the news grow to the point that merely reading it become insufficient? -- everyone on screen is standing around with holographic weebles and political convention simulations.
Guess what? CNN can refuse to flick the news from now unto the end of time but it would still have almost no effect on its dismal ratings. Ditto the weebles or the wobbles or any other gimmick. Getting rid of them would also have little effect on the public shunning of CNN.
Your debates, CNN? They were a mess. You fully embraced the stupidity of reality television shows, with asinine introductions of the GOP candidates that reminded viewers of the opening credits of "Survivor." And then you asked questions like, "Deep dish or thin crust?" Over the course of a long primary season, viewers gradually grew tired of watching the debates. But they especially grew tired of watching yours.
Actually we grew tired of watching most of the debates by most of the major networks so CNN can't be singled out for their horrific handling of them since they were not alone. Oh, and the answer for humble corresondent is thin crust except when he is visiting Chicago.
You replaced Larry King with the insufferably thin-skinned Piers Morgan.
Thin-skinned? That's the the only sin of Piers Morgan? I suggest that the two Huffington Post reporters check out the NewsBusters archive about that over the top low rated liberal buffoon including Piers Morgan Tells Andrew Breitbart 'You Are Notoriously Evil About Almost Everybody.'
Remember that time that Falcon Heene's transparently dishonest parents were caught in a transparent lie right to Wolf Blitzer's face, and Wolf Blitzer was the only person in America that did not instantly recognize what was going on?
Even more importantly I remember Wolf Blitzer introducing a CNN "fact check" on a SNL skit mildly mocking Obama. His liberalism wouldn't permit even a comedy skit to go unchallenged in this matter.
Do you guys recall that until you were shamed from doing so, you planned to send an army of 400 reporters to cover the royal wedding? That was eight times the number of people dispatched to cover the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. We seem to recall that eventually, it was decided that William and Kate would only merit the amount of personnel sent to Fukushima. Which was great! More people to staff that strange morning show where Ashleigh Banfield prank-calls people.
Or over 400 times the reporters that CNN (or NBC) sent out to cover the Fast & Furious scandal. Why? Can we now say liberal bias? We can but the two Huffington Post reporters on this story won't.