Here are two theories as to what's wrong with CNN:
Theory #1 holds that CNN's weakness is that it looks drab, that it needs to catch up with Fox, or exceed Fox, on nifty graphics.
Theory #2 holds that CNN's problem is that its editorial stance is wrong, that it too-easily defaults to a kind of pro-Third World anti-Americanism.
If Theory #1 is correct, then CNN's new computer will fix the problem. As detailed here, CNN is about to unveil a computerized "news wall" that will give CNN a new "look," which will feature, in the words of proud president Jon Klein, a lot of energy and a lot of information."
But what if its the "information" itself that is the problem? That is, what if the information being dispensed onscreen--by computer or by old-fashioned human voice--is offputting or annoying to viewers? If that's the case, then the more information, the fewer the viewers.
And so to Theory #2: that CNN is wrong, editorially. Yes, we should have free speechm, but the flip side of free speech is that the audience doesn't have to listen--doesn't have to be an audience. And so a revealing item from the always-valuable "NewsBusters," headlined, "CNN Enlists CAIR To Attack Rep. Peter King." CAIR, of course, is the Council on American Islamic Relations, which is fairly described as a pro-Muslim group, with a strongly ACLU-ish take on current politics. Which is to say, like the ACLU, CAIR tends to be emphasize an extreme view of "individual rights" over a larger patriotic or nationalistic view of social cohesion or national well-being.
The NewsBusters piece, written by Dan Riehl, notes that CNN's Jason Carroll was relying on CAIR in its effort to discredit the arugments made by Peter King, who is the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Now let's think about this King vs. CAIR set-to as a study in political dynamics. King is an eight-term Member of Congress. He has the affection of his congressional district, for openers. He is a popular figure within the Republican Party, but he has an independent streak that makes him popular and safe in his seat. And of course, the general topic of homeland security is popular; people are strongly supportive of homeland security, and they think--not without reason--that Islam is part of the problem, and that no-nonsense security measures, a la King, are part of the answer. On the other hand, the pro-CAIR/anti-King position will make Carroll a hero to the ACLU and the like. It's a choice one must make: the homeland securitizers vs. the litigators and the pro-Muslim special pleaders.
So which side is CNN on? I refer you back to NewsBusters' headline: "CNN Enlists CAIR To Attack Rep. Peter King." Does that sound like a good plan for gaining viewers? CNN and Carroll are entitled to their opinion, of course, but the rest of us are entitled to ours. And we have rendered it, at the Nielsens.
The real wall at CNN is not some new high-tech gizmo. The real wall is between CNN's ideology and the bulk of the American people.
