Everything Wrong With CNN Encapsulated In A Single Photo…

B4w5OCICQAEHAR3

Oh CNN…let me count the ways…

– Throwing up shows on the air to see if they’ll do anything without any semblance of a strategy.
– Not naming said show.
– Sticking an opinion show inside what my program guide says is a news hour.
– Lack of originality. The View, The Talk, The Five, The Cycle, Outnumbered…they all beat you to it.
– Doing something dumb on the air (see: Lemon, Don)
– Getting more (bad) press for said dumb thing than the rest of the show could generate in total. (again..see: Lemon, Don)
– Reveling in said (bad) press as if anything that generates press is a good thing…the “ratings any way possible” strategy.
– The continued devaluation of your brand.

40 Responses to “Everything Wrong With CNN Encapsulated In A Single Photo…”

  1. Holy crap, the ‘smug’ just oozes out of that one, each in their own special way. Margaret Hoover is like “Yeah, I’m sorta Republican, but it’s cool, really!”. Kohn is “I’m making some bucks, but still down with the struggle”. Sunny Hostin is “Even these guys are racists, but at least they’re trying (but I’m so embarrassed.. )”. Mel Robbins is “Call me later, I’m free!”.

  2. bushleaguer Says:

    The last bullet point – the devaluation of the brand – is what is so confounding about all of this. From what I’ve read, CNN’s ratings have been going up on shows that don’t pull nonsense like this such as Erin Burnett’s show which has always been a troublesome hour (7pmEST) for the network.

    If Jeff Zucker is thinking that having hosts injecting opinion like this is a good idea then he needs to think again.

  3. I don’t know, I kinda like it for what it is, which is something a little different at 12:30pst on a Saturday. It needs a name and category, though.

  4. I don’t hate the show, if I can call it that. They’re just a bit prone to cringe-worthy moments, such as when they discussed Kardashian Ass while decrying that it was a story. But show us that pic, one more time!

  5. This just screams of desperation. They want to be in with the cool crowd so so bad. Especially Hover.

  6. It’s the bubble mentality. CNN programming has been indistinguishable from the protests. They’ve supported the protests non stop. In their bubble, they don’t realize how silly, stupid and counter factual the picture is.

  7. Gimme a break, LS. There’s no way you’ve seen the show, nor have the slightest clue what Margaret Hoover has said on it. You see a pic of people supporting blacks protesting, so of course you have to have an attitude about it. Like clockwork.

  8. Margaret Hoover is like Joe Scarborough IMO. She just wants to be part of the “in” crowd so she goes along to get along.

    Except that she looks as moronic as the rest of the stooges she is sitting there with. My goodness, the “hands up, don’t shoot” is a complete and total lie but as they say, if you repeat something often enough it becomes the truth for those low information voters the liberals love so much.

  9. Check today’s news about the Grand Jury “witnesses” for complete and total lies. The prosecutor presented people who didn’t even see the incident between Wilson and Brown. It was a travesty.

  10. Pretty good comparison with Hoover and Joe, Pam. They long to be loved…by media lefties.

  11. It’s gonna take a miracle to get anybody to actually comment on the topic Spud presented. You realize it wasn’t primarily about the photo and “I Can’t Breathe”, right? Of course not.

  12. ‘Hand’s up’ was a dumb move. People are going to make fun of them for doing it. It’s not the end of the world. No one beyond our odd little circle gives a crap.

  13. I’m sure they knew this was going to be dumb when they planned it. This is what people are talking about now. The audience they’re hoping to attract will seldom ever see any of their promos and don’t follow them on social media, so they needed an image that would get passed around. Playing by the old rules of television journalism doesn’t attract enough eyeballs these days.

  14. What is that new adage?

    A picture is worth a thousand tweets. Especially so with: #icantbreathe

  15. “‘Hand’s up’ was a dumb move.”

    Uhm, you can’t say that. Cuz, your BFF says dat’s racist.

  16. Excuse me, troll. Referencing me in answer to someone else is not “ignoring Joe”. Try again. Preferably on topic.

  17. What’s fascinating is how they’re trying to appeal to a certain segment of the population, and having little to no success. It would be hard to argue that the strategy wasn’t failing.

  18. Who’s this amorphous “they” trying to appeal to anything? It’s a picture of four opinion hosts expressing one opinion they all (generally) agree on. It’s not a stand-in for the entire network, and not even reflective of how most of the half-hour roundtable experiment plays. They usually disagree with each other.

  19. “It would be hard to argue that the strategy wasn’t failing.”

    I really don’t think the picture has anything to do with a strategy. They’re the tools who buy skinny jeans 6 months after the fad is over.

  20. I don’t know @lone. I think the picture is a reflection of what CNN has been doing throughout these events.

    They’re confused about their relationship within the public landscape. As I recall (unless I’m mistaken), they had very strong ratings during the initial protests. Apparently, CNN thought that was because of their coverage, and have tried to keep that going. However, I think their ratings have more to do with CNN still having good brand recognition amongst people who don’t typically watch cable news… it has nothing to do with their actual coverage.

    In an effort to keep themselves relevant, they’re making themselves look foolish.

  21. CNN’s strategy seems to be to become the story whenever a supposed big news event happens. They run with that story and don’t budge. The missing plane, Ferguson, whatever. In Ferguson, though, they became indistinguishable from the protestors. And, they looked silly for it. The media jumped to conclusions in an effort to push their narrative. CNN & MSNBC were an embarrassment. That should be clear to any rational person by now. But, those four geniuses pictured above never got the memo apparently. They’re still promoting something that never happened.

    I still watch a lot of CNN but they’re quickly becoming not much different than MSNBC. CNN has always been left but not crazy black helicopter theory left like MSNBC.

  22. Joe: how the he*l do you think the district attorney got the names of those people who didn’t even see anything? Because they were out in their community making statements about “what I saw”. The reason they ended up saying they did not REALLY see anything was because when they were put UNDER OATH they realized they better not lie. If they had NOT been called as a witness the district attorney would have been pilloried for NOT calling them.

    Obviously, you are just like the goofballs in Ferguson. You won’t be satisfied with anything that would have been/has been done.

  23. You yell a lot, Pam.

  24. Ignore the troll, Pam. He’s not worth your time.

  25. 4 words capitalized out of 101: that is “yelling”? But….I did notice you could not respond to the actual content of my comment.

    Typical.

  26. And, the troll talks a lot of sh!te behind all your backs on twitter. Including Spud. At least he used. Not sure now as I blocked him.

  27. Keep talking, tough guy. Eventually you’ll get on topic.

  28. Yes, Pam, you yell a lot, and say things like “I guess you’re like the goofballs in Ferguson” as if this qualifies as an opinion on something. It does not. It’s screeching rightwing batsh/ttery, which accounts for most of the comments on this blog anymore. It’s childish and pointless and boring.

  29. Another take on the subject. I guess the fact that the program is unnamed is the main issue, since even this article refers to the women as “anchors”. They plainly aren’t, but they also aren’t plainly hosts of a separate “opinion” show.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/15/cnn-hands-up-host-under-fire-critics-claim-bias_n_6327546.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

  30. Anyone who thinks four women espousing opinions are anchors is an idiot. The segment needs a name, but I refuse to accept that we’re all so thin-skinned and stupid now that we have to have this stuff written in crayon for us.

  31. Well, you would think that anyone who watches CNN would know who they are. Still, having it unlabeled, then having four people on-screen endorsing a political movement, it seems like a problem.

  32. It’s a problem for aggrieved wingnuts with a psychotic need to scream LIBERAL BIAS every day. Add anything resembling empathy for African-American concerns, and all hell breaks loose.

  33. Doesn’t make sense that not naming it wasn’t a calculated decision. Are the hosts paid less if it’s an unnamed programme? That seems silly. Is this a way of obtaining a baseline ratings level for the time slot to be used as a comparison for future experiments?

    Of course that cruise ship almost smell-O-vision coverage was a calculated decision, too…

  34. I think it’s calculated to not be bashed as a low-rated show like Crossfire was. It’s not an official show, so they can try it out for a while without having to defend it as This New Thing We’re Doing.

  35. It can also be looked at like The Insiders on Fox Report or All Star Panel on Special Report. Those are also separate shows tacked onto the the second half-hour of a news block.

  36. That makes sense. I don’t recall Brit Hume’s panel having any sort of name in the beginning other than “our panel”.

  37. Calling you a “goofball” Joe does qualify as an opinion – on you specifically. You, of course calling a whole group of unnamed people idiots is ok. (12/15 @ 7:45pm)

    Got it! Thanks for your enlightening commentary. My day will be sooooo much better for it! You have a good day now, ok?

  38. Just ignore him Pam. Let him trash you behind your back on twitter.

  39. Actually, LS, she can go to Twitter and read anything I have to say. I’m not sure where you got the idea it was a secret conversation. Now, after attempting to help you get started there with some very cool conservative followers, you turned that experience into a constant troll attack on people you disagree with. Nice work, son.

    Do you have anything to contribute to this topic, or do I just have to keep reporting you to Spud for using his blog to harass me? Make a decision.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: