|
By Danny Schechter
MediaChannel.org
NEW YORK, JUNE 1, 2005 —
CNN went on the air 25 years ago this June 1 from the basement of what
had been a Jewish country club in Atlanta. The UN flag was flying
overhead as Ted Turner proclaimed his cable revolution with the
announcement that the channel that the big broadcasters then dismissed
as the Chicken Noodle Network would stay on the air until the end of
the world, fully report its demise and then play "Nearer My God to
Thee" as was done on the deck of the titanic.
The "mouth from the South" who would become a media mogul is now
writing articles on the dangers of big media (penned by PBS's Pat
Mitchell, a prominent "Turner turnover" who is herself on the way out).
He spared no adjective as a one-man hype machine for the promise of a
new global news order. He was audacious, bold and charismatic, but the
institution that is his legacy is anything but.
It has become a bland brand, more packaged than passionate with its
prime competitor and arch-enemy Fox News the new innovator and home of
controversy. CNN as "rebel" has been trumped by Fox as renegade.
Just look at who the network has chosen to showcase in its anniversary week. The CNN Blog announces that nary a risk is to be taken with this exciting, well-balanced (sic) lineup:
"The promos are running and Larry King Live will be helping CNN
celebrate its 25 Anniversary the week of May 30. The promo says former
President George H. W. Bush and wife Barbara will be guests that week.
Also former President Bill Clinton and if I heard correctly Barbara
Walters will be on during the week and will be interviewing Larry King.
BTW, Larry is celebrating his 20th Anniversary at CNN this year.
"I knew I forgot a couple of the scheduled guests the promo said would
be appearing. An e-mailer reminded of the others: Vice President Dick
Cheney and Liz Cheney AND Dan Rather."
If this is "liberal media," lets toss that label into that old trash can of history.
Early on, Turner and the white bread news team that he assembled made
sure that the channel would religiously cleave to the center. They
enticed the ideological warlords of the right to sign on, big mouths
like Evans and Novak and Buchanan. For years, the left complained that
the Crossfire show, billed as a battle between right and left, had no
one from the left on as a regular.
The brass heard the complaints but did nothing. (It finally took a
sharp-tongued Jon Stewart to call them on their staged food fight of a
program, denouncing Crossfire as "bad for America" while on Crossfire.
His plea: "STOP IT."
Larry King brought old-fashioned big-name celebrity exploitation on to
center stage while the rest of the programming was careful not to
rattle any cages. CNN came to global attention in its coverage of the
first Gulf War, of which their star correspondent Christianne Amanpour
would write: "Behind our backs, behind the backs of the field
reporters, field producers and crews on the ground our bosses made a
deal with the establishment to create 'pools' -- what I call 'ball and
chain,' handcuffed, managed news reporting."
Peter Arnett, their star reporter at the time, later took the fall for
an investigative report on the use of nerve gas during the Vietnam War
and was forced to quit (as he was again during the Iraq War, when he
was working for MSNBC and the National Geographic). When the producers
later sued CNN claiming their reports were true, CNN settled rather
than dispute their evidence, insisting on a gag order as the price of a
payoff. They did the same when Eason Jordan more recently was forced to
step down for saying what was on his mind about the killings of
journalists in Iraq. So much for freedom of speech.
Once it became a major corporate player, CNN began to began to act like
one. As Ted Turner moved up into the suites of corporate power, his
role as a media gadfly was less visible. It's not surprising in our
climate of unbrave media that money, not mission, is the only bottom
line. Efforts to synergize reporting with Time magazine never really
worked; neither did hard-hitting investigations or international
coverage (except on CNN International, a separate channel which most
Americans can't see and which is run by a former BBC exec).
Riz Khan, a former CNN International anchor, complains that real
international news is increasingly rare. He told me in an interview for
my film "WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception)":
"For me, it's a huge difference being able to get international news.
One of the benefits I had living in Atlanta was I was there in the
heart of an international newsroom. As soon as I stepped outside,
domestic media never gave me that. It's a real shame, actually.
Especially for the world's most powerful nation."
After many observers commented on the differences in coverage of the
Iraq War by CNN International and its international channel, I asked
American Morning anchor Bill Hemmer about it. He was defensive: "Um,
I'm not so sure it was different. The content was the same, the
presentation sometimes is different. Um, American audiences have
certain expectations of how the news is given to them."
What are those expectations? Constantly updated and often redundant
coverage of high-profile crime cases and scandals? Acting as a
megaphone for Bush Administration claims? Using the same "experts" and
pundits over and over?
In a new book that shows how TV news often follows a "soap opera
paradigm" to assure that coverage and story structure reflect corporate
priorities, not the public interest, Niagara University professor James
H. Wittebols looks closely at CNN's coverage of the pivotal 2000
election. He identifies techniques that are designed to "keep audiences
tuned in by conveying the ongoing immediacy of the story" over its
substance.
"Such an approach means getting a complete and coherent account of the
story takes a back seat to the emphasis on emotion and immediacy," he
writes. ("The Soap Opera Paradigm: Television Programming and Corporate
Priorities," Rowman and Littlefield, 2004.)
Does that mean that everything on CNN is worthless? Of course not.
There is some good coverage in "breaking news" situations, and even
serious journalism from time to time. But if you are looking for a
network to challenge power, look elsewhere.
I was part of CNN in the early days and, among the staff at least,
there was an excitement and a sense of being part of a cutting-edge
venture that was taking on the news industry. Earlier this year, when I
visited the spanking new studios at the overdone Time Warner colossus
in Columbus Circle in New York, there was more of a sense of a news
factory doing cookie-cutter reports and routinized shows. No wonder
morale is low amidst cutbacks and layoffs. No one can ever imagine a UN
flag flying there.
CNN has now become a centerpiece of a consolidated and corporatized
news industry. The buzz is that merger with a network news operation
might not be far off.
As John Lennon once sang, "The dream is over."
 Share your thoughts. Post a comment!
— Mediachannel.org's News Dissector Danny Schechter tells his CNN story in "The More You Watch the Less You Know" (Seven Stories Press). His new film, "WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception)," comments on all the network coverage of the Iraq War.
=
= = = = = =
 SUBSCRIBE
to
Media Savvy,
MediaChannel's free daily news update.
= = = = = = =
SUPPORT
MediaChannel's
2005 campaign by donating to MediaChannel.org
= = = = = = =
RETURN
to
MediaChannel's Homepage
= = = = = = =
|
