LIP FLAPPING

I left CNN in 1998 after ten years as Senior Investigative Correspondent of the 40-member Special Assignment Unit–not by choice, but with relief. Although CNN was cable’s first and foremost 24-hour news organization, it was rapidly losing viewers to Fox News. And to a lesser degree, MSNBC. Technically, I remained on CNN’s payroll for another two years. However, my only duties consisted of cashing salary checks. As a man of leisure, I interrupted golf long enough to produce a couple of documentaries for Public Broadcasting, write a memoir titled do a little consulting work.

            Anyway, after more or less being outside the reporting business for a decade, I have time to watch television news from a totally different perspective than during my 30 years of muckraking. I find plenty to bitch about. As a CNN alumnus, what I see on the network makes me squirm. I am sometimes tempted to tell friends that my final job before semi-retirement was working as a short-order cook at a Waffle House. There is no glory in being a former television correspondent. The embarrassment I feel in identifying my former employer is not limited to the network’s obsession with celebrity news, titillating sensationalism, manufactured conflict and superficial journalism in which people who scream the loudest are guaranteed the most screen time—whether of not their screech proportionately represents both sides of a debate.

Reliable reporting dealing with national politics and public policy has been replaced by punditry. Instead of giving context, correspondents and anchors offer opinions disguised as depth. That is only the first layer of commentary. On issues more complicated than live car chases, panels of well-compensated experts—James Carville, Mary Matalin, David Gergen, et al— rattles on with comments that are supposed to represent balanced viewpoints from the ends and middle of the political spectrum. Yet, instant interpretation often distorts issues, especially problems like health care reform. Bit complicated legislation doesn’t faze CNN’s “expert” commentators. They are paid flap their lips in hope something coherent comes out.

            I single out CNN because I remember a time when the network made a genuine effort to report what viewers needed to know–not just what they wanted to see. The distinction is a dilemma for every news organization. All are under pressure to improve ratings. I’m a realist. I recognize that CNN’s parent corporation, Time-Warner, answers to stockholders—including me and my few hundred shares. So maybe it is too late to change “new age” broadcast journalism, although I hate to think that is the case.

As cynical as I may sound, there is a bit of good news to relate.  TV and radio talkers don’t seem to have any significant impact when people enter voting booths. This was apparent in the 2008 Presidential election. Despite unrelenting attacks on Barack Obama by Fox News, a host of right-wing radio personalities and scores of lunatic bloggers, he was elected President by a sizeable majority. The outcome indicates that the majority of voters are still capable of making decisions with a minimum of input from TV “experts.” At least that is my hope.

CNN’s ratings suck. And compared to the “Big Three, so do the ratings of Fox News and MSNBC. The cumulative numbers all the news shows, including those on the broadcast networks, still falls short of number of viewers watching most prime time entertainment shows. This means, perhaps, that self-important commentators, anchors, and correspondents are important only in their own minds.