Fifteen years ago, a jury in Los Angeles returned a not guilty verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. CNN covered the trial nearly gavel to gavel—a ratings boon. A few weeks later, a top newsroom executive called a meeting to disclose the results of audience research conducted by an outside consulting firm. As Senior Correspondent in the network’s 40-member Special Assignment Investigative Unit, I left the meeting with a sense of impending doom. We were cautioned about remote control surfers with attention spans of clinically diagnosed morons—that is, of course, unless the stories fell into the category of sensationalism. The newsroom marching orders were to keep stories short and punchy—viewer friendly is a term that was then popular. I believe the 1995 meeting began CNN’s downward slide, which recently reached a low point when the network was ranked dead last in cable news ratings behind Fox, MSNBC and even Headline News—the longtime CNN orphan child.

The “brand name” Ted Turner established is now a bad joke. Even in its penny-pinching days as the “Chicken Noodle Network,” CNN was a reliable source for reasonably objective news reporting. Correspondents were allotted enough air time to give context to stories. And when Special Assignment was created in 1989, we were given broad freedom to do in-depth subjective stories—a style of reporting called “kick ass and take names.” Our exposés ran seven to ten minutes in newscasts—longer in the network’s endless quest to attract an audience for prime time magazine shows produced by Special Assignment. Unfortunately, the magazine show experiments came to a screeching halt in 1998 when a segment accusing the American military of using nerve gas during the Vietnam War was shown to be inaccurate. Under pressure from the Pentagon, CNN fired producers, forced resignations and retreated from potentially litigious investigative reporting. Indirectly involved in the story, I was a collateral casualty. CNN paid my salary and benefits for the next two years, although I did not have to report for duty—a copper parachute so to speak.

            MSNBC and Fox News had begun operations in 1996 and neither was considered a serious threat to CNN. But as Fox grew under the mythical banner of “fair and balanced,” CNN began to resort to half-measures. In order to seem provocative, anchors evolved into “expert” commentators, pundits were hired to give opinions on politics, war, societal ills, and all other subjects. Since then, veteran reporters like Bob Franken and Frank Sesno were sent packing. Rick Sanchez became a caricature of the worst in broadcast journalism. Lou Dobbs flipped out and was paid big bucks to leave. 

All that remains of CNN’s “brand name” are the network’s unparalleled war correspondents. When major news breaks and disasters occur, viewers turn to the granddaddy of cable news networks. Ironically, though, the technology that allows instant coverage has also become a liability. CNN is so obsessed with new toys that producers lose sight that the technology is to cover the news, rather than give viewers demonstrations its capabilities.

            In the absence of crises that bring viewers back temporarily to CNN, the network is now caught between Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left. In some respects, it is not even in the middle, but rather a mixed bag without any identity. Is there solution? How about replacing a few pundits and using the money to hire real reporters, who remember of the five “W’s and the H.” Then again, viewer demands make it improbable that CNN could succeed by going back to what made it successful in the first place.