CNN: A Network in Crisis

CNN has earned a reputation for being the place to go for major breaking news stories. It has consistently been seen as the most credible of the cable news stations, although its credibility ratings, like those of the other cable networks, have declined in recent years. Its network of global resources and positioning as a newsier alternative to its more opinion-based competitors, Fox News and MSNBC, may be responsible for CNN's heightened credibility scores.

Unfortunately, although CNN may be seen as the station to watch for major breaking news stories, it is also seen as the network that cannot hold onto its audience when these news stories subside. This has led to the dubbing of CNN as the "Crisis News Network." But despite its slumping ratings, CNN President Jon Klein has maintained that the network will avoid the "cartoons" that characterize its rivals and keep its news focus.

While CNN's desire to position itself as a strictly news network is understandable, CNN's executives should be concerned about the Atlanta-based network's ratings during the most recent major news story, the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. According to the ratings of the day the story broke, CNN finished behind Fox News. In fact, Fox News more than doubled CNN's ratings not just in the 25-54 demographic sought by advertisers, but also in the overall audience. CNN did not just lose to Fox News. It lost badly. And it lost badly on a day on which in which it was supposed to dominate.

CNN's problems, which are not limited to this particular story, are obvious.

1. Most people already know the major headlines of the day by the time it's 8 p.m. Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric and countless Web sites ensure that people already know what's happening in the world by the time Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs hit the airwaves. By this time, people are looking for expert opinion and analysis, not a recap of what they already know.

2. Even though CNN President Jon Klein and the network's promos state that CNN is a news network, its hosts blur the lines between news and opinion and end up coming across as less compelling in both areas. Viewers know what they are going to get when they turn on Sean Hannity, Charlie Gibson, Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly. But Campbell Brown, for example, is a newswoman who undermines her own news credibility by giving her opinions. In addition to sabotaging her credibility as a newswoman, she is an uncompelling opinion leader because her newswoman role forces her to temper the opinions she expresses. She is part-Jim Lehrer and part-Chris Matthews, which causes her to be unsuccessful in both endeavors. This is the same problem that hampers Lou Dobbs and, to a lesser extent, Anderson Cooper.

3. There is little continuity in its prime-time lineup. The primary culprit here is Larry King's 9 p.m. show. While King may be a talented interviewer who can land major guests, his show kills the momentum Campbell Brown and Lou Dobbs had built up, thus weakening Anderson Cooper's lead-in. Lou Dobbs may talk about illegal immigration and economic policy at 7. Campbell Brown may talk about the day's political events at 8. Then Larry King interviews some actor or philanthropist at 9. This leaves audiences searching for their remotes. When Anderson Cooper is ready to discuss news and politics at 10, it's as if he has to start from scratch with his audience because the people who wanted to watch King's interview with Richard Simmons or Rhianna are not the people who want to listen to David Gergen's insight regarding presidential leadership.

4. CNN needs new talent, particularly on the liberal side. James Carville and Paul Begala, for example, are clearly veteran political strategists. However, their ties to the Clintons make them very predictable. The end result is too much spin and not enough analysis. Roland Martin is also difficult to watch because he seems out of his depth when discussing serious issues. When providing analysis for last week's election coverage, for example, Martin referred to the Democrats' depressed turnout as "Pookie not going to the polls" or something similarly absurd. He also has an annoying tendency to laugh at his counterparts' arguments during interviews, which is childish. CNN's conservative pundits are more interesting to listen to because they sound more serious, more thoughtful and more professional. Their liberal pundits, however, sound more sophomoric and are less watchable as a result.

This is not to say that there is no place for a news alternative to Fox News and MSNBC. However, CNN needs to decide if it wants to be one or the other with its talent rather than marginalizing them by having them dabble in news and opinion and succeeding at neither. Should CNN seek to create a political opinion show similar to the now-defunct "Crossfire," it should ensure that whoever participates in it is both mature and engaging. There is a market for sophisticated analysis on cable television, as opposed to the rants, mockery and reflexive partisanship that can be found on "Countdown" or "Hannity." However, CNN's analysts, especially on the Democratic and liberal sides, are not disciplined and sophisticated enough to fill this niche.

CNN would be wise to stop pursuing its current formula because it is clearly not working, as the Fort Hood story's ratings indicate. Continuing its current approach threatens its very brand image, and that is more important than any ratings victory.

The Chicago Olympics and Health Care

The International Olympic Committee announced today that Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Summer Olympics. Along with Tokyo and Madrid, Chicago had also been vying to host the Games. President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama took the unique step of flying to Copenhagen, Denmark, to make Chicago's case. Many analysts and pundits believed that the final decision would come down between Chicago and Rio, but Chicago was eliminated after the first round of voting.

Obama came under criticism from Republicans who questioned whether it was a good use of the president's time to fly across the Atlantic to spend a few hours trying to persuade the IOC to select Chicago. And now that Obama's overtures were not enough to sway the IOC, he is coming under criticism again for not being able to use his appeal to bring the Games to his hometown. The Drudge Report is taking a shot at Obama by claiming "the ego has landed." Obama's opponents are also taking to various blogs to laugh at the president and his coming home empty-handed. Some major conservative groups even cheered the news.

While Obama and Chicagoans may be disappointed with the results, there is a lesson to be learned here. Lost in the taunts and analyses is the fact that it was not simply Chicago that was on the line. It was the United States. Obama was advocating on America's behalf. For American citizens and American politicians to mock Obama's trip or to laugh at his perceived failure shows a distinct lack of patriotism. If these critics were criticizing Obama and Chicago, who were they wanting to succeed? Was Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele hoping that Madrid won the Games? It is quite probable that many of the president's detractors are the same people who criticized him for not wearing a flag pin or not being patriotic enough. These criticisms reflect nothing more than opposition for the sake of opposition.

Why does this relate to health care, as the title of this blog post suggests? It matters because it suggests that a lot of the president's opposition is not negotiating in good faith. If Republicans are going to mock Obama for trying to bring the Olympics to the United States and laugh at him for coming up short, can they really be trusted to play a constructive role in health care reform legislation?

The Democrats are in danger of frittering away their majorities because they are too busy trying to make nice with people who have demonstrated they have no interest in their success. The result is legislative paralysis and more time for Republicans to argue that anything Obama and congressional Democrats propose is bad for America. It is unlikely that Democrats will have majorities this large after 2010, so they would be wise to stop lending so much credibility to a childish opposition that has shown it does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Obama vs. Wilson: A Public Relations Perspective

President Obama delivered an hour long address to a joint session of Congress tonight. In his speech, he spoke with greater specificity regarding which elements he wanted included in his vision of health care and health insurance reform. He attempted to reassure seniors and Americans who currently have insurance by telling them that their benefits would not be cut and that they could keep their current insurance plans and doctors. More importantly, he debunked a lot of the rumors that had been swirling about his plan. Fiscal conservatives might still have some questions about how these reform measures would be paid for, but analysts (at least at CNN) seem to think the speech was effective.

This post is not about Obama's speech, however. It is about the unexpected case study in public relations provided by Republican Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina. (Disclaimer: I live in Congressman Wilson's district.) Congressman Wilson heckled the president by shouting "you lie" when Obama stated that his plans would not cover illegal immigrants. In addition to showing a lack of respect for the office of the presidency on national television, Wilson's outburst stepped on the Republicans' own message while causing their brand to take another hit right when they were beginning to gain some traction against Obama who had been sliding in the polls in recent weeks. (Needless to say, fundraising appeals set up to oust Wilson have gone into overdrive.)

Which Republican were pundits and media organizations talking about after the speech? Certainly not Rep. Charles Boustany, who delivered the Republican response after Obama's address. Instead, the media were focused on Wilson. That alone translates to a wasted opportunity for the Republican Party. Instead of talking about tort reform, excessive spending, or expanded government, the narrative is about Republicans' lack of civility.

Politically speaking, Obama's temperament contrasted sharply with Wilson's rudeness and makes Obama come across as the leader, the statesman, and the grown-up in the room. Instead of pitching their own reform ideas, Republicans will now have to field questions from constituents and journalists over the next few days asking them how they feel about Wilson's outburst and how they think he should be punished. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post noted the poor visuals of the Republican members who were caught using their Blackberries, slouching, and looking sour during Obama's speech even when he mentioned principles that conservatives should be happy with. Independents and moderates may have been drifting away from Obama because he had lost control of his message during August, but Wilson's rudeness, combined with the poor optics of the Republicans in the chamber, likely blunted any momentum Republicans had been building with the political center and reminded voters why they rejected the GOP in 2006 and 2008.

Even more importantly, Obama has the benefit of high personal approval ratings. This should work to his advantage regarding voter trust. Voters may look with skepticism at Wilson and Republicans by extension because they came across as immature, vindictive, and not negotiating in good faith. This may make their other political arguments seem less credible because they themselves appear less credible. Wilson has since apologized, but he still hurt his party's brand and stepped on his party's message at a time when tens of millions of people were tuning in.

This squandered opportunity for Republicans only strengthens Obama's hand.