From all accounts, a lot of CNN staffers remain upset, confused and nervous in the wake of Jeff Zucker’s resignation as president.
Let’s start with the fact that most CNN staffers, especially the journalists, seemed to really like working for Zucker. He cared about their work, had their backs and acted, as CNN reporter Brian Stelter described it, like a “heat shield,” protecting the talent from other executives, critics, questions about ratings and even attacks from the former president.
The boss at a news organization who is hands-on with the journalism and protective of his staff is a combination that any cable news operation would love to have. So you can understand why staffers are upset to see this particular boss leave.
Just as naturally, you can understand the anxiety whenever a well-liked and respected boss leaves. Will the next person in charge be quite as engaging and accommodating? Will they have the same vision as the boss who just left? Or will they look to tear up the playbook and try something completely different?
Now that CNN’s owner, WarnerMedia, is about to merge with Discovery, could major changes be on the horizon?
Variety’s Brian Steinberg writes, “Will Discovery change the recipe? There are signs that executives at the company see Zucker’s departure as an opportunity for a reset at CNN, according to people familiar with their thinking.”
That reset could include a charge to be less opinionated, and more straight in news coverage.
Having said that, I’m going to push back on the claim that CNN is the liberal version of Fox News. That’s not even close to being true.
Yes, we’ve seen prime-time hosts such as Don Lemon and the recently-fired Chris Cuomo make their opinions abundantly clear. There’s no mistaking where on the political spectrum they stand. We’ve also seen various anchors, such as Brianna Keilar, go on the attack against Fox News and some of its on-air personalities.
But to suggest that CNN has eschewed hard news for a left-wing agenda or round-the-clock opinion or wall-to-wall advocacy journalism simply is not true. Is there some opinion? Yes. But is the bulk of the on-air programming made of fact-based, truthful and informative journalism? Absolutely.
But perception might be greater than reality.
Steinberg writes, “There’s no arguing that the network hasn’t become more polarizing as it has become more prominent. And while CNN’s on-air product continues to include stories from around the world and on a range of topics, it has become defined by its political coverage, even as issues like climate change and race in society have taken on new prominence. Under Zucker, CNN has launched new teams devoted to those topics, and one longtime staffer acknowledges there is more CNN could do to highlight other areas of the news cycle.”
Frankly, whoever is in charge might be more interested in two things: ratings and advertising dollars.
Steinberg wrote, “Advertisers in news programming may not be interested in the same old stuff from CNN. One media buyer suggests that a full rebrand of CNN could potentially draw new sponsors, but advertisers who stay away from news and opinion programs because they can be polarizing aren’t likely to change their stance. Those who flock to news, this buyer says, ‘want to see ratings increases to help drive business.’”
But Steinberg was likely correct when he finished his piece by writing, “Executives charged with leading CNN in the wake of Zucker’s exit have vowed to staffers in internal meetings that his vision for the network will remain intact, but chances are Discovery will dim Zucker’s flash.”
This piece originally appeared in The Poynter Report, our daily newsletter for everyone who cares about the media. Subscribe to The Poynter Report here.
