Here’s something you might not have expected to read. Since former CNN president Jeff Zucker resigned in disgrace earlier in February, the activist media outlet has become less fixated on rival cable news outlet Fox News. Perhaps the company’s leadership has finally come to terms with the reality that because CNN decided to go full propaganda mill when former President Donald Trump came on the scene, their credibility has slid even further into the septic tank.
Mediaite reported:
Jeff Zucker resigned as president of CNN on Feb. 2 and, following his unceremonious ouster, many were left to wonder what a post-Zucker CNN might look like. While it’s still too early to say anything definitively, there is one indication that CNN could be less focused on covering its competitor Fox News going forward.
Effective coverage of Fox News has always been a conundrum for CNN. During the Donald Trump administration, many opinion hosts on Fox News openly parroted the president’s political rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Some even maintained a close but informal advisory role with Trump.
The report notes that Zucker saw Fox News’ reportage on the former president “as a major story” and, without any sense of irony, criticized the network as “state-run television.” The former CNN executive’s views on Fox “permeated through the network” — which is possibly why CNN became more obsessed with its competitor than a cat with a laser pointer.
Mediaite also reported:
But according to transcripts, there has been something of an editorial shift since Feb. 2 when Jeff Zucker left CNN’s Hudson Yards offices for the last time as the network’s president.
In January, CNN mentioned “Fox” on-air an average of 100 times per week. But in the first three weeks of February, the average number of “Fox” mentions dwindled by two-thirds down to 34. If one looks at average daily mentions, Fox was uttered roughly 13 times per day from Jan. 1 to Feb. 2, and five times per day, on average, since.
The author then surmises that Fox has been “less newsworthy of late,” and goes on to complain about the network covering special counsel John Durham’s recent bombshell filing alleging the Clinton campaign colluded with a tech executive to cook up a false narrative of ties between Trump and the Kremlin. “Under Zucker, this would have been a perfect story for CNN to cover. It was clearly bad journalism, the sort that Brian Stelter, Brianna Keilar, and Jim Acosta often revel in calling out, presumably to the delight of their viewers. But the coverage was remarkably muted, perhaps even refreshingly so?” the author writes, presumably with a straight face.
The author then concocts a pathetic excused for why, when it comes to ratings, Fox News whups CNN like a naughty child on a weekly basis. “Fox News dominates ratings, but in part, because it is less committed to the truth than it is making partisan attacks,” the author writes, seemingly oblivious to CNN’s “fine people” hoax, its deliberately deceptive coverage of the Covington kids, and koi pondgate.
But, I’ll give credit where it’s due.
The author did wander into truthful territory, when he acknowledged CNN “has leaned into more left-of-center opinion programming in recent years.”
The theories put forward by Mediaite seem plausible – after Zucker’s departure, the network decided to give up its Fox News obsession. But there is also another possibility: The network’s leadership is finally recognizing that trading Trump Derangement Syndrome for Fox Derangement Syndrome is about as good an idea as exposing dirt on the Clintons. Perhaps they realize that nobody wants to hear CNN’s media activists whining about the likes of Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and their most feared pundit, Tucker Carlson.
But could this also signal that CNN might be trying to return to its roots? Before Trump broke the network, it was a left-of-center outlet whose reporters at least tried to be objective on occasion. Its decision to descend into activist mode over the past five years has devastated the network’s ratings, and the outlook for the organization remains bleak. Perhaps the leadership believes that reversing course could salvage the network. But the question is: Will it be too late?
