You said it Mr. Moore. The more air time we give Adolph Trump the more Nazis he can recruit. Of course we'll never get him off Fox or Newsmax. Yup, CNN forked up. I wonder if Licht had an "Oh No!" moment? Like just after you shut your car door with the keys in the ignition. " Shit what have I done now!" Running out onto the stage waiving his arms "Never mind, bad idea, stop,stop!" Prolly would have put him in a better position than where he is now.
It’s absurd that the author of this essay should so vehemently complain that CNN took a break from their usual business of feeding their audience propaganda straight from the likes of the CIA and the DNC to brainwash them to the preferred narrative of the corporate state in order to interview Trump. As if interviewing a former president and the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination is somehow beyond the pale for an entity trying to portray itself as a news organization. It’s a mindset that perfectly exemplifies the utter debasement of the fourth estate in the contemporary U.S.
Conversely, it is absurd that anyone might think that Trump's appearance and, I'd call it an "interaction" with Ms. Collins, was an interview. He ignored every question and gave an hour long speech. This does nothing to serve the public interest. It is almost criminal to normalize the behavior and the assertions and speech of someone like Trump and give him a national megaphone. He can't open his mouth without lying, and journalists can't confront him because he pays no attention to their questions. There is an inherent responsibility in reporting that we don't give credibility to cracks. To use Mr. Licht's own analogy, if we look outside and see it's raining, we report that rain is falling; we don't run to interview someone standing in the rain, sopping wet, who says it's not raining. Trump thinks it's not raining and any media that gives him voice, is out there getting wet with him and does not deserve to be respected.
So if Trump ignores the interview questions or says things that can be easily disproven by his opponents, let the viewer make their own judgement about that. If a news organization conceives of its mission as reporting the news, there’s no way to validly argue Trump is not news. In the build up to a presidential election, the responsible action would be to cover the leading contenders so the electorate might make an informed decision. On the other hand, if the goal is to manipulate public opinion to bring about a desired result by distorting/withholding information, that would not be news but instead propaganda. And, indeed, that is what mainstream media had devolved into over the past several decades: a propaganda apparatus for brainwashing the public to the power establishment narrative. To the point where now a one time democratic republic has been transformed within our lifetimes into a feudal social structure, governed by a rapacious plutocracy, controlled by a militarized police surveillance state.
In the strictest definition of news, it has to be about something "new." Trump offers nothing new. The failure here was giving him a town hall. A sit down interview would have served the public with a possibility of information. Broadcasters and journalists have to make editorial decisions every day as to whether there is value to the story they are covering or the person they are interviewing, and then they have to decide what format is best for that information. There is no defensible rationale for giving him a chance to rant in front of a roomful of reporters and ignore every question he is given. It is journalistic malpractice to let the wider pubic think, "Well, I guess it's okay for presidential candidates to talk about bringing down the government now since CNN has a candidate on who wants to do that, and destroy the FBI, and fire any government employee he wants." There has to be a baseline standard of decency to sustain the culture. I see it as no different than putting on the air a serial killer and having him explain why it's okay to kill because it makes you feel good. Such decisions are violations of a society's standards, and when they are made, the society has limited viability.
What’s new is that Trump is involved in the current presidential campaign. Being as how he is currently the leading candidate for nomination of an office he previously held, rationale for coverage of him by news organizations should be obvious and not in need of justification. The only way to compare coverage of an interview of a leading candidate to that of a serial killer would be if the serial killer were a leading candidate for national office (and if you’re wanting to draw a moral distinction between politicians in major U.S. political parties and serial killers, there’s far less than one might hope). If Trump’s on-air behavior and statements are so egregious, let public see that and make a judgement. This Goebbels-like idea that the role of mass media is to condition the public to accept a favored narrative rather than to accurately inform has corrupted mainstream U.S. news organizations to their very foundation.
My exit happened sooner with a contract fight, but I had the option to not fight. I was terrified leaving the only work I'd ever known, but was taught that the skills we learned in TV were highly transferable. Once I understood that, it opened up other opportunities. It's a trade. You have nothing to regret. You've done so much! I understand the risks... we bought the whole, "I'm doing this work for the people, " BS.
Nevertheless, Licht failed at doing his job mainly for one reason. He considered it entertainment more than news. There still remains many good journalists at CNN including Kaitlin Collins (it's good to see TV journalism under the stewardship of women such as Katy Tur, Margaret Brennan, two among many). Unfortunately, under Licht (and Zaslav) journalism will not rise to the level worthy of respect. It was put well in The Guardian's review of the show and the Atlantic article (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/03/trump-cnn-town-hall-chris-licht-atlantic):
"Bill Grueskin, a Columbia Journalism School professor, said: 'It wouldn’t be fair to say a trained seal could do a better job running CNN than Chris Licht. It’s just that, after reading this piece, it feels like we should give the trained seal a shot.'” Licht should be fired and Zaslav's CEO position on Warner Brothers.Discovery reconsidered. We know it won't save journalism, but it's a good start.
I felt almost like Cooper was offering an apologia. Christiane Amanpour seemed to be a bit more on target. Licht is bad for the network, and the Trump Clown Hall was a wound that will take time to recover from. But the issues there are institutional, and I'm not sure Licht is addressing the right ones.
This should be required reading for every student who believes their calling is to report the news. I was disillusioned early in my career, by my 3rd TV news job. The truths about the world I was taught had no relationship to the American mythological truth. Can any human be impartial? Can reporters fairly cover people they personally despise? I had an early anchor offer from CNN shortly after its launch. Most thought I was silly to turn it down, but by then the afterglow of the business was long gone for me.
Thanks, Myra. I confess I wish I'd gotten out sooner. The great Chris Newlin kept asking me, "What the hell are you doing here?" There were many great days but when I think about the risks I took so a local broadcaster might make a few more dollars in advertising, I wanna punch myself in the nose.
“Trump ran over Kaitlin Collins .” I didn’t see it that way. I saw Trump being Trump (he’s rude to everyone), and Collins holding firm and assertively arguing with him, which I’d yet to see any other TV news channel reporter do.
I at fist thought it was stupid to have Trump on, too, but he and Collins made him look so ridiculous that I thought it was great. I also wondered if, as a news channel, they have to objectively allow equal time for people running for office or risk looking petty and UNobjective by denying particular politicians a slot? (But I also thought/think it would be the responsible thing for all networks to ignore Trump and to have been consistently ignoring him since his last day in office).
I've had a few friends express your POV, Kris, but I just can't get there. Collins never truly got him to stop and answer a question. When she was able to interrupt his babbling, he just ignored her questions and resumed talking about whatever he wanted. I felt like it was "great" in the same way watching a spectacular accident of some kind was "great." Served no real purpose. Everyone already knows Trump's thinking and giving him a chance to speak it again to the masses was wrong. We've normalized his hate and idiocy and the more he appears on places like CNN, the more we normalize it and change the standards for what is acceptable in our culture. I saw it as a horror show.
You said it Mr. Moore. The more air time we give Adolph Trump the more Nazis he can recruit. Of course we'll never get him off Fox or Newsmax. Yup, CNN forked up. I wonder if Licht had an "Oh No!" moment? Like just after you shut your car door with the keys in the ignition. " Shit what have I done now!" Running out onto the stage waiving his arms "Never mind, bad idea, stop,stop!" Prolly would have put him in a better position than where he is now.
It’s absurd that the author of this essay should so vehemently complain that CNN took a break from their usual business of feeding their audience propaganda straight from the likes of the CIA and the DNC to brainwash them to the preferred narrative of the corporate state in order to interview Trump. As if interviewing a former president and the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination is somehow beyond the pale for an entity trying to portray itself as a news organization. It’s a mindset that perfectly exemplifies the utter debasement of the fourth estate in the contemporary U.S.
Conversely, it is absurd that anyone might think that Trump's appearance and, I'd call it an "interaction" with Ms. Collins, was an interview. He ignored every question and gave an hour long speech. This does nothing to serve the public interest. It is almost criminal to normalize the behavior and the assertions and speech of someone like Trump and give him a national megaphone. He can't open his mouth without lying, and journalists can't confront him because he pays no attention to their questions. There is an inherent responsibility in reporting that we don't give credibility to cracks. To use Mr. Licht's own analogy, if we look outside and see it's raining, we report that rain is falling; we don't run to interview someone standing in the rain, sopping wet, who says it's not raining. Trump thinks it's not raining and any media that gives him voice, is out there getting wet with him and does not deserve to be respected.
So if Trump ignores the interview questions or says things that can be easily disproven by his opponents, let the viewer make their own judgement about that. If a news organization conceives of its mission as reporting the news, there’s no way to validly argue Trump is not news. In the build up to a presidential election, the responsible action would be to cover the leading contenders so the electorate might make an informed decision. On the other hand, if the goal is to manipulate public opinion to bring about a desired result by distorting/withholding information, that would not be news but instead propaganda. And, indeed, that is what mainstream media had devolved into over the past several decades: a propaganda apparatus for brainwashing the public to the power establishment narrative. To the point where now a one time democratic republic has been transformed within our lifetimes into a feudal social structure, governed by a rapacious plutocracy, controlled by a militarized police surveillance state.
In the strictest definition of news, it has to be about something "new." Trump offers nothing new. The failure here was giving him a town hall. A sit down interview would have served the public with a possibility of information. Broadcasters and journalists have to make editorial decisions every day as to whether there is value to the story they are covering or the person they are interviewing, and then they have to decide what format is best for that information. There is no defensible rationale for giving him a chance to rant in front of a roomful of reporters and ignore every question he is given. It is journalistic malpractice to let the wider pubic think, "Well, I guess it's okay for presidential candidates to talk about bringing down the government now since CNN has a candidate on who wants to do that, and destroy the FBI, and fire any government employee he wants." There has to be a baseline standard of decency to sustain the culture. I see it as no different than putting on the air a serial killer and having him explain why it's okay to kill because it makes you feel good. Such decisions are violations of a society's standards, and when they are made, the society has limited viability.
What’s new is that Trump is involved in the current presidential campaign. Being as how he is currently the leading candidate for nomination of an office he previously held, rationale for coverage of him by news organizations should be obvious and not in need of justification. The only way to compare coverage of an interview of a leading candidate to that of a serial killer would be if the serial killer were a leading candidate for national office (and if you’re wanting to draw a moral distinction between politicians in major U.S. political parties and serial killers, there’s far less than one might hope). If Trump’s on-air behavior and statements are so egregious, let public see that and make a judgement. This Goebbels-like idea that the role of mass media is to condition the public to accept a favored narrative rather than to accurately inform has corrupted mainstream U.S. news organizations to their very foundation.
My exit happened sooner with a contract fight, but I had the option to not fight. I was terrified leaving the only work I'd ever known, but was taught that the skills we learned in TV were highly transferable. Once I understood that, it opened up other opportunities. It's a trade. You have nothing to regret. You've done so much! I understand the risks... we bought the whole, "I'm doing this work for the people, " BS.
Anderson Cooper gave a reasonable explanation of CNN's performance. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/05/12/anderson-cooper-cnn-republican-town-hall-donald-trump-ac-360-vpx.cnn
Nevertheless, Licht failed at doing his job mainly for one reason. He considered it entertainment more than news. There still remains many good journalists at CNN including Kaitlin Collins (it's good to see TV journalism under the stewardship of women such as Katy Tur, Margaret Brennan, two among many). Unfortunately, under Licht (and Zaslav) journalism will not rise to the level worthy of respect. It was put well in The Guardian's review of the show and the Atlantic article (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/03/trump-cnn-town-hall-chris-licht-atlantic):
"Bill Grueskin, a Columbia Journalism School professor, said: 'It wouldn’t be fair to say a trained seal could do a better job running CNN than Chris Licht. It’s just that, after reading this piece, it feels like we should give the trained seal a shot.'” Licht should be fired and Zaslav's CEO position on Warner Brothers.Discovery reconsidered. We know it won't save journalism, but it's a good start.
I felt almost like Cooper was offering an apologia. Christiane Amanpour seemed to be a bit more on target. Licht is bad for the network, and the Trump Clown Hall was a wound that will take time to recover from. But the issues there are institutional, and I'm not sure Licht is addressing the right ones.
This should be required reading for every student who believes their calling is to report the news. I was disillusioned early in my career, by my 3rd TV news job. The truths about the world I was taught had no relationship to the American mythological truth. Can any human be impartial? Can reporters fairly cover people they personally despise? I had an early anchor offer from CNN shortly after its launch. Most thought I was silly to turn it down, but by then the afterglow of the business was long gone for me.
Thanks, Myra. I confess I wish I'd gotten out sooner. The great Chris Newlin kept asking me, "What the hell are you doing here?" There were many great days but when I think about the risks I took so a local broadcaster might make a few more dollars in advertising, I wanna punch myself in the nose.
“Trump ran over Kaitlin Collins .” I didn’t see it that way. I saw Trump being Trump (he’s rude to everyone), and Collins holding firm and assertively arguing with him, which I’d yet to see any other TV news channel reporter do.
I at fist thought it was stupid to have Trump on, too, but he and Collins made him look so ridiculous that I thought it was great. I also wondered if, as a news channel, they have to objectively allow equal time for people running for office or risk looking petty and UNobjective by denying particular politicians a slot? (But I also thought/think it would be the responsible thing for all networks to ignore Trump and to have been consistently ignoring him since his last day in office).
I've had a few friends express your POV, Kris, but I just can't get there. Collins never truly got him to stop and answer a question. When she was able to interrupt his babbling, he just ignored her questions and resumed talking about whatever he wanted. I felt like it was "great" in the same way watching a spectacular accident of some kind was "great." Served no real purpose. Everyone already knows Trump's thinking and giving him a chance to speak it again to the masses was wrong. We've normalized his hate and idiocy and the more he appears on places like CNN, the more we normalize it and change the standards for what is acceptable in our culture. I saw it as a horror show.