My esteemed colleague Jim Poniewozik weighs in here on the current dilemma facing CNN and I agree with much of what he says. But I’d add another thing: We are not talking about huge audiences here. Cable news is essentially a boutique operation: Fox may get 3 million viewers for its highest rated demagoguery; CNN barely nudges a million at this point. If you’re dealing in demographic slivers, why not go for the smart slice? You don’t need to outpoll Fox if your audience is young and smart and hip, consumers of iPads and Lexus hybrids and so forth. You need a product that is the news equivalent of what HBO has accomplished in the televised entertainment sphere: it is known for the path-breaking excellence of series like The Wire and The Sopranos and now, Treme. And being recognized as smart–the New York Times or Wall Street Journal of TV news–probably would have positive ramifications for Time-Warner internationally. (Caveat lector: like most T-W employees I am the possessor of currently worthless T-W stock options and naturally would like to see the company prosper flagrantly.)
I am not going to get into what isn’t smart at CNN–although the mouldy practice of having political consultants spout talking points at each other seems oh so ten years ago and annoying beyond all reason in these hyper-partisan times. But if I were the high sheriffs over there, I’d be looking closely at the way the British do the news–especially presenters like Jon Snow and Jeremy Paxman, who are decidedly spunky and authoritative. They are people with perspective, people who can read a poll and see that a 2% change is a jostle within the margin of error and not a “major” development. They are great interviewers–and there are precious few of those in American television, period.
I would also break the standard TV mold and value reporters who have actual contacts rather than great hair (which CNN did, to very good effect, at the Pentagon with Barbara Starr–no offense to her hair). I would want political and foreign correspondents who really know their fields (Ron Brownstein, for example, is non-stop smart on the intricacies of electoral politics; Andrea Mitchell is a mainstream network reporter who really knows foreign policy). I would go for quirkiness (paging Richard Quest–another Brit!), passion and obsession. I would want really smart, funny people like Robert Krulwich and Paul Solman explaining science and business respectively. I would want reporting on the latest trends and lacunae of American culture–NPR does this very well. I would want a hilarious, over-the-top gossip reporter who would report the bread-and-circuses of the moment with a twinkle in his or her eye (and ditto for on-air TV and film critics). I would experiment with 5 and 10 minute mini-documentaries on matters of substance.
Actually, I’d experiment with a lot of things. TV news has grown old–and so has its audience–and its ceremonial trappings need to reexamined. I would rely less on the rear-view mirror marketing tools like focus groups and polling to tell me what to do next…and take some real chances with the young people out in the world right now with hand-held cameras, curiosity and energy. It really is time for new talent and a new vision. But above all, it is time for a non-stop devotion to journalistic excellence–a sense of perspective and intelligence–that simply doesn’t exist right now.