SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
On the night I first saw his beard in person, it was no easier for me to accept what I empirically knew to be true: that, during the 2008 primary season, Wolf Blitzer--Wolf Freakin' Blitzer--presided over the number one election-night news show on cable television. The man's so devoid of charisma that you can picture him reporting, in his endearing monotone, that a comet is headed straight for CNN studios and that he'll be prematurely robbed of his molecular composition and the chance to ever see his family again in seven, six, just five seconds now. In this era of outsized personality and hectoring opinion, he doesn't have catchphrases. He doesn't call guests liars. If there are any thrills going up his leg, he's kind enough not to share the information with us. Every morning, he runs five miles on the treadmill and drinks freshly squeezed orange juice because he's 60, and hosting primary coverage that starts at four p.m. and usually ends some time the next day is physically demanding work.
And yet, this winter and spring, Blitzer did preside over the number one election-night news show on cable television. Aside from scoring higher ratings than its main competitors, Fox News and MSNBC, during all but one of the early primaries (it lost Florida, which was uncontested among Democrats, to Fox), CNN won the first quarter of the year among the most sought-after demographic, 25- to 54-year-olds, for the first time since 2001. Fox reclaimed the top spot in the second quarter, largely because its primetime shows are still more popular and there were fewer primaries. But, while Fox's second quarter viewership dropped off 1 percent from 2007, CNN's was up 24.
There are Jewish holidays that celebrate lesser miracles. The first few years of the decade were disastrous for the network: In the aftermath of Bush's election and then September 11, CNN couldn't decide how much of Fox's formula to ape, and, as a result, the network just seemed confused. Its viewers disappeared, and Time Warner's profits went with them. There were rumors of a sale or merger with ABC News.
Soul-searching was needed. Fox had already staked out the right, and, around 2006, when it became cool to be a Democrat again, MSNBC started to tack left. Their ideological positioning seemed shrewd: Conventional wisdom held that, if cable news networks wanted to stay relevant--as well as profitable--they'd have to follow the British newspaper model and harbor their partisan sympathies loudly and proudly. And, in some respects, this prediction proved correct. MSNBC has gone from a distant, morose third to a much closer, plucky third since Keith Olbermann and company started bashing Republicans; Fox may have lost a step, but it still draws the largest number of viewers; and whenever Lou Dobbs, CNN's sole flamethrower, unleashes another screed against brown people, it's ratings gold.
But, Dobbs aside, CNN couldn't bring itself to adopt the same strategy. Instead, it doubled down on even-handed, data-heavy political coverage. On a commercial level, the result has been an improbable ratings resurrection. On a watching-from-home level, the result has fluctuated wildly: The coverage can be nicely informative one moment, then bland, pedantic, and painfully hackish the next. And yet, when compared to grumpy Fox and self-righteous MSNBC, CNN's election coverage may well be the least of three evils. If nothing else, it has raised the possibility that there might be a future for neutral journalism on cable after all. The network says it has the best political team on television so many times a day that it feels strange even considering it. But I think we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that it's true.
When I traveled to CNN's New York studios on the night of the Pennsylvania primary in April, the first thing that jumped out at me was the network's emphasis on technology. I've been in a fair number of newsrooms, but none quite so bright, or with so many things fighting for your eyes' attention. There were 50 monitors in the studio displaying ever-shifting flag graphics or poll numbers or CNN logos; a 20-foot-by-ten-foot "Video Wall" that Wolf interacts with and that necessitates so much work it has its very own control room of about a dozen people (this, in addition to the main control room one floor below); and an absurd number of fixed and roving cameras (twelve, to be precise) recording it all.
The correspondents, meanwhile, spent most of their non-speaking time fiddling with PDAs and PCs. I saw Alex Castellanos clicking through Wikipedia; Donna Brazile told me she looks at Real Clear Politics; and Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for the network who pleaded with management to let him join the political team this election, consults Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos. Paul Begala, an unreconstructed Clintonian, says he sometimes got 20 e-mails a night from Barack Obama's campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, trying to set him straight. Brazile received upward of 400 e-mails during primary evenings--some from campaign professionals, some from strangers (whom she willingly engages; try it), and at least one from Castellanos asking if the kitchen was still open at the Empire Hotel up the street.
Though this flurry of background activity might look peculiar--there's really no reason we need to see Begala attack his BlackBerry behind Gloria Borger's left ear when she's analyzing delegate math--it's very much a part of the network's plan. In a creepy display of corporate synchronicity, nearly everybody I spoke to at CNN said something along the lines of: We're not interested in technology just for technology's sake; it's all in the service of providing information to the viewer.
And, you know what, I buy that. During primary season, the network offered far more hard data--the kind of stuff you're looking for on election night--in a far more compelling way than the other networks, where commentary is king. Much of that can be attributed to the gizmos. It reminds me of what Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in these pages 24 years ago: that television "is best when it mediates least."
Consider the example of the "Magic Wall," easily the finest innovation in cable news this year. D.C. bureau chief David Bohrman, who has led the network's techno-push, discovered the Wall--which is also used by military contractors looking to graphically demonstrate connections between terrorist networks--at what he called "a non-classified spy conference" in Texas during the fall of 2007. He immediately knew he had to have one. Basically, it's a giant iPod touch-screen (or, for sports fans, a John Madden telestrator on steroids) that allows you to move maps and ballot counts around in such a way as to be maximally informative. For instance, on Pennsylvania night, John King, the former AP reporter whose mastery of the Wall is expert bordering on sensual, put up a map of the state and, by pushing his index fingers out away from each other, zoomed in on the southeast corner. He then drew a line around Philadelphia and its suburbs, where, he explained, Obama needed to win by 100,000 votes to have any chance of taking Pennsylvania. It wasn't a landmark moment in TV history, but it delivered useful information in a visually graceful way.
And, as Roland Martin--a Chicago-based journalist who has assumed a more prominent role for CNN this year-- suggested to me, that's the kind of tech-enhanced coverage we should expect in 2008. "If you just put up a chalkboard," he said, "the general public would look at you as if your ass was nuts."
Of course, with so many hours to fill, the network's election coverage is about more than just the gadgets and number-crunching; it's about the conversation--and that's where things start to get tricky. "The thing about me is, I love to cook and I love to eat," Martin reveals in a quiet moment. He often speaks with his left- and right-hand fingertips touching gently in front of him, like an infomercial salesman who's just turned on the earnest. He continues, "Our election coverage every night is like a great dinner party. ... You have a great mix of people who see the world differently, and it can be combustible and exciting."
Let's leave aside the question of whether it'd be pleasurable to share a table with some of these folks (Bill Bennett!); what's irrefutably true about CNN's dinner party is that it's gigantic (there are so many political consultants milling in and around the Election Center that it makes you feel bad for the two or three others who weren't invited) and far more devoted to equal time than the other networks.
On Pennsylvania night, CNN's panel of consultants was on the verge of breaking into a juicy, heated exchange on the differences between Pastor John Hagee and Reverend Jeremiah Wright, when Campbell Brown intervened and said, "Wait, wait, wait; I've got to go Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican." It was obviously an insane thing to do--a real-time glimpse into how banal and clipped responses have triumphed over a brand of discourse that might, in some small way, approach honesty. But the decency in her request--there should be some nod toward even-handedness in election coverage--points directly to the biggest challenge facing CNN: How does it make balanced conversation interesting?
The network sure hasn't figured it out yet. This has only become more apparent since the primaries ended, and punditry has once again become more important than straight data delivery. And yet, for a little while longer, I hope that viewers resist the partisan pleasures of Fox and MSNBC. Because if CNN somehow hits on the right formula for commentary, and people respond in the way they did to its primary coverage, the network will have at least delayed the complete polarization of cable news--wherein we all just retreat to our ideological hovels, never to engage with the other side again. Who knew the absurdly vanilla integrity of Wolf Blitzer would be our last, best hope?
Greg Veis is a deputy web editor of The New Republic.
Subscribe to The New Republic for only $29.97 a year--75% off cover price!
21 comments
Fascinating! I'm sure it must be physically demanding work to cover these times. Thanks to the writer for this insightful and informative piece.
- S. Janes
September 9, 2008 at 12:55am
The problem with CNN, as Jon Stewart has often pointed out, is that frequently when two people (usually one democrat, one republican) are saying diametrically opposing things during an interview, one of them is lying, and no one from CNN ever seems to care. They mete out equal time to each speaker and leave it at that, without asking any real follow-up questions of either party. And the same thing holds true in one-on-one interviews, which is why everyone went into shock the other day when Campbell Brown insisted that Tucker Bounds respond to the question she asked, and did not let him divert her attention elsewhere, despite multiple, increasingly desperate and finally downright panicked attempts. God, it was wonderful! But so, so, rare on that network that I have given up on them completely. I saw the freak interview only after it had been pointed out, well, everywhere. I always watch MSNBC and have wondered how on earth Olbermann and Matthews were permitted to get away with some of the blatantly partisan comments they make during their duties as co-anchors of their network's primary coverage, but they are the best at asking tough questions and sometimes even tougher follow-ups, and it is incredibly refreshing to watch and rarely boring. The on air infighting is just a fun little bonus.
- carter
September 9, 2008 at 1:47am
Interesting, but don't you find the assertion: Best Political Team, etc" mindless? I gave up on CNN a while ago because, as you say, someone can say something outrageous and the Blitz lets it pass without comment. Nah: give me Newsnight on BBC.
- alan
September 9, 2008 at 9:22am
The real problem with the "D, R, D, R..." approach is that these people see their roles as simply shilling for "their team." Once upon a time, most commentators saw their jobs as primarily one of legitimate analysis / journalism. Perhaps they approached the world with a particular viewpoint, but they would try to call it as they saw it. [This was also a time when national parties were weaker and less ideological, and the Democrats had what many thought was a permanent majority.] But then, partly in response to the Right's complaints of bias, television shows started putting on "conservative commentators" to allegedly provide "balance." These people never saw their job as providing unvarnished analysis; they were their to argue for their side, even when they had doubts. The "D, R, D, R..." / Crossfire approach was an improvement on the 1990s version because at least it became a fair fight: both sides now had someone there whose sole purpose was to spin for their team. The off-air comments of Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy -- especially when compared with her WSJ article that day! -- illustrate this point. They would never say what they really thought on air because it is not favorable to their team. But if that's the case -- if these commentators are basically on-air press secretaries for the parties -- why give them time at all? What are they adding to the search for truth / understanding? I really don't think it's much to ask that the television stations -- i.e., their employers -- insist on getting their actual opinions and analysis. One way to advance this is to seek out commentators with a journalism background (e.g., David Brooks) rather than a political one (e.g., Bill Kristol, Carville) -- as the latter are particularly apt to see themselves as nothing but spinsters and cheerleaders.
- Pat
September 9, 2008 at 11:19am
Let's face it the news media have to fill airtime. The truth, the public has to discover that on their own.
- Cheryl L
September 9, 2008 at 11:23am
Wolf Blitzer is one of the "low information" folks. I heard him ask if anyone knew the cost for treatment of each returning Iraq/Afghan veteran. Yes, Wolf. The cost is estimated at $50,000 to $500,000.
- annieR
September 9, 2008 at 12:01pm
I agree with Cheryl and believe insightful journalists and columnists provide much more informative commentary than politicians or campaign managers. I'm not quite sure what upsets me more, seeing some random talking head with the title "Barack Obama Supporter" on CNN or seeing KARL ROVE on Fox providing disgustingly partisan commentary through his skewed view of politics. As for me, I'll stick to the Newshour with Jim Lehrer for the stories and Washington Week for my weekly discussion. I'll take 5 1/2 hours a week of quality news and analysis to 168 hours of garbage.
- wp
September 9, 2008 at 12:27pm
why do more black female republican spokeshills appear regularly on CNN than were evident at the entire Republican convention?
- stevenson
September 9, 2008 at 1:01pm
I appreciate the distinction CNN has achieved with the technology that John King can use to deliver detailed, analytical information. I wish CNN would figure out a way to likewise distinguish itself by getting beyond the moment-to-moment discussion of political strategy and delivering instead reasoned discussion of deeper issues. Will this afternoon focus on Palin's appeal for men or will it focus on troop levels in Iraq and try to tease out differences and similarities between Obama and McCain?
- Dave
September 9, 2008 at 1:18pm
CNN news is just like Fox new. Just like MSNBC it only two people I trust. Charlie Gibson and Keith Oberman. The rest of people on cable new are republican. This is why you don't get bad coverage on McCain or Palin. McCain VP would say anything. Let make it simple, many women that has a new born and special need child need to spend as must time with this child as possible. Her child will need her mother but Sarah wants to be VP so badly she will hand that responsibility to a nanny. Most people with children with special needs do not have such help and medical insurance for assistance. If she honestly cares, her family would come first. All women should really understand what this woman cares about. A woman that has a special need child, a young daughter that is expecting a child and probably would need her help on a daily basic. Both of them would need their mother more that ever. Now is not the time to be on the ticket for VP unless you had no intention of being a loving mother. I know lots of you are saying what about the farther. People lets me honest, men are good for a lot of thing but nothing take the place of a mother being there and her love. I am not saying she should not be VP or a future president one day but should wait until her family is more stable, yes she can do it as Governor of a small state. She can take off and go home when necessary and over see many issues. But the VP position is not Alaska.
- Roy MIller
September 9, 2008 at 2:02pm
Greg, At last someone has the insight and unmitigated balls to publish something like this.
- flyinmonkey
September 9, 2008 at 2:02pm
CNN is unquestionably the least partisan of the 3 major news networks, but I hate them almost as much as Fox. As already stated, they are the epitome of "let both sides say whatever they want and don't question anything that's said." This greatly, greatly benefits Republicans because they are the party that is now suspended from facts and logic. People need to remember that neutrality for the sake of neutrality isn't always a good thing. If one side is plainly wrong on an issue, and they are distorting logic and lying, it's important that they get called out. CNN doesn't do that. Fox calls out the left, but without facts and logic, so they are even worse. MSNBC--particularly Olberman, Maddow, and sometimes Chris Matthews--calls out the right, WITH facts and logic, but they (especially Olberman) aren't concerned with hard journalism on the left. Still, it's halfway there, at least.
-
September 9, 2008 at 4:09pm
Roy, No one would ever scrutinize a father the way you just did the mother of a pregnant teen and a special needs child.
- flyingmonkey
September 9, 2008 at 4:12pm
MSNBC has lost all credibility. That is why CNN looks so good. At least O'Reilly has pepole on his show to deate wih; Hannity has Colmes. Olberman is pathetic, and NBC uses him to anchor coverage of the RNC? Would ABC use Limbaugh to anchor coverage of the DNC? I know it is NR, but please pop over to NR's site and read its story on Olberman and MSNBC.
- Duffy
September 9, 2008 at 9:32pm
Please. Everyone knows the Daily Show has the Best F&**ing News Team EVER
- Stephen Colbert
September 9, 2008 at 11:02pm
Duffy is right on target. Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman are not serious journalists. They are pimps for the hate America left. Depend upon it, if you are a patriot those two morons will make a pathetic attempt to smear you. Fox TV tries to give all sides, but it has a certain pro-freedom, pro-decency, pro-truth, pro-honor, pro-western civilization bias that the left finds deeply offensive. Happily, the majority of Americans share that bias. The McCain-Palin ticket will win. The silly academic neo-Marxists who write for TNR will weep and wail, whine and deplore. The rest of us will breath a sigh of relief.
- bulbman1066
September 10, 2008 at 1:02am
Greg thinks CNN are the best because they had him on-air, How could they not be after that brilliant piece of booking?
- BrotherFromAnotherPlanet
September 10, 2008 at 1:38am
I find CNN very biased and unfair. They were unfair to Hillary, and now they are like a swarm of bees attacking Sarah Palin. However, no investigative reporting being done on Obama or Biden. And, I would predict, if they do a report it will be lopsided for Obama - they never get into the South side of Chicago, Ayers, Wright, Annenberg papers, Obama Kenyan family, etc. I cannot watch CNN. Campbell Brown is a Keith Olberman restrained. She gets so excited in attacking Republicans her hair becomes disheveled and she starts calling people "Baby" out of anger. No CNN is not the best election coverage - I can't watch CNN anymore. Campbell Brown, Donna Brazile, Bagala (or whatever his name is), Gergen (at moments have clear thoughts), are not unbiased fair coverage.
- jlpdem
September 10, 2008 at 9:31am
"Your ass in nuts." I smell a catchphrase...
- Jibba
September 10, 2008 at 10:28am
By the way, back in the early 1990s before Wolf Blitzer was Wolf Blitzer, I used to work in an office that was located right across the hall from his. This was in Washington, D.C. and the building was located on upper Wisconsin Avenue, between Georgetown and Cleveland Park. I used to take in his UPS deliveries when he wasn't around. He was a quiet little guy with no staff, and no apparent profession, at least not that I could discern. I could be wrong about this, but if memory serves, the name plate on the door to his one-room office read, "Wolf Blitzer, Consultant" or something very similar. He was perfectly nice, but extremely boring and, well, I just could never really figure out what it was that he actually DID in there all alone every day. Imagine my astonishment when all of a sudden there he was holding down the fort on CNN! I have no idea how he got from Point A to Point B, but it is one of the strangest things I have ever seen.
- carter
September 12, 2008 at 10:03pm
sorry, make that "in the late 1980s" not early 1990s.
- carter
September 12, 2008 at 10:22pm