The Decline of CNN

[Brett_Tabke]

Intresting blog story by NyTimes on the massive decline in ratings at CNN:

[nytimes.com...]

CNN’s prime-time hosts have lost almost half their viewers in the last 12 months. In February, the once-proud network slipped behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but HLN (its sister network) and CNBC as well. Anderson Cooper sometimes gets beaten by re-runs of Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown.”

[StoutFiles]

CNN is great for serious events, but it doesn't entertain. People want to be entertained.

[J_RaD]

how about the ireporters....yikes its like youtube for news.

[Rugles]

CNN is great for serious events

This is true. I remember during the Haiti earthquake CNN was the top cable news station for a few days. So when people want actual news and not entertainment or opinion, they turn on CNN.

Also, CNN has far more viewers outside of the US than inside the US. Every hotel I have been in overseas has CNN.

[lawman]

Ted Turner was a visionary. Sad to see what's happening to the granddaddy of the 24 hour news networks.

[jecasc]

You can see the reason for their decline right on their website. I found this in another discussion about this topic. It's screenshots of CNN and Al Jazeera websites of the same day (April 5th):

[i.imgur.com...]

I hope its not against TOS to link to the picture. Just in case the link is removed, here the headlines in comparision:

CNN:
- Breaking News Live: The Tiger says reception at masters blew me away.
- Do they love their IPads?
- Jessica Alba: I plan to adopt a child.
- Harnessing the power of bugs.

Al Jazeera:
- Website shows video of US attacks.
- Scores rescued from chines mine.
- Taliban claim Peshawar attack.

Who is CNN competing with? Other news networks or Celebrity Blogger Perez Hilton?

Who wants to see a live coverage of a press conference of a golfer where not a single question is asked about golfing?

[J_RaD]

I blame the average consumer of news.

[Visit Thailand]

Every hotel I have been in overseas has CNN.

That means nothing as most will also have BBC, CNBC, Bloomberg and even others.

My problem with CNN is they sit on a story for too long. When a story breaks they can sit on it for days, weeks even with hardly any mention of anything else.

And then there are the times when they think the world is interested in them sitting on less serious issues like Balloons and kids.....

I used to like Larry King, but now no longer watch as it is more of that in 60 seconds and they do that every few minutes! Too much.

[ronin]

CNN is great for serious events, but it doesn't entertain. People want to be entertained.

Ummm. I beg your pardon, but CNN is not great for serious events. It is appallingly superficial. It is worse than BBC News 24 and that's saying something.

And no, when I turn on the news I don't want to be 'entertained' I want to find what the hell is going on, who has a vested interest in it happening this way, what is being neglected or glossed-over at the same time, which politicians are taking back-handers, what backroom deals are being done and who is being shafted as a result.

[StoutFiles]

Ummm. I beg your pardon, but CNN is not great for serious events. It is appallingly superficial. It is worse than BBC News 24 and that's saying something.

The majority of people think CNN is great for serious events. When there's a crisis it's #1 for a reason.

And no, when I turn on the news I don't want to be 'entertained' I want to find what the hell is going on, who has a vested interest in it happening this way, what is being neglected or glossed-over at the same time, which politicians are taking back-handers, what backroom deals are being done and who is being shafted as a result.

The majority of people want to be entertained. We live in an entertainment-hungry age.

My comments do not encompass outliers.

[ronin]

Fair enough. I take both your points. But the commercial argument - people want to be entertained - does not, I hope you agree, serve as a sufficient justification to turn the news into serialised light entertainment. People want to be sexually titillated, but that's no reason to turn the news into a smorgasbord of celebrity cleavages.

What people want is not the problem of news reporting organisations. Except it suddenly becomes their problem when such organisations are advertiser funded instead of subscriber-funded. We do have one well known subscriber-funded news reporting organisation... only it apes the commercially funded organisations... which just makes me grind my teeth.

[lawman]

"News" shows that bring together political operatives schooled in the art of speeding through talking points, over-talking others, and dispensing calculated zingers are not fair and balanced, are not entertaining, and add nothing resembling enlightenment.