Following up on the NY Times story I posted earlier today about CNN finishing fourth in cable news for the first time, the numbers are reaching us on the magnitude of CNN’s ratings decline from October 2008 to October 2009. Big events like last year’s election drove big viewership to CNN which has now substantially vanished.
You can see our daily cable news ratings here.
Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2009 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.
In some sense, this isn’t a HUGE surprise (considering the elections last year) – and MSNBC is down a similar %age. However, it is quite jarring to see that CNN has SUCH a difficult time holding on to their audience over a longer period of time.
The good news is, ‘10 to ‘09 comparisons next year will look fantastic!
Meanwhile FOX is near their pre-election numbers!!! GO FOX!!!
http://www.voyagertrans.com/forum1/index.php
Errr…Fox News is down -36% from last year…that’s not anywhere NEAR pre-election numbers.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/26/steep-losses-at-cnn-as-cable-ratings-tumble-in-october/
anonymous fox has retained 2/3 of their pre election audience in a non election year compare that to 2/3 loss for msnbc down 66% and over 2/3 loss for cnn down 77% with the exception of hln fox is the only 24hr news network who is actually up in 25 to 54 demo 6% compared to cnn and msnbc down 4%
Fox being down way less than CNN is doesn’t prove that Fox has more quality, proves only how many conservative alienated people there are in america, sad america.
I don’t get it how people critize FOX, who cares if it is a conservative news channel! If you don’t like it, don’t watch it! Sad America because we watch FOX? Give me a break! Let’s see, the liberals have CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, pretty much all newspaper sources and you are still complaining about FOX? One network? hmmmmmm, sounds like envy! With everything going on in the world, even the White House has to complain. Every news channel is not perfect and promote their own agenda but I like FOX and looking at the numbers, alot of people like FOX.
The New York Times prints without explanation or verification the opinion that CNN’s ratings are down because they continue to present a news format as opposed to “opinion television.” It would be worthwhile to see some polling to prove or disprove that conclusion. Frankly, I think CNN’s news format is loaded with liberal opinion that is fairly obvious with minimal viewing.
CNN needs to GUT all the lame anchors (Campbell Brown, Rick Sanchez, Wolf Blitzer.. get rid of some of the silly and unoriginal talking heads — Begala, Borger, Roland Martin, Donna Brazile, Jack Cafferty)…Get rid of that whiff of pro-Obama personnel..Get rid of the fluffy commentary sensibility on FNC and MSNBC (which CNN does poorly).
They need to be a no-nonsense, hard news channel. They need to smell of that old-school back-to-basics journalist mentality. They’re not there to support Obama or paint a nice picture of Obama, they’re there to report and ask questions. Get rid of some of the human interest stories (Heroes). Build around new faces and center around the old days when you couldn’t exactly tell if the person was left or right and it didn’t really matter.
Most importantly, CNN needs to be a watchdog. They can’t compete with Fox for right viewers or MSNBC for left viewers, but they CAN compete with FNC for independent viewers looking for a watchdog channel with competent news reporting, analysis, and limited commentary. If CNN rebuilds its brand as a real independent news channel that isn’t pandering for ratings, viewers will come to them. (And they need to get rid of all those dumb mantras ‘best political team on television’, etc.)
wow…the most surprising to me out of all of this is how wonder dude anderson cooper is tanking so bad lately…
he needs to go and find another hurricane to cover with weather dude…
People are looking for honest reporting, not Obama cheerleaders; that is the reason they are tuneing in to FNC
Shannon is right. You will never get high ratings by premoting a president. The only way CNN can get its viewers back is if they become independant (not likely) and watchdogs (not likely). Its sad when only one network covered the ACORN story, NEA propaganda, and Van Jones. The reason why the president went after FOX is because they have a very large independant and democratic viewership (55%). If it was only conservatives watching, the left wouldn’t care. However its not.
But with the kind of reporting on CNN and MSNBC, FOX will continue to get more independants.
Copper’s tea bagging comment put me over the edge … And I used to watch him nightly – F CNN …
Fox is such a bad network.. Really?? But MSNBC and CNN have the most crude and hateful anchors @ night….
Also note that the latest figures on newspaper circulation show a sharp decline – on average ten percent – but the Wall Street Journal is growing its audience.
The implication is clear. Media outlets that try to cover up stories rather than cover them are losing their credibility and their audience. Murdoch dominates cable and print, and no one is in a position to mount a serious challenge to his dominance.
Of course, CNN and the other elite media could fix their problems tomorrow by adding some real diversity to their newsrooms and moving to more balanced coverage, but it will never happen, since they value ideology above their very survival.
Cooper’s tea bagging comment alienated me from watching him too. I knew he had a bias but that was really unprofessional.
Most straight law-abiding American citizens, like me, had never heard the term “tea bagging” and didn’t realize it was a term to describe a lewd homo-sexual act. Cooper Anderson was very familiar with the term though. He is a low life.
CNN used to be called the Clinton News Network. They started losing credibility during the Clinton years when FNC came on the scene. FNC was an alternative to liberal bias in the media. To this day the media is oversaturated with liberal news outlets and CNN is just one of that crowd. FNC is unique and gives the only alternative to the liberal slant in the media. As a result they have amassed a huge audience, and compared to the other networks they are fair and balanced. These two factors contribute to FNC’s assendancy and CNN’s and MSNBC’s decline.
WSJ plays fast and loose with the circulation numbers… the big number they give that makes them the number 1 paper in the country includes paid subs to their website(which the circulation people allow)… I haven’t seen a paper only number, has anyone?
That’s not to say the WSJ is a bad paper, it’s the paper I read everyday on my Kindle2… love it!
veronica i’m with you the little respect i had for cooper was lost when he used the term tea baggers to describe the protesters
OK, With all the talk about AC and Maddow’s comments on tea bagging, I had to go look it up. Sick. Now that I know what it is though, I have to ask; what could Rachel Maddow possibly know about the subject? As Imus once put it, “I thought that dog won’t hunt”? Also, I guess it brings new meaning to Anderson 360 … and a new low to CNN. Literally!
The fact that the term “Tea Bag” has so easily replaced the term “Tea Party”, shows that the problem with CNN is more than just the TV on air personalities.
What is more absurd is that they someone didn’t even consider that it may offend and drive away viewers, or didn’t care.
Its small things like the Tea Bag comments that start from the top and trickle down to the every day personality, i.e “Anderson Cooper” that cause the viewers to change channels.
“P2+” ???
shannon,
No chance cnn reconstitutes itself into a hardcore news organization when they’ve been a political arm of the dnc for too many years. Their “reporters” punch-in at dnc hq every morning.
Hey Cooper, how’s that “teabag” taste?
You know what, I don’t really care too much what Fox does. I’m not afraid to admit it, I’m a liberal. One of those far-left, anti-God types. Yep, no shame, I know. But if FNC can keep pulling strong numbers, good for them! I choose what I want to watch, and millions of others choose what they want to watch. I’m not going to crucify anyone just because they watch Fox News.
Take the ideas they put out, do some research, and make up your own minds! If Fox can make it work, then more power to them. Nothing wrong there if you think about it for a minute.
If MSNBC or CNN were retaining as well, the I’d say the same thing. There is some measure of lower-case democratic (or at least lower-case republican) values in television; you watch what you want, and you ignore what you want. Maybe that even makes it lower-case libertarian to some degree. Through the power of the Nielsen Ratings, we gain some understanding of what people are choosing to watch.
All I hope is that real news and real reporting will continue to be a part of our culture in some way, shape, or form, no matter the outlet. It doesn’t matter to me if it’s on the TV, in a newspaper, or online (or elsewhere in the future that we can’t yet conceive of). Tell me what’s happening throughout the day, be it in politics, culture, or other areas. As long as I can get the core information, I’ll be satisfied.
The audience for “opinion” sure explains the wild success of MSNBC. I have tried to watch it a couple times, at random intervals, and what are they talking about? Fox! Maybe the war on Fox comes from the fact that Obama probably sits around in the WH watching MSNBC.
These are really telling charts.
John S.
ops sorry see this chart…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cable_news_ratings/
CNN disgusts me more than MSNBC does. If a news channel puts on a liberal show then they must say “this is a liberal show” same thing with a conservative show. CNN is liberal propaganda disgusied as hard news and it makes me sick. FOX not only has good opinion shows, there hard news is second to none. CNN can learn from Special Report, Studio B, FOX News Sunday, The FOX Report
P2+ = avg. viewers 2 and older
I used to prefer CNN, but it’s become a 24/7 infomercial for why we should be begging for the government to socialize the entire medical industry. They need to remove their heads from Obama’s butt and actually be the reliable news source that they used to be many years ago. Quit advocating for Democrat policy.
I posted this in another thread, but the idea of unbiased hard news was created when the government wanted the limited radio bandwidth to be non partisan. That extended into TV news for a while, but it’s just an artifact of the 20th century.
Read a 19th century newspaper. It’s the print edition of MSNBC or Fox minus 110 years. Don’t expect “hard news” from CNN or any other future cable network. In fact, if a network claims they are nothing but hard news and have no opinion journalism, just watch for an hour and pay attention to the stories that are NOT being covered. The bias oozes from every pore.
So many great comments from most of you! I love America. Not just our country but the system of government and the constitution on which it is based. It is the constitution which guided our previous leaders and made us strong. In a nutshell, the reason viewers are switching from CNN and other Liberal networks to FNC is that they are tired of hearing how terrible “we” are and how “we” are to be blamed for all the ills of the world. Also, most Americans who watch news or opinions on TV are Americans first and have a deep passion and belief in country. We also have a fair sense of right and wrong and desire balance in our lives and community.
Conservatives, will normally listen to and entertain opposing points of view and will argue points with facts. Liberals argue based on emotions and desires. Rational, thinking, patriotic Americans will not tolerate the debasement of their country for long regardless of the network used to push the idea.
The USA can regain its prestige and financial dominance again after the current administration and all the liberal, entitlement mentality it wrought are abolished.
Since most liberals are now getting the news from FNC, I am hopeful for the future of this great nation.
Watched CNN since its inception, had never watched a single minute of Fox News and then the coverage of the Democratic party runoff started. It was Obama all the way ever since and at some point therein, I changed the channel. I would think a lot of people did the same and for the exact same reasons. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had more in depth information about Senator Obama and the Chicago politics he came from than CNN and that should never have happened.
As Alan notes, an “information channel” that does not inform is singularly useless.
Up until two months ago I would visit the CNN website daily. My distaste started long before with Nancy Grace and her fake contempt and her very real condescension. Just not someone I would care to have a conversation with. Then AC360 which makes me laugh, as if this guy can bring it all together. CNN viewers aren’t in High School AC, but hey, good luck BMOC. Overall I felt CNN provided good coverage but it is their personality which exposes their betrayal of the mandates applied to media regarding unbiased reporting. It is as if they are trying to hide the truth in favor of what they think they can sell or promote. Nice to see that people can still think for themselves despite the New York Times contention otherwise. Their continued complicity will render them irrelevant as well. It is interesting that so many of the folks on one side feel that Oprah is good and Glenn Beck is bad. Of course there is the other side and apparently the awakening majority who feel Glenn Beck is right and Oprah is out to lunch. The way out of this mess is actually very clear and doable but it will require that the people who believe that the US government is somehow obligated to provide for them realize that there is no free lunch, no free health care and free housing and subsidies for mere existence. Somebody has to pay for it. And those who pay and have always paid see that and they are ultimately the customer who has to be pleased.
Did you catch O’Reilly last night? I have to agree with him, FOX News is not the most trusted and accepted news in America and the World.
Fox is not news – pls, check mediamatters.com for overwhelming proof of this. Fox is opinion media. Clowns like Beck and O’loofa have a following similar to that of “professional” wrestlers, on many levels. Fox is conservative psycho-ranting. It is not fair, or balanced, nor even factually accurate much of the time. And it is not news.
Gary, the world? That could not be less true.
I am so glad to see the many contributors here writing about the hatred spewed by msnbc. CNN needs to get rid of Begala,Martin,Blitzer,Cafferty and King the 2 funeral directors they are, donna brazille what a joke she is, rick sanchez who hates almost as much as olbermann and matthews at msnbc. Hopefully Lou Dobbs will somehow come to fox and then CNN will fall completely. If anyone has ever listened to Olbermann at msnbc, do you really think any of the listeners understand anything he is saying. What an egomaniac. Everywhere he worked he was fired for being an bigmouth. CNN wake up. You cant lose to msnbc. thats like losing to wwf or bill moyers.
Oops, might definitely have misread that.
Fox News is not a Legitimate News Organization
mediamatters? Really? Thats like me telling you to watch MSNBC to hear real republicans. lol
Fair, balanced and factual Fox NEWS *dominated* again in October. O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Baier, Shep, Greta, O’Reilly (rerun), Cavuto, etc, were on top.
Yes Jack, unless you think PRAVDA is. You people that come in here and trash on FOX, it is ok, there is so much envy because they are blowing the competition away and it bothers you liberals because they are making a difference in this country. If it wasn’t for FOX, or talk radio, liberal views would be non stop and there would be no conservative views out there and that really bothers you libs on the left.
As for Media Matters? You might at well use the Daily Kos as your resource, seesh, really.
Uh, JC, mediamatters.com has the Fox bozos on tape, in their own words. I know, it’s hard for many of the Fox flock to entertain facts, but if you take a break from knowing it all for a second, you might want to take a look. Then again, if listening to Beck describe hidden meanings in statues and paintings passes for news for you, I doubt you’d be interested too much in reality.
And just fyi, the big three broadcast nets’ news shows have more viewers by far than any of the cable nets. Hell, “pro” wrestling has more viewers than Fox news, so there are plenty of idiots to go around.
Hey Not Here, if you add up the Numbers for the week, FOX News has more viewers than Pro Wrestling,not even close, they come on once a week, FOX News is on all week, sheesh, be nice if we had some educated people on the left.
If CNN, MSNBC would drop all their political coverage (i.e. socialist/liberal cheerleading) their #’s would go up. When reporting on any non-political issue they do a real good job. HLN spends most of their time reporting on these non-political stories, and there #’s are rising. The closest you’ll get to true reporting and unbiased reporting is Foxnews. Yes, they have 3 or 4 commentary programs that are conservative in nature but as the ONLY place to get such views on TV its no wonder their #’s are high. Plus those shows admit at the start that they are conservative…..whereas the other news stations are embarrassed to say “we are a socialist/liberal commentary show”….thats because only 20-25% of people in America agree with them (if that) If people knew what agenda these stations are promoting (most do or are learning fast, hence the declining #’s) it would spell the end of these stations and this liberal/socialist hidden plan.
Eh, yeah, Gary, but on the night it airs it draws more viewers than Fox. The point was to illustrate that there evidently are a few million idiots who will believe anything, that Fox and pro wrestling can draw 2-3 million viewers is proof of that.
But let’s talk about real numbers for a minute. And here is why, not as a liberal or conservative, but as an American, I’m not bothered one bit by that little segment of our society: the real numbers of where America stands was shown last November, when American rejected Republicans almost across the board. All the “he’s a socialist who pals around with terrorists” bs from Palin and good ole Joe the Plumber couldn’t stop it. The Republican party, what’s left of it, with the drug-addled rants of the Limbaughs and the tearful insanity of the Becks, play to a very small sad crowd of sheep who lap up the fear mongering from their manipulative puppetmasters like holy water and would follow any moron off a cliff if he or she waved a flag at them. It is a very sad thing to see, but I take heart that such a loud, angry group whipped up by a so called news network, is, when measured against the whole of the populace, is in fact quite tiny.
But I digress.
Here is a little clip from a clearly very educated Glenn Beck on one of his recent shows. Gosh, I wish I could be as smart as this guy:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908270038
Couple more short clips on Fox, if you faithful can handle the truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU&feature=player_embedded
@not here
mediamatters has tapes taken COMPLETELY out of context. For example, Glenn said this about Anita Dunn’s admiration of Moa; “That would be like me saying my fav political philosopher is adolf hitler, have you read mein kompf?”
mediamatters headline: “Glenn Beck’s Favorite Political Philosopher Is Adolf Hitler”
Yeah, thats not out of context. Oh, and 90% of their stuff is on commentators like Beck and Hannity. Well OF COURSE they’re bias. They’re opinion shows. mediamatters is a smear group created to attack the only network not liberal controled. Oh, and w/ only 20% of American being liberal, don’t you think it odd when 80+% of journalist say they are liberal? Maybe this is why so many Americans feel the media is out of touch.
Used to watch CNN exclusively until the summer/fall 2008 election campaign coverage became so biased we simply couldn’t stomach it anymore. Have watched Fox exclusively since Aug 2008. They screwed themselves by being such SHEEPLES!
Liberal and conservative are vague labels at this point. Remember when “liberal” was an evil term, before it was replaced by “socialist?” It’s a practically meaningless designation, as is conservative. For example, you say only 20% are liberals, yet polls show strong support, over 60% in the latest one, for a public option to be included in the health care reform bill. Surely, most people would consider such an idea a “liberal” idea, yet a large majority support the idea. Conversely, I recently saw a poll where around 20% identify themselves as Republican. Again, really a pointless exercise to label groups of people this or that, but a favorite game of the right. Like I said, the last true polling of political sentiment in this nation was last November, and it really is at great odds with the idea that Fox represents the views of most of America – the results of the last election clearly blow that idea out of the water.
And if you watch the clips I posted, you’ll see how the “news” portion of Fox is molded by the “commentary” portion of Fox.
Again, Fox and it’s audience comprise a loud, crass, name calling, temper tantrum throwing (those town halls – lordy), fear mongering segment of our society. And again, it is a small one. You know the old saying, an empty can rattles the most.
Just real quick, too, because I have to get back to work, I just wanted to say a word about the poster above who trotted out the term “patriotic,” as if people who disagree with a particular point of view are not patriotic. We had enough of that through the dark bush years. All that flag waving and finger pointing, and damning the Dixie Chicks while scarfing down freedom fries and calling former war veterans terrorist sympathizers got several thousand of our brave young men and women, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, not to mention the economic toll. And Fox played a huge part in bringing that little bush/cheney escapade about, by reporting lies and distorting the truth, using fear and demonizing opponents, all with a clear agenda to generate support for the bloody bush invasion. So please, don’t presume to label some Americans patriots and some not.
not here, you have to be kidding when you use media matters as a source for anything but liberal propaganda. media matters doesn’t even condone opposition commentary on their youtube posts. i am for some unknown reason excluded from their comment section for no other reason than respectful disagreement of their point of view. they are as narrow minded and anti free speech as any other pro marxist outlet.
not here, btw, last election included many, such as myself, who voted for obama based on absolute disgust for a gop party that took us farther left than democrat administrations before. i guarantee it was not a vote for a van jones, rev. wright, mao loving, shadow government.
Rasnussen’s weekly poll shows 42-45% support PO while 54-57% oppose. Stay away from NYT’s polls
Rasmussen is almost always out of sync with other pollsters. Below are a couple of recent polls that back up my claims.
——————
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?”
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
10/16-18/09
61 38 1
8/28-31/09
55 41 4
————————–
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 15-18, 2009. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
“Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?”
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
10/15-18/09 57 40 3
9/10-12/09 55 42 3
8/13-17/09 52 46 2
6/18-21/09 62 33 5
“Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?” If oppose or unsure: “What if this government-sponsored plan was run by state governments and was available only to people who did not have a choice of affordable private insurance? In that case would you support or oppose this idea?” Combined responses
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
10/15-18/09 76 23 1
—————————–
not here says:
October 27, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Rasmussen is almost always out of sync with other pollsters. Below are a couple of recent polls that back up my claims. (Actually, Rasmussen has been the most accurate in the last 2 presidential elections. Check the facts first. Second, they poll likely voters, who are people who have voted at least once in the last 2 election cycles. They poll 40% dems, 35% repubs, and 25% independents. They also poll 1500 households compared to the others of only 900)
——————
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?”
(Problem, CNN polls all adults, not likely voters, and only 900 whereas a good poll, polls 1500 people. Second they poll 55 – 65% dems, 25-30% Repubs, 20-25% independents. Problem is the electorate is composed of 40% dems, 37% repubs, 23% independent so the poll is skewed to favor the dem view.)
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
10/16-18/09
61 38 1
8/28-31/09
55 41 4
————————–
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 15-18, 2009. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
“Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?”
( Again only adults, only 900 households, and 65% dems, 15% repubs, 20% independents. And again, another skewed poll to prove what they want, not what the public actually think.)
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
10/15-18/09
57 40 3
9/10-12/09
55 42 3
8/13-17/09
2 46 2
6/18-21/09
62 33 5
“Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?” If oppose or unsure: “What if this government-sponsored plan was run by state governments and was available only to people who did not have a choice of affordable private insurance? In that case would you support or oppose this idea?” Combined responses
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
10/15-18/09
76 23 1
( In other words, they slant their polls to prove what they want, not what the actual views are of the electorate. Pew, Gallup and Rasmussen, are usually the most accurate, and their numbers are closer to the mean average compared to the liberal polls conducted by the MSM. Also, the three use larger numbers of households, use either Likely voters or Registered voters. Finally, I saw the clip on Beck you posted. You may want to note, he left the “Y” out of the word oligarchy on purpose. On the next days show, he explained he did this so that groups like mediamatters, dailykooks, and huffingthebongpost, would react. The “Y” was for the word “you”, to make the point that the liberal blogs forgot about “you”, just like the government. I guess mediamatters (if its liberal) didn’t post that the next day, did they?)
—————————–
not here, the polls you cite are use LEADING questions, ending in MISLEADING results . anyone involved with the health debate knows something must be done to contain costs but there are many other options for expanding choices and competition than the ones those polls allow. those are inherently flawed polls that would also show widespread support for only expansion of private competition if that was the only choice other than status quo. this is the kind of bias that most in the mainstream press utilize whether they are attempting to consciously skew the numbers or if it is just blind bias.
the problem with this whole arguement is the notion that media outlets should be objective, prior to the Civil war most americans would have laughed at you for suggesting that a newspaper should be “objective”, none of them were, they all supported and advocated for the ppl and issues they considered right or true, this was considered perfectly normal. Not until the rise of the Progressive Movement did this unhealthy push for “objectivity” begin.
it was a really good deal if you were a progressive, not so much if you weren’t.
Fox commentators announce their loyalities, they are open about it.
CNN, MSNBC, et. al. still claim the Noble Mantle Of Obectivity(tm) like a Cross around their necks.
someone needs to tell them that it looks ridiculous.
“Not Here” is either out to lunch…or working for a paycheck. Who else but a paid shill would trot out youtube video and spurious poll numbers so readily? He (or she) gets marching orders daily from the Obamanauts.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Objectivity is ‘unhealthy’? Jesus.
@not here
Rassmusen has consistantly been the most accurate polling firm in the country. They predicted the 04 race by .2 points and the 08 race by .3 points (closer than any other poll). Thats because they poll likely voters instead of calling random people. They also ask straight forward questions – not like the embarrasing NYT’s poll that even some democrats criticized for the misleading questions. Its sad that such a great polling company is being attacked by the left because for the first time in years they show gains for the GOP. Sad, but not unexpected.
CNN deserves to be in decline, and I certainly hope that decline worsens in 2010.
CNN has completely abandoned the hihger concepts of journalism and news reporting, in favour of primarily yelling matches between individuals who are far from experts in anything.
And their former global news coverage has almost disappeared; now the only major global coverage we see is Iraq and Afghanistan.
To see quality global news covereage, tun into the BBC; they stil udnerstand and choose and primiarly focus on quality journalism and news reporting, rather than cheap shots, sarcasm and talk-show mentality, and going after the most visible political target, and giving podiums to right wing conservatives.
Well said Shannon.