Comedy Gold: In Story on Campbell Brown’s Departure, AP Report Cites CNN’s ‘Effort to Be Unbiased’
Give Campbell Brown credit. Unlike many of her colleagues, who from all appearances will have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from their microphones once their networks can no longer afford to subsidize their dwindling audiences, Brown recognizes that she’s in a business that has to make money.
Brown’s evening CNN show has consistently failed to reach enough viewers to justify itself, and she concluded that there was no realistic hope of recovery. So, unlike a certain CBS Evening News anchor, Campbell Brown is doing the honorable thing, and resigning. She has told the network to find someone who might perform better.
Meanwhile, give the Associated Press piles of demerits. Its brief story on Brown’s departure contained a final-paragraph howler about network’s news posture that must be read to be believed (link is dynamic and may change over time; full AP item is presented below for fair use, discussion, and embarrassment purposes):
For what it’s worth, Brown outdrew Larry King in the 25-54 demographic on Monday, May 17 by 108,000 to 90,000.
Care to take a hint, Larry?
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
Being the stereotypical liberal, Brown interprets the lack of ratings as a lack of her “personal” appeal with the viewers, not the viewers rejection of the crap that comes out of her mouth. In Brown’s mind, just like Obama’s, the message is good but the messenger failed. Ann Coulter did a nice opinion piece on this subject some time ago. If the message fails find another messenger to reframe the message.
For the average Joe and Jane, when you believe someone is not telling you the truth you stop listening to them. The liberal’s response has frequently been to either change the messenger to take advantage of the fresh face being given the benefit of the doubt or find a different message.
Comment by dscott — May 19, 2010 @ 12:15 am
#1, though I generally agree, at least in Brown’s mind she has to get out of the way for the network to succeed. I guess it’s open to debate as to how much she tried to be “no bias, no bull.” I actually think she’s one of the few that tried, and that she would occasionally acknowledge some inconvenient truths, though she has significant lib blinders on.
Comment by TBlumer — May 19, 2010 @ 1:17 am
#2, I think you are being charitable in that assessment. I did a quick review of the NB website on Campbell Brown and I see lots of times where she has been how shall we say a…pom pom girl for the Dems. But then my search is anecdotal since obviously I haven’t weighed “all” of her time on CNN as to the balance of her reporting or commentary.
Given the instances where her liberal ideology has leaked through on CNN, I think it is safe to say any lack of bias on any particular reporting by her is strictly coincidental or more likely the subject matter was probably not considered of import to filter it for the public.
Comment by dscott — May 19, 2010 @ 2:29 am
Who’s Campbell Brown? She has a show? CNN is still on?
Comment by Joe C. — May 19, 2010 @ 5:34 am
#3, it’s tough to reach a conclusion based on the NB archive.
On the one hand, it has nothing resembling the volume of what NB has generated on Olbermann. OTOH, NB/MRC hasn’t paid as much attention to her. But if you review carefully, you’ll see several instances where the post is about how she’s (with expressed surprise) off the MSM plantation in questions asked or statements made.
IMO, if Campbell Brown exemplified the worst we have to deal with in terms of media bias, the establishment press, though still leaning lib, might actually be tolerable.
Comment by TBlumer — May 19, 2010 @ 8:54 am
IMO, if Campbell Brown exemplified the worst we have to deal with in terms of media bias, the establishment press, though still leaning lib, might actually be tolerable.
#5, That in a nutshell describes the insidious liberal strategy of the pre-80s. Once Reagan came on the scene to run and become President in 1980, the overt liberal filtering of the news started in full swing. Poison isn’t immediately deadly until imbibed in sufficient amounts, that’s the difference between the chronic and the acute. Brown was the chronic poisoning of the news, whereas Oblermann, Matthews and their ilk are the acute. CNN, MSNBC, etc. were only just the flavor like strychnine, arsenic and cyanide.
It’s truly sad when high praise for one’s professional ethics are that you don’t devolve as bad as Oblermann.
Comment by dscott — May 19, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
#6, I think the filtering went on long before Reagan. They extending it to business and econ during Reagan.
While we’re benchmarking, I think Cronkite was worse than Campbell Brown.
Comment by TBlumer — May 19, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
#7, yes it is true about Cronkite, however, he was very insidious about it to a very naive public. He did it in a way that very few people suspected and he played upon their ignorance. Everyone assumed that as a news gatherer Cronkite had possession of all the facts and thus “understood” instead of dissembled. This is why I enjoyed Eric Sevareid’s commentary at the end of the broadcast, it was “his” opinion and no one was under the illusion it was news. Ok, now I have dated myself…
Comment by dscott — May 19, 2010 @ 5:20 pm
Cronkite was worse than Campbell Brown? Cronkite dissembled? Please enlighten me. Evidence would be appreciated.
Comment by Padre Poudre — May 23, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
#9, here.
Here.
Here.
Cronkite several years before he died said what he missed the most was deciding what was important and what the audience should hear. Cronkite abused his power for his agenda.
There’s more, but this is plenty.
Comment by TBlumer — May 24, 2010 @ 5:41 am