Ben Conrow and Liam Leslie
CNN Argumentative Essay
COMM 305
28/03/2022
Cable News Network (CNN) is an American based media organization that provides news 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is generally seen as a slightly left leaning source, despite having been previously dubbed “the most trusted name in news” by a Pew study in 2002. However, in the past decade (and, more specifically. since the election of Donald Trump), the credibility of CNN has been widely debated. A network that prides themselves on reporting facts, this essay will dive into whether CNN truly lives up to their self-proclaimed standard.
Although CNN’s reliability has been put into question, adfontesmedia, a website which researches the bias and reliability of various news networks, rates CNN quite strongly in both categories. Although they are reportedly skewed left by the site, they score a bias value of -8.82 in a range from -42 (very left leaning) to 42 (very right leaning), with 0 being a neutral score. Additionally, their reliability score is a 42.82 on a scale of 0-64, with values of 40 or higher being reliable, 24-40 ranging in credibility, and 0-24 being untrustworthy. As a generality, CNN is proclaimed by them to be “reliable [with] analysis/fact reporting” (CNN Bias and Reliability, no date, para. 1). The process adfontesmedia uses to determine these values is thorough, in which 3+ analysts, each with varying political association, determine a score and compare. This is done on a monthly sample of articles/episodes for each news source, which are then averaged out. Therefore, despite the inevitable bias of human analysis, the source is reliable for determining news networks’ credibility.
Another reason that CNN is a credible source is because of the lengthy fact checking procedure used before publishing articles and episodes. According to former CNN producer Ed Scott-Clarke, the network uses the “Triad,” a method in which each publication is checked for truth (fact-checking), legality and rights/clearances. If anything is deemed false or opinionated, it is cut, or, the latter of which, clearly marked as opinionated. Therefore, outside of independent anchors speaking off-script, all reports by CNN are essentially stamped with a seal of validity.
CNN can also be considered reliable because of the perceived trustworthiness among its audience. While education is by no means a complete indication of character and judgment, between 2006 and 2008, it was found that “the higher the level of education completed, the greater the likelihood of finding CNN credible” (Stroud and Lee, 2013, p. 79). This is a testament to the perceived trustworthiness of the source. That being said, liberals and democrats are more likely to rely on CNN than conservatives and republicans, who tend to trust Fox News more. Despite this, in a study done by Pew Research Center, 24% of republicans watched CNN in 2020 for election and political news in the week prior to the survey given to them, proving that around ¼ of the supposedly opposed party rely on the network (U.S. Media Polarization and the 2020 Election: A Nation Divided, 2020). Additionally, in this same research, moderates on either side of the political spectrum were more likely to trust CNN. As a whole, 47% of American adults (and 67% of Democrats) trusted CNN during the 2020 election, second only to ABC (U.S. Media Polarization and the 2020 Election: A Nation Divided, 2020).
While CNN has been regarded as a relatively neutral source since its founding in 1980, there is no doubt that it has become more partisan since the 2016 election. However, Jeff Zucker recently stepped down as CNN president and former CBS executive Chris Licht is replacing him. This will allow for a fresh change, and Licht already “plans to nix the network's left-leaning commentary when he assumes the role of president this May, insiders say, and has already engaged in talks with rival Fox News about halting its aggressive coverage of them” (Hammer, 2022, para. 1). The combination of Licht’s soon-to-be presence and the merging of WarnerMedia (the parent company of CNN) and the Discovery Channel has already begun to push CNN anchors and hosts away from opinionated news segments. Therefore, in the near future, CNN is likely to become an even more credible source than it already is.
With that said, there is plenty of compelling contention to CNN’s reputability. The network's trustworthiness has recently come under fire as it has drifted from the course of its longstanding values of impartiality in favor of what is entertaining and enticing for viewers. Although there is hope for CNN to regain some of its lost credibility and reassume its former stature as aforementioned, the diversion from their brand identity leaves them susceptible to skepticism from some of their loyal subscribers that they may again lose sight of their core values. Past iterations of the network have staunchly adhered to the ‘triad’ and other approaches to ensure an objective, traditional, and news-only delivery. This culminated in a strong and recognizable brand that had resonating global respect for its dedication to the news, even if this meant it had an arguably boring disposition too. However, in the past two decades, it is evident that CNN has become far more emotional and opinionated. An article from The Washington Post substantiates this claim stating,
“Welcome to the new CNN, where journalists and anchors, traditionally restricted by industry-wide standards of impartiality, have been given the green light under network President Jeff Zucker to say what they actually want to say — even if it strikes some as opinionated” (Barr, 2021, para. 6).
This statement comes as a response to the increasing prevalence of CNN anchors breaking character and allowing their perspectives and emotions to infiltrate the story. The same article asserts that the network's hiring of Zucker was intended to “juice the network's flagging ratings” and “inject ‘more passion’” into the programming (Barr, 2021, para. 25). The article continues to illustrate potentially problematic detours from their identity as they quote Syracuse University professor and television historian Robert Thompson’s analysis of the contemporary form of the network, “It shows personality, it creates characters, it introduces a sense of dramaturgy that makes for compelling viewing” (Barr, 2021, para. 14). Sure, it is livelier, but ‘dramaturgy’, is not what the news is expected to be described as. Loosening standards, juicing ratings, and injecting passion and character are concerning turns for the credibility of the network.
Another critique of the reliability of CNN is a capitalistic critique in nature. In a competitive market, news outlets and programs are forced to swing the affinity and viewership of the same consumers. This inherently means that there must be marketing and promotional efforts to compel viewers that CNN is a better watch than the rest of its competitors. This alone should elicit a tentative and analytical consideration of proclamations of excellence from the network itself and from other forceful advocates. A 2017 Mediaite article raises just that question asking, “How can one truly trust an outlet that is prone to promotional invention?” (Hall, 2017, para. 4). The article continues its examination and questioning of CNN’s self-proclaimed reliability stating,
“CNN has touted itself as ‘the most trusted name in news’ for as long as anyone can remember… what is their source to even theoretically support such a claim?... The last study we found that could even technically bolster this claim comes from a 2002 Pew Study.” (Hall, 2017, para 1).
Everyone has heard that CNN is “the most trusted name in news”, but they do not seem to verify this statement in any way. Therefore, it is fair to interpret the claim as hyperbolic and promotional and that their trustworthiness is not so clear cut after all.
CNN’s trustworthiness is also suspicious when considering the scandalous behavior of executives and affiliates in recent times. Top executives and faces of the CNN brand have recently been under fire for their unprofessional and inappropriate conduct both in and outside of the workplace. Zucker was allegedly and ambiguously fired for “failing to disclose a romantic relationship with a senior colleague” (Helmore, 2022, para. 4). This comes in quick succession to sexual harassment allegations on former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and his brother Chris Cuomo, a CNN show host, defending him while reporting on air. Perhaps most concerningly, Jeffrey Toobin was allowed to return to reporting for CNN after exposing himself and masturbating on a workplace zoom call. These behaviors leave plenty of room to question what other unsavory things may be transpiring behind the scenes. If these individuals are the supposed leaders of CNN, can their untrustworthy behavior still produce trustworthy news? A recent Guardian article following this line of questioning regarding CNN’s recent blunders states,
“The scandals echo previous episodes in which executives at top American TV organizations have been accused of operating a culture of impunity for other senior, almost always male, executives. It seems to illustrate a broader problem in the top echelons of these firms: supremely powerful organizations whose leaderships seem to have assumed that normal rules did not apply to them” (Helmore, 2022, para. 6).
The recent unprofessional and inexcusable culture surrounding these organizations, and CNN itself, serves as another detrimental hit to a sensitive debate of the network’s reliability and it certainly does not bode well for the unknown, unseen transgressions.
With political tension and turmoil being the hot topic and the catalyst for most of the debate regarding reliability, it is worth considering the merit and objectiveness of the political reporters. Unfortunately, more concerning narratives present themselves. A Conversation article states that,
“Media history shows that CNN is simply repeating a time-honored journalistic hiring practice. The revolving door from the White House to mainstream journalism, and from mainstream journalism to the White House, has been used so regularly that we often forget just how common it was – and remains.” (Socolow, 2019, para. 9).
This shows that there is a vested and self-fulfilling interest in the political narrative that is being portrayed. Furthermore, the cyclical interchange is likely to prevent contrary journalism that may be more objective. Release of this article came in the wake of CNN hiring Sarah Isgur Flores, who had no journalism experience, yet had been working in, or towards, politics her entire career. The article notes the criticism of attorney and GQ columnist Jay Willis who stated, “Elevating an unabashed partisan to a nonpartisan role is an obvious disservice to viewers at home, who count on the network’s independence” (Socolow, 2019, para. 8). If the journalists are politicians, and vice versa, there is the possibility for a subconscious, subtle, or subliminal agenda, and therefore the credibility of the network once again finds itself in question. Piers Robinson’s research, published in Cambridge University Press, questioned their political rhetoric long ago. His essay on the “CNN Effect” states,
“Those who talk of the manufacture of consent argue that political elites impel news makers to 'read' global events in a particular way. Thus rather than assuming that the news media influences or determines what governments do, those who adhere to this position maintain that the media is influenced by government and government policy.” (Robinson, 1999, pg. 303).
His research once again lends itself to questioning bias, reliability, and trustworthiness of political news generally, and CNN specifically.
After weighing both sides of the argument thoroughly, we conclude that CNN is mostly trustworthy after all, especially from a comparative perspective of the major news outlets. Its scores from adfontesmedia paired with the primary testimonial of Ed Scott-Clarke on the “Triad” are particularly convincing. Furthermore, the tendency for consumers to lean on CNN regardless of their political affiliation is also indicative of a trustworthy and supported source. CNN largely embraces the responsibility to deliver objective news but has had to adapt to the modern news climate. Their approach to modern news has still been relatively clean and humanistic. Bumps in the road are expected and comparatively forgivable as well. With their current credibility and stature in conjunction with a prospective future for even more reliability, we contend that CNN is a wise outlet selection.
References
Ad Fontes Media (2022) CNN Bias and Reliability. Available at: https://adfontesmedia.com/cnn-bias-and-reliability/ (Accessed: 22 March 2022)
Barr, J. (2021) The new CNN is more opinionated and emotional. Can it still be ‘the most trusted name in news’? Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/cnn-opinionated-emotional-zucker/2021/05/11/5f32eb38-7f92-11eb-81db-b02f0398f49a_story.html (Accessed: 28 March 2022)
Hall, C. (2017) How Can CNN Possibly Claim It’s ‘The Most Trusted Name in News’? Available at: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/how-can-cnn-possibly-claim-its-the-most-trusted-name-in-news/ (Accessed: 28 March 2022)
Hammer, A. (2022) ‘CNN's new boss Chris Licht is 'working towards cease-fire on network's aggressive coverage of Fox News' and wants to push hosts away from Trump-era 'opinionated and emotional' reporting and back to hard news’, Mail Online. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10589941/CNNs-new-boss-Chris-Licht-working-cease-fire-networks-aggressive-coverage-Fox-News.html
Helmore, E. (2022) Scandals, firings and ‘tabloid-like’ news – what is happening at CNN Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/13/cnn-jeff-zucker-chris-cuomo-fox-news (Accessed: 28 March 2022)
Jurkowitz, M., Mitchell, A., Shearer, E., Walker, M. (2020) ‘U.S. Media Polarization and the 2020 Election: A Nation Divided’, Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/
Robinson, P. (1999) The CNN effect: can the news media drive foreign policy? Available at: https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.uwyo.edu/stable/pdf/20097596.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A91ba49bb4083b4084c35fe2d0b413acc&ab_segments=&origin= (Accessed: 28 March 2022)
Scott-Clarke, E. (2022) Interview with Ed Scott-Clarke Moderated by Ben Conrow and Liam Leslie. (Accessed: 21 March 2022)
Socolow, M. (2019) The revolving door between media and government spins again with CNN’s hiring of Sarah Isgur Flores Available at: https://theconversation.com/the-revolving-door-between-media-and-government-spins-again-with-cnns-hiring-of-sarah-isgur-flores-112159 (Accessed: 28 March 2022)
Stroud, N.J., and Lee J.K. (2013) ‘Perceptions of Cable News Credibility’, Mass Communication and Society, 16(1), 67-88, doi: 10.1080/15205436.2011.646449.
Comments