Too Much TV: If I Ran CNN

Here’s everything you need to know about the world of television for Thursday, March 12th, 2026:

NON-PARTISAN IS NOT A BUSINESS MODEL
I have been extremely critical - perhaps brutally so - about the changes that have taken place at CNN since the Warner Bros. Discovery merger. Vague talk about becoming "non-partisan," awkwardly executed programming moves and a sense that no one at WBD seems to know what to do in order to move the network in the proper direction. All of which has led to a substantial loss of viewers, especially in primetime. Who could have guessed that audiences would not respond positively to a haphazard mix of interviews, roundtables and town halls?

WBD CEO David Zaslav and chief advisor John Malone spent a lot of time arguing that CNN needed to be more non-partisan. Which in reality meant hiring an uber conservative such as Scott Jennings, whose mission seems to be to snark his way through every segment he participates in during primetime. 

And now there is CNN's new prospective owner David Ellison, who argues CNN has been too biased and that it needs to cater to the "70 percent of the audience in the middle." But what does that mean, exactly? Based on what is going on at CBS News right now, it appears to mean that focusing too much attention on the problems of the Trump Administration is "too partisan." And if that is your jumping off point, how do you ever think you are going to attract that mythical 70 percent of the audience you claim exists?

The truth is that CNN's effort over the past several years to turn itself into a center-right non-partisan alternative has overall been a failure. Conservatives don't trust CNN and the more the network leans into its shift towards the right, the more audience it sheds. 

This is not to say that being seen as the more centrist, more populist cable news network isn't a bad place to be. It's just that Ellison - like Zaslav before him - doesn't seem to have a sense of how to do that. But if Fox News is dominating the conservative media and the newly independent MSNOW is embracing its progressive face, where does that leave the oldest cable news network?

I have spent some time thinking about what I would do if I was asked to run CNN and it's an interesting thought experiment.

I do think there is a lane for CNN is to be the alternative to Fox News and MSNBC. But that alternative is not to attempt to be "non-partisan." In part, because no one seems to be able to define what that looks like other than adding more conservative voices to the on-camera mix.

I believe that the future for CNN is to look back at what made it successful in the early days. And that was the network's outsider status. 

CNN began its life in Atlanta and that was where it was headquartered for the first couple of decades of its life. A lot of the anchors and reporters were from outside the Beltway, although to be honest, that was as much a budgetary decision as an editorial one. But in those early years, CNN felt different because it was centered outside of the normal cable news business. Being in Atlanta made the network feel more Middle America, less just another East Coast big media outlet.

I would do as much as possible to harken back to those days. Move towards doing a live two-hour morning show from Chicago and follow that up with another two hours live from Denver or Phoenix. Begin dropping those paid political commentators whose best political expertise is that they used to work in the White House or on a few national campaigns. Aggressively move towards discovering new local and regional voices. Lessen the amount of airtime spent on endlessly rehashing "breaking" political news from yesterday and use CNN's national and international resources to discover regional and local stories bubbling just below the radar of the national press.

The current primetime schedule is the hardest problem to crack without a lot of additional resources. But one way of building that out on the cheap is to use an hour or two of pre-prime space as a workshop for new talent. Give them one directive: "See how Rachel Maddow reinvented what it means to be a primetime news anchor? What would you do to make this format your own?" It's not about having the liberal approach of Maddow. It's about rethinking what a CNN news program should look like. Maybe it's rebooting a variation of Crossfire. Maybe it's developing a political news-driven variation on Pardon The Interruption. Do some test shows internally and then roll out the best ones onto that early prime time slot. CNN needs a show or two that can create a buzz in a positive way and this is the most cost-effective and least painful way to do it.

If I ran CNN, I would approach it as if I were running a start-up news channel rival with very limited resources. Try crazy stuff, innovate in ways that no one would greenlight. If the new CNN looks like no other news channel, then the partisan complaints will fade. Or at least, there will be a similar level of complaints from both sides, which is essentially the same thing.

And no matter what, don't send your anchors to do some live remote just because every other network is doing it. It's expensive and it doesn't bring value to the viewer or the network. If you are going to spend the resources on a live shot, make it one that no other network is bothering to do.

The best way to turn CNN around is to strip it back down to the studs and build it for today's audience. And, of course, fire Scott Jennings.

THE PEOPLE WHO SHUN POPULAR POP CULTURE
The Atlantic's Anna Holmes has a great piece about people who reflexively resist watching anything that is considered "popular" at that moment:

“But have you seen Severance?” you might ask. No. Slow Horses? The Night Manager? No and no. I also haven’t seen Sinners—even though I love a period piece and a good fright, and everybody I know is obsessed with it.

This tendency is something I’ve come to call “hype aversion”: an avoidance of the pop-culture products that seemingly everyone insists I would like. It’s not that I’m somehow above it all or too cool (I don’t consider myself cool at all). Some people are early adopters; others are late adopters. I’m simply a weirdly resistant one.

Does this make me a jerk? I don’t like to think so. Contrarian doesn’t quite describe me; my rejection of The Pitt isn’t an attempt to appear provocative or argumentative. And nonconformist doesn’t work; it suggests a person allergic to the zeitgeist, which I’m not. (After all, I covet Clare V. bags. I own a pair of Stan Smith Adidas.) I’m also not a dissenter. Dissent suggests a protest against something that a person has previous experience with, or doesn’t believe in; but my pop-culture resistance is different from having seen something and deemed it wanting or boring. I’m not necessarily worried about encountering pop culture that turns out to be bad. I just don’t care to act on it if it’s supposed to be good.

ODDS AND SODS
* The movie Thrash is premiering Friday, April 10th on Netflix. Here is the first video look at the film and here is a photo gallery. And this is the very sparse official logline: "When a Category 5 hurricane decimates a coastal town, the storm surge brings devastation, chaos and something far more frightening: hungry sharks."

* The BBC has renewed a deal with The Traitors producer Studio Lambert, which will keep that show on BBC1 and its iPlayer through 2030. Studio Lambert also produces the U.S. version and licenses the format in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. And honestly, I'd like to see all of those pop up on Peacock.

* More Bluey is coming to Disney+. Bluey’s Big Play - The Stage Show, a special televised version of the popular touring theatrical production, premieres Monday, March 16th. And a collection of ten “Bluey Minisodes,” previously only available online and in Australia, will also be available for the first time on Disney+ beginning Wednesday, May 20th.

* CNN will debut a new original series, Kara Swisher Wants To Live Forever, at 9 p.m. ET/PT on Saturday, April 11th.

TWEET OF THE DAY