Forget Chasing Non-Partisanship, CNN Should Embrace Populism

<This piece was originally published in a slightly different form in the Too Much TV newsletter>

Cable news networks hold a unique spot in the minds of most TV viewers. If you watch one of the major networks, you likely do so because its perceived editorial bent matches your political beliefs. Fox News skews to the right, MSNBC more to the Left. And CNN is...well it's definitely not a conservative news outlet, but it's also not fully leaning left. But that doesn't mean it is a centrist news network and in part that is because finding the middle in the current news environment is almost impossible. So CNN often wanders around trying so hard to be non-partisan that the network's programming often feels bland and forgettable.

The fortunes of the network haven't changed since it was acquired as part of the arguably ill-advised Discovery Communications/Warner Media merger. Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav has said in several interviews and appearances that while he sees CNN as one of the "crown jewels" of the company, both he and close advisor John Malone feel the network's news approach needs to be more "non-partisan." Although he doesn't define what that might look like. Also, he thinks the network's programming should include more entertainment, sports, and pop culture coverage. So far, that has mostly translated into some forgettable primetime specials and the trainwreck of a talk show, King Charles.

When new CNN head Mark Thompson sent out a companywide "CNN's Future" memo in January, he announced a number of personnel changes and spent a lot of time talking about digital platforms and the need to build a true multimedia newsroom.

Which is all well and good and I agree that CNN's digital presence needs a deep overhaul. But CNN's core problems are related to digital, any more than the Titanic's problems were centered around having a better evacuation procedure. CNN's struggle is primarily one of editorial direction, although that's not something you'll likely hear from company executives. Because that is a challenge that doesn't respond well to buzzwords.

In a recent interview, the topic of CNN came out and I was asked what I would do if I were running the network. Of course, I had a snide answer, but it's a question that I kept coming to a great deal in the following days. What would I do if I had the opportunity to lead strategy for CNN?

I think Zaslav's instinct is right, although I suspect he got there via an entirely misguided pathway. Success for CNN means not picking one side or the other. Not because picking a side will impact the ratings. Most conservatives already see CNN as some liberal, deep-state outlet. And a lot of people on the Left see the network as a bland organ for the establishment.

So CNN has to find a path that allows it to leverage its vast local news affiliates and international reporting. It needs a story mix that catches viewer's attention and that means covering stories that resonate with viewers of any political affiliation. Stories that connect with Main Street in a way that Fox News and MSNBC can't manage.

Over the past few years, focus group after focus group has found that a large number of Americans struggle with the same issues. They feel abandoned. Good-paying manufacturing jobs have left the country. And that impacts workers in every place from the deep rural south to the biggest urban cities. Local stores (with local jobs) have been swallowed up by large hedge fund-driven semi-monopolies.

It feels as if every aspect of America - all the important community institutions that used to bind us together - are now just hallowed-out piggy banks that are being sucked by private equity funds and then discarded.

And no matter the politics of the people you ask, they all feel as if they've been let down by the government. By the media. That the issues that are important to them are dismissed by power brokers on Wall Street and in the Federal Government.

And that's where I think CNN's focus should be. It needs to non-partisan voice of the viewers. It needs to be the voice of populism, the one place where issues that matter to America as a whole can be reported on and highlighted.

The beauty of focusing on populism is that it is political, but not partisan. It allows CNN to concentrate on topics that are intimately important to viewers but have a political component that allows the network to leverage its existing news assets.

So what kind of stories am I talking about? Take this piece in Atlantic which discusses why veterinary bills are so huge. And like all modern-day villain origin stories, it begins with the injection of private equity money into a formerly sleepy industry:

In the United States, corporations and private-equity funds have been rolling up smaller chains and previously independent practices. Mars Inc., of Skittles and Snickers fame, is, oddly, the largest owner of stand-alone veterinary clinics in the United States, operating more than 2,000 practices under the names Banfield, VCA, and BluePearl. JAB Holding Company, the owner of National Veterinary Associates’ 1,000-plus hospitals (not to mention Panera and Espresso House), also holds multiple pet-insurance lines in its portfolio. Shore Capital Partners, which owns several human health-care companies, controls Mission Veterinary Partners and Southern Veterinary Partners.

As a result, your local vet may well be directed by a multinational shop that views caring for your fur baby as a healthy component of a diversified revenue stream. Veterinary-industry insiders now estimate that 25 to 30 percent of practices in the United States are under large corporate umbrellas, up from 8 percent a little more than a decade ago. For specialty clinics, the number is closer to three out of four.

This type of story hits the sweet spot for CNN: The Populist Network. It's a nationalized issue with political ramifications. However, it has a strong local component which allows CNN to access coverage from local stations. It's the type of story that is incredibly viral. And it has very little to do with partisanship. 

This is not to say that CNN should ignore the breaking political issues of the day. But covering those issues isn't going to nab any viewers. The phrase "The Voice Of The People" is so overused it is basically a trope. But that is where CNN should focus its attention. On the social and political issues that impact its viewers on a daily basis.

Read this Reddit thread from last year, which is filled with examples of products or values that seem to have deteriorated in recent years. Zip-Loc bags that don't zip half the time, canned vegetables with an increasing number of bad pieces in each can, and clothing that falls apart just months after you've purchased them. The thru-line with all of these issues is a market consolidation that left 2 or 3 companies controlling the vast majority of that specific product or service.

Las Vegas hotels find they can make more money being half-full because all the major hotels use a common booking software called Rainmaker that sets an "optimum" price for rooms. No one is concerned about being undercut, because all of their competitors use the same software, and every hotel agrees to hew to the "suggested" price.

Wonder why rent prices continue to rise, no matter what the economy might be or how many apartments are available? In a lot of bigger markets, large and medium-sized rental companies use landlord price-fixing software called Real Page. It helps landlords set the highest possible price and it discourages competition.

Honestly, there are a hundred examples of similar consumer-unfriendly business practices happening right now. And while Americans might not be able to define the problem, their unhappiness with the way things are in 2024 is helping to drive the slump in consumer sentiment.

Imagine the power of a CNN that tells its viewers "We're On Your Side." The network highlights these stories and uses footage from local affiliates to show how the problems have affected average Americans. And it uses its access to policymakers to ask why things can't be changed for the better.

Rebooting CNN as a populist outlet might seem a bit ironic, given that it is owned by a company that is a textbook example of what is wrong with the merger-happy American executive class. But in part that is why the move might work. WBD's size gives it some room to breathe both editorially and financially. And while some of the populist news coverage might make David Zaslav and his Scooby Gang of number crunchers squirm a bit, a boost in revenue from CNN will likely ease of a lot of the complaints.

What would I do if I ran CNN? I would reinvent the network as a voice of the discontented and powerless. I would pick a fight with every powerful institution in America and make billions while doing it.

But that's just me.