Review: 'King Charles'

When Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav talks about CNN, he frequently discusses how the network is one of "the jewels" of the company. But it's also clear that while he sort of knows what he doesn't want the news network to look like, he's not clear on what the end vision for CNN might be.

Zaslav and WBD investor John Malone have complained that CNN has been too partisan in the past, although it's also not clear what that means. Given some of the programming moves made since the merger, "partisan" seems to mean "appearing to pick on one side of the political spectrum, even if they might deserve it."

One option Zaslav has discussed at length is to widen the definition of what a CNN program might look like. It's not just politics, it's also breezy lifestyle stories and an increased reliance on non-hard news personalities.

Which brings us to King Charles, a Frankenstein mash-up of topics and styles that premiered on CNN Wednesday night.

The show began with hosts Gayle King and Charles Barkley interacting with a few people on the streets of New York City before they entered the building to begin the show. Although my suspicion is the segments had been produced days before, given the Avatar-level of editing that was involved in putting the segments together. I suppose the theory was that it would make the duo look more casual and show how they were close to the people. But honestly, it just came off like a bad opening for some local affiliate news program.

I hesitate to read too much into the comfort level exhibited on the first episode of any news program. It takes awhile for a chemistry to set in and for everyone to feel comfortable with the flow of the show. But the first studio segment of King Charles - which had King and Barkley seated side by side daytime talk show style - was at times painfully awkward. Barkley in particular looked more like a hostage than a co-host, although he did settle in once the forced banter was over and he could dig into some opinions.

The first story focused on Rep. George Santos, which is a story that has already been discussed to death on every talk and news show in America. CNN anchor and legal analyst Laura Coates and Van Lathan (who is the co-host of The Ringer's 'Higher Learning'  Podcast) joined King and Barkley to talk about the embattled congressman and they did liven up the conversation. But what was the point? Nothing new was brought to the conversation and it just felt unnecessary and pointless. 

Segment two covered a less-predictable topic: the decision of a judge in Georgia to allow prosecutors to use lyrics from a song by Young Thug as evidence against him in a trial alleging him of gang conspiracy and racketeering charges.

Coates stayed on to discuss the issue and Van Lathan was swapped out for rapper Fat Joe. This segment had some great conversation, although King and Barkley were almost side players in the discussion. And the lack of interplay brought up one of the biggest problems with King Charles. Gayle King and Charles Barkley feel as if they are participating in two different shows. Barkley wades right in with pointed questions and comments while King leans back and you can see her waiting for her moments to moderate the conversation or throw to the next segment. It's not that either of them are doing something wrong. But it just feels awkward and forced. 

Next up is a remote interview with Steve Kerr. The hook of the interview is that the famed NBC coach of the Golden State Warriors was born in Lebanon. His father was the president of American University of Beirut. CNN pulled up a piece of cool footage from the 1980s, showing Kerr's father being interviewed on the network, which is a nice way to highlight the history of the network. It also provides the hook for the story, because three months after the interview was conducted, Kerr's father was assassinated by terrorists.

The interview was a distinctive touch, but inexplicably, the bulk of the interview was conducted by King. She asked the expected news-ish questions and there wasn't anything wrong with the conversation. But the couple of questions that Barkley did ask turned out to be a lot more enlightening. 

The next segment was one that veered deeply into pop culture territory, with what was billed as the "first television interview" with Bryan West, Gannett's new fulltime reporter on the Taylor Swift beat and Cache McClay, Gannett's Beyonce beat reporter.

The brief interview felt more like a bad morning news show segment than something that fit with a CNN primetime talker. King asked each of them how they got the job, then she started to ask a question about the fine line between being a fan and being a reporter and ended up somehow talking about Charles Barkley's dating life.

It was an especially cringey interview. There are real questions about both reporter's roles as whether they are capable of reporting on their beat with anything more substantial than light-hearted gossip. But King spent as much time talking about how much she's a fan of Beyonce as she did the two reporters. Which is too bad, because West in particular has been the target of criticism (including by me) for failing to write about the disastrous series of recent Taylor Swift shows in Rio. 

The hour ended with a voice mail from the show's viewer call-in line and there's no better way to encourage viewer interaction than to open up with a message from Shaquille O'Neal asking King why she was willing to sit next to a "stupid man" man like Charles Barkley every week. 

King Charles mercifully ended until next Wednesday and I would describe the show as the Supertrain of news talkers. Although that would be unfair to the Supertrain, which might have been an iconic television disaster, but at least it was fast-moving.

King Charles airs on CNN Wednesdays at 10pm ET.