All right, it\u2019s a grandiose headline, but what CNN might do could at the very least show a way for journalism.<\/p>\n
In \u201cHow to Fix CNN\u201d<\/a> in yesterday\u2019s Politico, <\/i>the only intelligent, original ideas came from Jay Rosen<\/a>:<\/p>\n [Rosen\u2019s] alt line-up for CNN prime time looks like this: (Please excuse my jokey titles\u2026)<\/p>\n All good ideas. But let me suggest a re-organization and a few other ideas.<\/p>\n First, shoot the messengers<\/b>, i.e., the politicians. OK, not actually shoot them or, God forbid, put them in cross hairs. But minimize them. Healthcare, financial reform, immigration, energy realignment, economic recovery\u2014they all are influenced heavily by what politicians do, but the pols don\u2019t inform the debate. People with expert knowledge do. What do those who study healthcare think will decrease costs? How can those costs be impacted by public policy? How do we approach end-of-life care decisions? The people who can answer those questions don\u2019t go to work at the Capitol. They are academicians, doctors, insurance executives, analysts and everyday people who have faced such issues. Three or four sitting around a table with a journalist who listens<\/i>\u2014rather than jumps in with his next question\u2014can lead to intelligent debate. Sure, some folks will say that\u2019s what PBS does and they don\u2019t attract more than a couple of dozen viewers. But NPR has its largest audience ever. It\u2019s not what I\u2019m proposing but it\u2019s a beacon of light for intelligent information.<\/p>\n Second, label nothing<\/b> left or right, liberal or progressive, totalitarian or libertarian. Labels close minds. Once you read \u201cthe liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities\u201d or \u201cthe conservative American Enterprise Institute\u201d readers and listeners have already made a judgment about the idea or viewpoint about to be expressed.<\/p>\n Third, don\u2019t aim to make news<\/b>; instead engender thought. This, of course, is ridiculous to many journalists. Their job is to report news. <\/i>Fair enough. But I\u2019m thinking of broadcast programs or long-form print journalism. The economics of the business is such that news organizations may need to change deadline driven news hounds into analysts, not of the politics but of issues. Think what would happen if a Congressman held a press conference and nobody came. It wouldn\u2019t be the end of the world. <\/p>\n Fourth, interrupt talking point messengers<\/b>. The journalists has no responsibility to let drivel drivel. The goal should not be to be \u201cfair and balanced,\u201d but \u201cobjective.\u201d That means telling someone, \u201cThat\u2019s not true.\u201d Eventually, you may need to simply banish certain guests. Still, the politicians have a role in my programming, but they don\u2019t own the airtime.<\/p>\n So here are my programs: Bob\u2019s Show, Carol\u2019s Show, Ted\u2019s Show, Alice\u2019s Show. In other words, put the focus on intelligent journalists who can foster insightful conversation. That would include the regular host, perhaps with subject specific reporters joining the conversations. The shows could tackle different topics each day. Hot issues, healthcare for the past year for example, might be a topic each night with each show\u2019s moderator tackling a different aspect of the issue. Think \u201cCharlie Rose.\u201d<\/p>\n And here is where I think Rosen\u2019s ideas fit in:<\/p>\n Begin each show with a fact check segment <\/strong>on the last 24 hours\u2019 most audacious claims or charges (also see last three segments for fodder). The segment should pay particular attention to hypocrisy. Instead of \u201cFact Check,\u201d call the segment \u201cTruth or Consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n Then the roundtable. Encourage participants to talk to each other. The moderator should interrupt for clarification or challenge, as well as follow a tangent when an answer requires it. Don\u2019t book people who are likely to foment argument for argument\u2019s sake but seek passionate viewpoints.<\/p>\n Then \u201cThunder on the Right,\u201d with the moderator one-on-one with a conservative politician asking him or her to respond to the arguments just elucidated during the roundtable. Again, the questioner must be willing to say, \u201cStop the talking points,\u201d or \u201cThat\u2019s not true.\u201d It\u2019s OK here to discuss the politics of the issue, of course. Why can\u2019t a good idea get done? How does our political system inhibit tackling big questions?<\/p>\n \u201cLeft-Brained\u201d is the mirror image.<\/p>\n And finally, \u201cOff the Wall\u201d or \u201cOut of Nowhere\u201d or \u201cA Third Way\u201d (which is not to be confused with the middle way.) Seek out ideas not enjoying widespread discussion. Let it be a two to five minute presentation in any format that makes sense.<\/p>\n Each of the last three segments are grist for the next day\u2019s \u201cTruth or Consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPolitics is Broken\u201d is not a recurring program but it is a recurring topic or issue. And by the way, it should have a dose of history, both to put the current political environment in perspective and to clarify what the Founding Fathers founded.<\/p>\n These shows may not fit into an hour-long format. Some topics may need 90 minutes. And CNN, with its broad resources for breaking news, can always preempt the regular line-up to cover such news.<\/p>\n My concern for Rosen\u2019s program ideas is how long will people want to listen, for example, to a program that is solely dedicated to knocking down political myths. That may be too cynical for the most cynical among us.<\/p>\n Journalism was never meant to be fair and balanced between fact and fiction. It\u2019s supposed to uncover truth. As the preamble to the Code of Ethics<\/a> of the Society of Professional Journalists states:<\/p>\n \u2026[P]ublic enlightenment is the All right, it\u2019s a grandiose headline, but what CNN might do could at the very least show a way for journalism. In \u201cHow to Fix CNN\u201d in yesterday\u2019s Politico, the only intelligent, original ideas came from Jay Rosen: [Rosen\u2019s] alt line-up for CNN prime time looks like this: (Please excuse my jokey titles\u2026) 7 pm:… Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[144,130,124,143,141,151,90,148],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1681"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1681"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1681\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nforerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"