Is “Raucous” News At FNC And MSNBC Beating “Passive” News At CNN?
“Fox and MSNBC are finding disruptive models for a news cycle that is not only continuous but raucous. Viewers still seek news, but along with it analysis and debate from pundits with strongly voiced opinions on the events of the day. And they want to be part of the dialogue themselves. Sometimes this leads to trivialization. But it also makes for a healthy forum, an around-the-clock national debate on what matters to Americans. Passive news networks are being left in its wake.”
— TV writer and political consultant Raymond Siller writing in USA Today about CNN.
A lot has been written about CNN and their upcoming prime time adjustments, at one or possibly two different hours. We’ve heard the partisan versus objective arguments – but is it an issue a of “raucous” versus “passive” model?
Raymond Siller writes in USA Today about ways CNN can ‘get creative’ with their line-up. Most are joking suggestions (“it could reprise Crossfire but in a different format, broadcast live from the Arizona-Mexico border”) but there are some real points: “CNN has tried to remain non-partisan while news junkies have migrated to the more opinionated hosts at Fox and MSNBC.”
Mostly, though, there are one-liners. “Fox’s success must be affecting the bottom lines of its competitors. It’s so bad you’d half expect one of CNN’s executives to get caught in a sting trying to sell access to Sarah Ferguson,” writes Siller. “If CNN continues on its course, dinosaurs will be suing for copyright infringement.”
Siller is a former writer for The Tonight Show – the Johnny Carson version. So, CNN fans can insert their own ‘dinosaurs’ joke here.
