NYU Media Critic ‘Retires’ From Critiquing CNN: They’re ‘Brain Dead And Proud Of It’
Noted TV critic Jay Rosen has given up on critiquing CNN.
In a lengthy blog post Tuesday morning, the New York University journalism professor explained his decision to “retire” from criticizing the cable news outlet, citing his belief that most other critics simply “don’t care” that CNN has turned into “tabloid TV.”
“As of today, I have retired from criticism of CNN for falling short of some sort of journalistic standard that news providers should maintain,” he began. “That activity no longer makes sense. Let someone else receive the ‘ratings, you idiot’ replies on Twitter. I’m done. I’m pretty sure you don’t care about this announcement, either. Which nicely illustrates why I’m done.”
Rosen goes after his colleagues in the media criticism business who ignore “journalistic standards” in favor of “ratings, so shut up” arguments praising CNN’s decision to go near wall-to-wall coverage of the George Zimmerman murder trial. Ultimately, this futile debate and several other factors led to Rosen’s bowing-out of the CNN criticism game:
1. Jon Stewart does it better.
2. CNN makes $600 million a year for Time Warner, but if you challenge one of their ratings-driven decisions the main thing you hear back is: hey, they have a huge business problem on their hands. What can you say to that?
3. The other thing I hear back ad nauseum is: “Jay, watch CNN International, so much better.” Uh… okay. I don’t have CNN International in my cable package, but I do know how to change the channel. So thanks!
“What I was trying to accomplish by criticizing CNN has been overridden by Jeff Zucker,” Rosen continued. “CNN’s problems were well stated a few years ago by a competitor, Phil Griffin, head of MSNBC, who asked: ‘What do they stand for?’ That is the million dollar question. The answer CNN people had always given was pretty simple: breaking news!”
But now, Rosen said, CNN has made it clear that they stand for:
The same thing Entertainment Tonight stands for! Television that occupies your attention, not for a purpose but merely for a while. Another answer might be “drama without dramatists,” meaning: drama where the plots and characters are provided by the people unlucky enough to be caught up in tabloid-ish or flashpoint events. Trials are ideal for that, but so is the poop ship. Criticism of these tactics actually tells Zucker that he is on the right track. Now the ratings are up relative to his competitors, and nothing ends the conversation like an uptick in the numbers. Unless it’s bringing back Crossfire, which is like saying, CNN: brain dead and proud of it.
CNN no longer holds itself to a “higher standard,” Rosen lamented, followed by his conclusion: “I’m saying farewell. I used to say: I criticize because I care. But I no longer do.”
Read the full piece here.
