CNN "is a very large stage, and a lot needs to be done to fix it," the source told Reuters. Zucker "has been itching to get back in the game, and this is the best opportunity out there for him."
Jeff Zucker To CNN: Former NBCUniversal Chief Will Reportedly Lead Network
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/29/2012|
Wasn't he fired from NBC?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/28/2012|
Who's on the short list to take over Zucker's executive producer spot on Katie?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/28/2012|
Is there any possible outcome to this EXCEPT that he turns CNN into soft news, touchy-feely talk shows, cooking shows, "celebrity" interviews, etc.?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/28/2012|
He can start by getting rid of Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, John King, Candy Crowley, and Dana Bash.
They have really steered CNN to the right, and they're pretty blatant with their bias.
CNN needs to get back to being IMPARTIAL, and just REPORTING the news, rather than commenting on the news. There's a big fucking difference there.
I used to love and trust CNN, for any and all newsworthy information. Today, I don't believe anything I hear on CNN, BECAUSE of the people mentioned in my first paragraph.
CNN needs to clean house, and bring in some impartial and professional news people.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/28/2012|
Well, goodbye to CNN's ratings then...
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/28/2012|
[quote] Well, goodbye to CNN's ratings then...
Um, that would be a GOOD thing, since CNN's ratings are in the shitter. Hence the need for a leadership replacement. DUH.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/28/2012|
He's expected to push the network to the left.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/28/2012|
Jeff Zucker made the Today Show #1, a streak that only ended last summer. He may have his detractors, but CNN needs help. You have Wolf being an idiot, Anderson hissing and giggling, Candy eating, John King's obvious huge cock is cutting off the blood to his brain. The entire network is in shambles.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/28/2012|
You know, if they just get rid of Wolf. OK. then don't get rid of him, just cut his hours back to like, one hour in the afternoon, before granny takes her meds. As for Anderson, they need to give him the Piers Morgan Show and lket him be Larry King's heir and do it properly, and get rid of Piers Morgan. Just send his ass packing. Day One: Goodbye, Piers, Goodbye, Wolf. I don't mind John King on Election night. His maps are cool. Dana Bash and Candy Crowley? Good Byee!!!
THis is how I would re-focus them, and market them: GLOBAL NEWS ORGANIZATION. This is one thing they really must do. Get international. That's their ace. No other network can do international like CNN. They have some decent international journalists, too.
There is a huge news vacuum out here.They can't just lurch from one disaster to another and give equal weight to a car bomb in Tel Aviv and the mass murder of 21 people in AZ. CNN has the capability of filling it with good solid journalism. All they need is the will.
MSNBC is excellent with their political coverage and commentary. They have a lot of smart people at MSNBC. CNN can't be MSNBC. But they absolutely need to get rid of every single ass who does punditry for them. Dave Gergen, Roland Martin (Ugh!) Gloria Borger, all of them. They are a joke. I would only keep Jefferey Toobin. He's damned good. Too good for CNN.
So that's it. That's the blueprint. Someone call Zucker, tell him Ted Turner wants to see him.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/28/2012|
R9, Candy Crowley did a good job keeping Romney in line during the Presidential Debate. We have to give her credit for that.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/28/2012|
[quote]THis is how I would re-focus them, and market them: GLOBAL NEWS ORGANIZATION. This is one thing they really must do. Get international. That's their ace. No other network can do international like CNN. They have some decent international journalists, too.
You're assuming that the American public wants to know what happens overseas. Yes, there's a dearth of foreign coverage, but Americans are very insular. I don't think the ratings would pick up.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/28/2012|
[quote] Candy Crowley did a good job keeping Romney in line during the Presidential Debate. We have to give her credit for that.
Um, no. Candy's a shill, just like the rest of the CNN blowhards.
The reason CNN is in the toilet is BECAUSE of the on-air personalities they currently have. R4 pretty much spelled it out.
People see right through the bs and partiality that people like Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper show, and they don't like it.
When the original CNN anchors such as Bernard Shaw did the news, it was always straight down the middle and "just the facts." I hate today's style of news.
If CNN wants to get back on track, they need to do a mass firing. An "amputation," if you will. And that means letting go of all the current staff.
They need new blood, new ideas, and STRICT IMPARTIALITY. If Fox is right, and MSNBC is left, then there IS a market for CENTRISTS, who really do make up the majority of the country.
CNN has to get back to Ted Turner's original idea for the network, and stop trying to copy the others.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/28/2012|
Piers Morgan just Tweeted that his ratings are way up.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/28/2012|
They should get rid of ALL of the pundits, especially the vile Ari Fleischer, Bay Buchanan, Mary Matalin, Erick Erickson. Also Dana Bash, Erin Burnett, John King, Wolf, Tom Foreman, Candy Crowley, Gloria Borger, Fran Townsend, Jessica Yellin and David Gergen, Suzanne Malveaux (boring), the reporter who was following the Romney campaign around (forgot his name, but he's a right wing shill). Stop pretending to be non-partisan when they aren't.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/28/2012|
Drew Griffin, ugh. I want him gone too.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/28/2012|
"He can start by getting rid of Anderson Cooper..."
No worries there, pal.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/28/2012|
[quote]They should get rid of ALL of the pundits, especially the vile Ari Fleischer, Bay Buchanan, Mary Matalin, Erick Erickson.
I agree with getting rid of these.
David Gergen still has moments of objectivity though, as does Gloria Borger.
And Wolf Blitzer has some good qualities. He was complimentary to Obama on election night, more so than some of the others were.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/28/2012|
[quote]He can start by getting rid of Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, John King, Candy Crowley, and Dana Bash.
Please add Erin Burnett, Gloria Borgias sp?, and Soledad O'Brien to that list.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/28/2012|
R4. Zucker can get rid of Piers Morgan and maybe Dana Bash. But Candy Crowley, host of "State of the Union," stays put.
Give Carol Costello a prime time anchor job!
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/28/2012|
Get rid of Richard Quest.
Can't CNN find an American with a speech impediment who SCREAMS?
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/28/2012|
Soledad O'Brien is one of the only good anchors at the network, idiot at R18
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/28/2012|
[quote] And Wolf Blitzer has some good qualities. He was complimentary to Obama on election night, more so than some of the others were.
Job security, baby. He could see the writing on the wall, and realized very quickly that he needed to change his tone because Obama would be President for four more years.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/28/2012|
[quote]David Gergen still has moments of objectivity though, as does Gloria Borger.
After the election Gergen and Borger were STILL blaming President Obama for GOP obstruction - saying it was HIS fault that they wouldn't compromise, so both of them can GO, IMO.
Soledad regularly calls out Republican bullshit, she needs to stay. Candy Crowley just repeats right wing talking points.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/28/2012|
R16 what's wrong with Andy? He's the only reason I ever watch CNN. I know you'll probably say he's a conservative or republican or something to that effect. To which I'll say show me the proof. It's funny on Twitter how half the tweets i read directed at him accuse him of being a liberal and the other half accuse him of being a conservative. He must be good if no one can figure him out. During the election he was attacked from both sides and when he was in Gaza/Israel he was attacked from both sides. The guy can't win it seems (even amongst his gay brethren). Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He was attacked for staying in the closet and then attacked for coming out.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/28/2012|
I'm not sure how Anderson leans politically, but his show seems to have given up on balance and only has Republican politicians and pundits on each night now and they all do nothing but bash Democrats and President Obama - maybe they've got some kind of directive from CNN bosses to go this route, but they don't seem to even care how biased they're looking now. Wolf has been in for Anderson this week, but it's no better when AC is on - the Republican worldview is the one that seems to dominate CNN and their programs. They continue to ignore WHO EXACTLY WON the White House and what voters want.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/28/2012|
"Jeff Zucker made the Today Show #1, a streak that only ended last summer."
He also plummeted the network to fourth place. He destroyed the Thursday night lineup that had given the network stellar ratings for two decades. And he inflicted that Conan-Jay fiasco on us.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/28/2012|
Anderson has clearly favored Romney and the Republicans the last few years. It's been discussed ad-nauseum here. He never thanked the President for endorsing gay marriage, even though he constantly publicly criticized Obama over his silence. He said the democrats were just as guilty of doing what the Republicans did to Shirley Sherrod, yet never gave one instance of when such an incident occured. And he twisted Debbie Wasserman Schultz's words around to make a fool out of her, leading Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives to publicly thank Anderson for giving the Republicans a huge victory heading into the convention.
In fact, I say show me the proof that he's a democrat or liberal. Even when he was letting people have it during Katrina, not once did he ever publicly attack or criticize Bush.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/28/2012|
I'd keep Anderson, Soledad, Jeffery Toobin & John King. Is Fareed Zacharias still on CNN? He should stay.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/28/2012|
Get rid of Sanjay Gupta!
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/28/2012|
Yes, I'm sick of Sanjay too.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/28/2012|
Zucker???!! Kiss CNN goodbye now.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/28/2012|
[quote]He's expected to push the network to the left
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/28/2012|
FIRE ERIN BURNETT.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/28/2012|
I wish he would, I hate how it is now, always over-focusing on what Republicans want.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/28/2012|
The ratings for CNN are in the basement, but CNN is making money. There was a discussion about this on NPR today.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/28/2012|
I don't think he'll get rid of any of the on-air people. They probably all have long-term, rock-solid contracts anyway.
On the other hand, my guess is that he'll dumb down the content considerably.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/28/2012|
They need to just get rid of all the "old" white men on the show and ship the over to FOX. People would probably start watching again.
Keep AC in the field. Lord knows if he sits in a chair every nite and opens his tea party republican mouth viewers will continue to drop that show like flies.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/28/2012|
[quote]he'll dumb down the content considerably.
Considering how bad it is already, how is this even possible? But Gawker does indicate that hiring Zucker is a TERRIBLE idea for CNN.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/29/2012|
I wonder if NBC Insider is reading this. Is NBC breathing a sigh of relief to be rid of Zucker?
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/29/2012|
Anderson Cooper better brace himself for a pay-cut and reduced work load.
Zucker is going to start poaching people from NBC.
And he will need AC salary to do it.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/29/2012|
The problem with CNN is that in trying to be neutral they piss off both informed leftish viewers and passionate rightist viewers. There isn't much audience for political news outside of the people who follow politics closely, and almost all of them will have a point of view.
Also, their "neutrality" requires them to use partisan guests to represent each side, and they do nothing but repeat the day's talking points. They don't answer questions thoughtfully
CNN should turn its attention away from a focus on politics.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/29/2012|
But the thing is, CNN only pays lip service to being non-partisan and neutral. In practice, they are anything but that and tend to lean right in order to try and capture stray Fox viewers. It's never worked and it only blows up in their faces:
[quote]CNN's false storyline that Democrats are the main obstacle preventing elected officials from reaching a budget deal disintegrated before its eyes. The network hosted two Republicans who made clear that they would not allow tax rates to increase for the wealthiest Americans no matter how many concessions Democrats made.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/29/2012|
People on the right call it the Communist News Network. As I said, CNN pisses off both sides and pleases neither. Political junkies have somewhere else to go.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/29/2012|
[quote]They have really steered CNN to the right, and they're pretty blatant with their bias.
Replace "right" with "left," and you'll see exactly what they're saying about it on FreeRepublic.
[quote]Even when he was letting people have it during Katrina, not once did he ever publicly attack or criticize Bush.
That would be because a journalist -- by that I mean an actual journalist, not a pundit -- does NOT attack the president directly, EVER.
[quote]The problem with CNN is that in trying to be neutral they piss off both informed leftish viewers and passionate rightist viewers.
EXACTLY. The New York Times has the same issue. It's like if I tell you to start noticing silver Honda Accords: for the rest of the day you'll suddenly start seeing LOTS and LOTS of Accords on the road and comparatively few Camrys, and then start wondering how all the reports about Camrys outselling Accords could be true when you've seen with your VERY OWN EYES that there are scores of them out there. Point being, you see what you want to see, and if you want to see "conservative bias" on CNN, you'll see conservative bias.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/29/2012|
The posts on this thread are a perfect example of why CNN's ratings are in freefall. On the one hand posters are calling for the firing of anchors or pundits they view as "biased," wanting to eliminate any "personality" on the network and have it return to purely 100% hard news, period. On the other hand the whole *reason* CNN is so far behind Fox News and MSNBC in the ratings is *because* it stuck to its "hard news" rep for so long that people started viewing it as stodgy, and the most likely viewers of cable news -- extreme partisans on both sides -- defected to the networks that best parroted, and then amplified, their existing viewpoints.
I honestly don't know what Jeff Zucker could do to improve CNN ratings, at least in the short term. Under NO circumstances is he firing AC or Wolf, so those of you who irrationally hate either of them may as well not even bother wishing it. Even if his CNN show doesn't garner massive ratings, AC is by FAR the network's most well-known figure these days, particularly given his participation on "60 Minutes" (still a top-10 ranked show) and more recently on "Anderson." Wolf's a close second, but only because he's been on CNN since the Stone Age. I suppose he could return to the tried-and-true "Today" formula of mixing hard and soft news, but it remains a question whether viewers want that in the evening (and Zucker isn't stupid enough to try to go up against the major networks with a morning news show). Basically Zucker has to figure out how to attract *new* audiences to the network, not existing cable news viewers, since God knows Fox News devotees aren't switching channels any time soon.
About the only thing I can think of that would cause an implosion in the existing early-evening cable news market would be for him to get Oprah to host something news-related.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/29/2012|
There's been a DEFINITE slant to the right on CNN. The Freepers have always thought CNN was a liberal channel because that's how they think about the media in general, but CNN was never as right leaning as they are now, this is not something imaginary or an overreaction. I guess you'd have to be a really long term viewer to detect what's been going on with CNN. Why would CNN hire inflammatory, fact-challenged right wingers like Erick Erickson or Dana Loesch? They started moving more to the right and boosting the Tea Party/GOP a few years ago. Right up to the day before the election you had Dana Bash and John King talking about how Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting Romney than Democrats are about voting for Obama, that was completely absurd. David Gergen and Gloria Borger were blaming President Obama for the lack of compromise, never once acknowledging what the GOP was doing. Even now CNN will have shows that feature a panel of Republicans with NO Democrats to balance out the discussion - CNN wants the right wing view to be the dominant one on the network. I wonder what Zucker's going to do about that.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/29/2012|
"That would be because a journalist -- by that I mean an actual journalist, not a pundit -- does NOT attack the president directly, EVER."
Then why does Anderson attack Obama?
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/29/2012|