Regrettably, CNN has been one of America's main sources for "serious" news for some time. Its reportage of international affairs has been woeful since the beginning, and its coverage of subjects like Israel and Palestine has always felt like it had been pre-approved by the State Department. One can consult the detailed and voluminous public-polling literature to see how little Americans know and understand on the topic of international affairs, especially their country's involvement in them. As I am always careful to make clear: this is not because Americans lack intelligence; it is because they have never been taught or shown their country's history.
From the Guardian piece:
In fact, CNN's ... problem is not that Americans hanker for a different kind of news, or a different kind of presenter, or even a different time slot to watch it. It is that many of them these days do not want to watch news at all. They want opinion.
It is not necessarily opinion Americans want, it is certainty they are after. And people who are bent on certainty clearly suffer from a sense of uncertainty. They are resentful and frustrated with the various economic and political realities, and on some level they know that they lack information and education. So when a news commentator blusters about why the country is going in the wrong direction, holding so-and-so or such-and-such group responsible, the mode of delivery is quite seductive. Fox News and rightwing ("conservative") commentators shine in this department. What is said - despite being ahistorical, or nonsensical, or fear-mongering, or racist - is stated with total authority and absolute confidence. And for an indignant population that lacks understanding and doesn't know who to trust, this kind of assertiveness offers the viewer a moment of gratification. He or she feels a sense of confidence, artificial though it is.
This lack of informed, clear thinking is revealed in how a lot of Americans discuss politics and history. The discussions become debates, which then very quickly can become tense and/or awkward. These exchanges more often than not involve men, so there is naturally a masculine desire to save face and not appear weak, unknowledgeable, or unintelligent. But beyond the gender dynamic, the reason political conversations degenerate is that the participants are mostly uninformed. And once each interlocutor has exhausted his cache of one-liners and stock phrases, the rest is a venting of frustrations. As I have witnessed on any number of occasions, when someone who is informed and rational enters the exchange, the introduction of history and cogent analysis throws cold water on the situation and oftentimes produces one of three responses on the part of those blowing hard: there is (1) the tantrum or meltdown, (2) the withdrawal or silent stew, or (3) the wandering of the eyes and the brisk changing of the subject.
Aunt Mabel then announces there is to be "no politics or religion." We have all heard this announcement. In a certain and limited way, I agree with her. Mabel is merely seeking to preempt what is only bound to occur. During time spent in the Middle East, I very quickly noticed that politics get discussed, a lot. And there is no attempt to squelch the conversation, because that is what it is. It's a conversation. This is not to suggest that these exchanges between, in this case, Arabs don't get heated or contain strong disagreement. (Believe me, they do.) But the anger is more directed at the subject matter; two people might strongly differ with regard to interpretations or possible solutions, but they at least concur on the fundamentals. Americans, on the other hand, are not always clear about the fundamentals and simply get angry at one another.
In addition, being on the receiving end of US and Western policy offers a unique insight. As many scholars and thinkers have observed over the ages, victims are not allowed the luxury to forget. Therefore, Middle Easterners frequently bring a sense of history to the table. And as the men (again, usually men) discuss the various issues, Aunt Miriam - Aunt Mabel's Arab counterpart - is instead nodding in agreement.
Also from the Guardian piece:
Experts say the phenomenon [of news organizations emphasizing branding and viewpoint] is a sign of the atomisation of the viewing market as, with a plethora of channels to pick from, Americans are increasingly able to simply choose a news channel which will just present ideas they already agree with. But for CNN there is a problem. With Fox and MSNBC already occupying the right and left of the political spectrum, there is nowhere obvious for CNN to go.
Well, there is an obvious path CNN could take, but it is highly unlikely. They could try informing the public with historically grounded, analytically rigorous journalism. And if a bit of controversy and spice is requested by the marketing department, then simply show Americans what is and has been really - and I mean really - going on in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine and Lebanon and Pakistan. The folks in marketing have my personal guarantee that were US foreign (and domestic) policy covered around the clock in the starkest and most unvarnished of terms, CNN would have the country's undivided attention. It would forget Fox News and MSNBC even exist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/03/cnn-loses-way-partisan-hosts
