A New CNN???

Normally Jon Stewart tells the truth and he's funny but last October he went on CNN's Crossfire and told the truth but he wasn't funny. The ramifications of that appearance would appear to be a shift in CNN's thoughts on what it's purpose might be, giving us the news. In a commentary today the New York Times explains:

As it turns out, an important moment in the annals of modern culture may have occurred when Jon Stewart of Comedy Central went on CNN's "Crossfire" last October and decided to be serious. He told Paul Begala, on the left, and Tucker Carlson, on the right, that their show, which specializes in encouraging midlevel political types to yell slogans at each other, was "partisan hackery" that was lowering the level of political discourse. At the time, he was widely denounced for failing to be funny.

But the fact that Mr. Stewart, a comedian, is perhaps the most influential political commentator on television is in itself a sign of the times, and it turns out he may be prescient about programming as well. Jonathan Klein, president of CNN, announced last week that he was canceling "Crossfire" and steering CNN back toward actual news.

Can you imagine that? a cable news network actually doing news. The Times continues:

Maybe this could be the start of something big. We have lived through a generation now in which television news operations grew more and more dependent on "talking heads" shows because they are inexpensive. Since conversation is not normally high-octane viewing, producers tried to raise the interest level by encouraging the guests to start yelling at one another. The Fox News network swept the decks when it combined the snarling heads with right-wing commentary. Soon, the all-news airwaves were awash with primal screams. People tuning in to hear how the election was going might very well have imagined they had clicked onto a pregame show for professional wrestling.

Perhaps this trend has gone as far as it can go. Mr. Stewart's "Daily Show," which is especially popular with young people, is a reminder that television was supposed to be a "cool" medium, best suited to people whose jugular veins aren't throbbing. And last month, when the tsunami hit Asia, viewers got a chance to notice what they were in danger of losing to talk TV. CNN, with a comparatively large international army of journalists at its disposal, went out and covered the story. Fox News and MSNBC had to depend more on conversationalists in the studio, all of whom agreed that tidal waves were very, very bad.

CNN built it's reputation with that "large international army of journalists" and for the most part they have been under utilized the last few years. I have to wonder if they have come to the conclusion they can't outfox FOX and discovered that when they actually use the resources they have available they can beat FOX in the ratings. I also have to wonder what will happen to the talking heads like Wolf Blitzer. Does he still have it in him to actually be a journalist? I guess we will see.