By Jeffrey Lord
CNN President Jeff Zucker says this about CNN’s mysterious inability to get to the real truth of the bogus Trump-Russia collusion story, as reported by Mediaite: https://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn-president-jeff-zucker-defends-networks-coverage-of-mueller-probe-we-are-not-investigators/
CNN President Jeff Zucker Defends Network’s Coverage of Mueller Probe: ‘We Are Not Investigators’
The article reports this:
“Defending the network’s extensive coverage of the investigation, CNN President Jeff Zucker told The New York Times his employees are not investigators and he was “entirely comfortable” with their reporting.
‘We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did,’ Zucker said.”
The president of CNN says “We are not investigators.” Really?
Then how in the world does CNN explain this CNN web site headed – wait for it – “CNN Investigates”?https://www.cnn.com/specials/cnn-investigates
Yes indeed. The network that couldn’t find it in their ability to investigate bogus targets of “Trump-Russia collusion” has had an entire web site trumpeting the network’s ability to investigate.
Let’s take a tour through “CNN Investigates.”
It says among other things, this:
“Seek truth. Break news. Hold the powerful accountable.”
There are all kinds of “CNN Investigates” stories listed here. The topics range from investigations into guns, Uber, sex crimes by a charity leader, the “secret calendar” of an EPA administrator and the actual body count of deaths after the hurricane in Puerto Rico. A number of stories report on action being taken by this or that agency as a result of a CNN investigation.
So did CNN seek the truth in all this “Trump-Russia collusion” business? A guest I once met in the CNN Green Room in New York was a journalist from The Hill named Amie Parnes. Along with fellow journalist Jonathan Allen, Parnes had written a book on the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign titled Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign. Among other things, the book reported this of the Clinton campaign leadership after they realized they had just lost to Donald Trump:
“Their strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. (Campaign manager Robby) Mook and (campaign chairman John) Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up and up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”
So in all the time since that appearance, as one CNN report after another dealt with a new “bombshell” that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election? Where was the thorough, in depth, CNN investigation into that information from the Parnes and Allen book? Information that stated flatly the entire Trump-Russian collusion business began with the defeated Clinton team conjuring a “script” that they would “pitch to the press and the public”? Information that was in a prominent book whose author was in fact on air as a CNN guest to discuss.
“CNN Investigates”- suddenly – did not investigate.
CNN was far from alone. In fact, MSNBC and The New York Times and The Washington Post had the same startling lack of curiosity about the entire Trump-Russia collusion story.
Worse, was this. Here is this headline from Fox News the other day:
Dershowitz says CNN ‘banned’ him for not conforming to ‘one-sided presentation’ of Mueller report
Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard Law professor emeritus, had appeared on Martha McCallum’s The Story and said:
“CNN banned me from their air because I was being too fair. I was trying to assess what the essential issue was, and I wasn’t being partisan. They didn’t want that. They didn’t want that.”
Then there was this from the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald, telling Tucker Carlson about being banned from MSNBC: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-greenwald-rips-msnbc-to-tucker-carlson-they-fed-people-total-disinformation-and-exploited-fears-on-russia/
“There was a whole slew, not just me, of left-wing journalists with very high journalistic credentials, far more than anyone on that network, like Matt Taibbi and Jeremy Scahill and many others, including myself, who were banned from the network because they wanted their audience not to know that anybody was questioning or expressing skepticism about the lies and the scam that they were selling because it was so profitable,” he continued.
Got that? Alan Dershowitz was banned from CNN, and Greenwald, Taibbi and Scahill were banned from MSNBC – all for the same reason.
They didn’t buy the Trump-Russia collusion delusion. And since this was not what CNN or MSNBC wanted to hear – much less investigate – they were banned from the network.
There was no “journalism” involved here. There was no attempt to get to the bottom of an allegation that on the face of it made no sense. Voters in supposedly “blue” states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin did not vote for Donald Trump because the Russians told them to do it.There were no Russians manipulating voting machines in the thousands of precincts that voted for Trump.
As now detailed by the Mueller report, after an investigation involving what Attorney General Barr’s report described as 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, professional staff, 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 230 orders for communications records, 13 requests to foreign governments and interviewing 500 witnesses – there was no finding by the Mueller investigators of Trump-Russia collusion. It was a fiction. Or, as described in Shattered, it was “a script” that the Clinton campaign officials “would pitch to the press and the public.”
There are humorous renderings of this media obsession with the fevered imaginings of Trump-Russia collusion out there on You Tube, as here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjvRJLUWwFs&t=70s and here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLEchPZm318&t=26s There are some of the most prominent people in the world of journalism endlessly insisting that “the walls are closing in” on Trump or that there is another breaking news Trump-Russia “bombshell” or that “the beginning of the end” is at hand and a Trump resignation is looming. Humorous, yes. But also a deadly serious illustration of just how obsessed serious people were in spreading serious disinformation to their American and in some cases global audiences. It was the group think of the herd on parade. And it is exactly the same kind of herd thinking that led the same people to believe Hillary Clinton was going to win the 2016 election in a landslide.
Here is a sample of people, not all of them Trump supporters or conservatives, who have grasped the damage all of this is doing to outlets like CNN and the rest:
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone headlines this from his new book Hate Inc. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million
It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD
“Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media….Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population…”
David Brooks of The New York Times managed this:
“And what about the rest of us? What about all the hours we spent speculating about the Mueller report, fantasizing about the Trump ruin or watching and reading speculation about these things? What about the superstructure of scandal politics we have built and live in today?
The sad fact is that Watergate introduced a poison into the American body politic. Richard Nixon’s downfall was just and important, but it opened up the mouthwatering possibility that you don’t need to do the hard work of persuading people to join your side. Instead, you can destroy your foes all at once through scandal.
The nation’s underlying divides are still ideological, but we rarely fight them honestly as philosophical differences. We just accuse the other side of corruption. Politics is no longer a debate; it’s an attempt to destroy lives through accusation.”
The Federalist’s Sean Davis noted this in The Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-catastrophic-media-failure-11553555444?mod=trending_now_1
“Robert Mueller’s investigation is over, but questions still abound. Not about collusion, Russian interference or obstruction of justice, but about the leading lights of journalism who managed to get the story so wrong, and for so long.
It wasn’t merely an error here or there. America’s blue-chip journalists botched the entire story, from its birth during the presidential campaign to its final breath Sunday—and they never stopped congratulating themselves for it. Last year the New York Times and Washington Post shared a Pulitzer Prize “for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” A 2017 Time magazine cover depicted the White House getting a “makeover” to transform it into the Kremlin.
….No unverified rumor was too salacious and no anonymous tip was too outlandish to print. From CNN to the Times and the Post, from esteemed and experienced reporters to opinion writers and bloggers, everyone wanted a share of the Trump-treason beat.
…Mr. Trump didn’t collude with Russia, but he did defeat Mrs. Clinton. From their behavior it is evident that many in the media view that as sufficient to establish his guilt. For them, the Trump-Russia investigation was never about protecting democracy or securing elections—never mind telling the truth, which is supposed to be their job.”
Over at The Daily Caller, reporter Amber Athey assembled an entire listhttps://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/media-russia-collusion-mueller-report-fake-news/ of phony “bombshells” on Trump-Russia collusion that in fact would prove to be exactly “fake news” – reported not just by CNN but outlets like NBC, ABC, Bloomberg, the Post and the Times.
Or, simply put, what Americans have witnessed over the last two years is what Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett described to Sean Hannity this week: “Media malpractice.”
Now. Recall this statement from a few weeks back?
“The fact is they work at a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”
The speaker was CNN president Jeff Zucker, and the “they” he was discussing were Fox News journalists. And this week? This week, as is everywhere in evidence, it is CNN – and MSNBC, The New York Times,The Washington Post and all manner of other left-leaning journalistic outlets – who now stand revealed as, in fact, having done serious damage.
Time for a little self-reflection? Or a CNN investigation of – CNN?
Don’t count on it.
Pick up Jeffrey Lord’s Swamp Wars: Donald Trump and the New American Populism. Out on May 28th. Click here.
OP-ED: JEFF ZUCKER: President of the Leftist State Media
By Jeffrey Lord
Over the weekend my old CNN boss, Jeff Zucker, participated in an interview at the South by Southwest (SXSW) gathering in Austin.
According to news accounts he said this of Fox News: https://grabien.com/story.php?id=163609
“Frankly, it is really state-run TV. It is a pure propaganda machine and I think does an incredible disservice to this country. There are a handful of good journalists there, but I think they are lost in what — what is just a complete propaganda machine, and the idea that it’s a news channel is I think really not the case at all.”
Really? With all due respect, one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Jeff Zucker has said on occasion that he has wanted to run for political office. (And one suspects he would not be running as a Reagan conservative.) But in fact he already holds office – as the de facto president of the Leftist State Media. Nominally he is the president of CNN, but in fact CNN is but one component part of the larger left-wing propaganda machine that composes the Leftist State Media.
One can go for one’s news to CNN or MSNBC or ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and countless internet outlets and see that Jeff’s presidential domain is considerable.
Every last one of those outlets is about pushing the left-wing agenda of the moment – and oh yes, in this day and age attacking President Donald Trump.
The Leftist State Media in modern America is what in another era, when the Soviet Union was alive and well, was called the Department for Agitation and Propaganda – or the ministry of propaganda whose sole function was shorthanded as “agitprop.” In those days there was only one official newspaper for the Soviet population – Pravda or “Truth.”
In today’s American media world the “Truth” comes from – and only from – the Leftist State Media.
Long before CNN – when Jeff Zucker was barely out of diapers – then-Vice President Spiro Agnew first discussed what he saw – way back there in 1969 – as a real problem with the media of the day. The Vietnam War was raging, and President Nixon had recently addressed the nation. Nixon had been followed by a collection of liberal television commentators who proceeded to tell the American people what they thought Nixon had really said.
In a then-famous speech in, of all places, Des Moines, Iowa, carried live by the television networks of the day (there were only three, and cable news did not yet exist) Agnew said this:
“The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues of our nation.
First, let us define that power. At least forty-million Americans each night, it is estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view ABC; the remainder being divided between NBC and CBS. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans, the networks are the sole source of national and world news.
In Will Rogers’ observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today, for growing millions of Americans, it is what they see and hear on their television sets.
How is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen “anchormen,” commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that is to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what forty to fifty-million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and the world.
We cannot measure this power and influence by traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break–by their coverage and commentary–a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure, and ignore others. For millions of Americans, the network reporter who covers a continuing issue, like ABM or Civil Rights, becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury.
…A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official, or the wisdom of a government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the power of the networks to equal that of local, state, and federal governments combined. Certainly, it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.
What do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little, other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence, seemingly well informed on every important matter.
We do know that, to a man, these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C. or New York City–the latter of which James Reston terms the “most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.” Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism. We can deduce that these men thus read the same newspapers, and draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints.”
The media problem Agnew described all the way back in 1969 – a full fifty years ago, when Donald Trump was a mere 23 years old and barely a year out of grad school – has now metastasized, dominating the vast media complex of today.
The very prominence of New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the bartender-turned-congresswoman and media star, is the literal manifestation of Agnew’s point that the media “can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week.”
Jeff Zucker also said this of Fox anchors:
“They chose to work at Fox and they don’t get to hide behind the fact that they’re excellent journalists or anchors. The fact is they work at a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”
That statement all by itself is a perfect illustration of how President Zucker of the Leftist State Media sees his job – which is to arbitrarily declare his decidedly liberal opinion as fact. No wonder Jim Acosta feels free to do exactly the same thing.
It is worth recalling that Fox News was created in 1996 – during the Clinton presidency, when CNN’s lavish pro-Clinton coverage had won it the derisive nickname the “Clinton News Network.” Fox was followed three years later by Rush Limbaugh and the explosion of conservative talk radio.
The reason for the success of Fox News and talk radio is exactly the failure of the Leftist State Media. Millions of Americans, doubtless unknowing in absorbing Agnew’s long-ago point, have had it up to their eyebrows going from one “news” outlet to another only to get some version of the exact same liberal spin.
Here is CNN on the Clinton-Trump race. The headline: https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll-of-polls/index.html
CNN Poll of Polls: Clinton tops Trump by 10
The story begins:
“(CNN)The post-convention polls are in, and they consistently show Hillary Clinton entering the next phase of the presidential election campaign with the upper hand over Donald Trump.”
Here is the New York Times in its “Upshot” column: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html
Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win.
“The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls.
Here is The Huffington Post: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94
HuffPost Forecasts Hillary Clinton Will Win With 323 Electoral Votes
The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. RepublicanDonald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory.
And on and on went this business of one Leftist State Media outlet after another all saying exactly the same thing – Hillary Clinton was going to be the next president and Donald Trump had no way open to win.
Change the subject from the 2016 election to, say, abortion, climate change, the economy or any of dozens of issues out there and time after time after time it makes no difference. You will get the left-wing agenda of the moment delivered by whatever outlet of the Leftist State Media you are choosing to watch or read.
Let’s cut to the chase. The real reason for Jeff Zucker’s angst is that Fox News and conservative talk radio, not to mention all manner of conservative internet sites have broken the stranglehold of information that once was the sole preserve of the Leftist State Media. And the only way the LSM chieftains see to get their monopoly back is to literally try and take out Fox News and conservative commentators one by one, with Media Matters and others doing the dirty work.
It is safe to say that that the Leftist State Media has in its midst “excellent journalists or anchors.” But when story after story after story is either wrong or obviously presented to further the Left’s favorite agenda item of the moment, (Hillary certain to win! Trump friend Anthony Scaramucci tied to Russian investment fund! Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress! Trump and son tied to hacked documents from Wikileaks! Climate change report contradicts President! Covington kids confronted Indian elder and Vietnam veteran!) then in fact the Leftist State Media, in Jeff Zucker’s words, is for sure “a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”
In fact, it is safe to assume at this point that the members of the Leftist State Media simply can’t help themselves. They are so far gone from journalism that they will say and do anything to push the Left’s agenda, damaging not only the country but themselves.
Which is exactly why Jeff Zucker’s CNN, the Washington Post and doubtless soon-to-be-others in the Leftist State Media now find themselves being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for libeling sixteen year old Covington student Nick Sandmann. They simply could not stop themselves from doing it.
And the irony? It is Fox News and conservative media that has assumed the journalistic task as described by CNN founder Ted Turner the day CNN first went on the air in June of 1980.
“To provide information to people where it wasn’t available before.”
Pick up Jeffrey Lord’s Swamp Wars: Donald Trump and the New American Populism. Out on May 28th. Click here.
FAKE NEWS: To Russia With Love
The headline at Fox was this: Growing questions about CNN’s airport monopoly as network veers left
The article begins:
“CNN’s ubiquitous presence in airports — where it broadcasts from thousands of screens to a captive audience of millions — is facing new scrutiny after the cable network’s hard left turn.”
Question: Has CNN taken a “hard turn left”?
I realize Fox is a competitor and the two networks have much back and forth. But this latest description of CNN as having taken a “hard left turn” makes one wonder: was CNN always “left”, and is this latest turn of the network really just another moment in the history of a network that, in one fashion or another, was always “left” because it’s founder – Ted Turner – evolved into a hard left guy himself?
Let’s start in the decade that gave birth to CNN and prominence to the admitted genius of its founder, Mr. Turner. That would be the 1980’s.
Ted Turner, Atlanta billboard impresario, edged his way into the cable media business with by purchasing a solitary Atlanta UHF station. Eventually, he secured permission from the FCC to use a satellite to transmit his “Super Station” signals across the country. Soon there was the creation of the Cable News Network – CNN. And the birth of the era of cable news that now so transfixes the country and the world was at hand.
“There’s a reason crowds chant ‘CNN Sucks'”
– Sean Hannity
In the beginning, Turner, replete with a Southern drawl, was seen as a seriously right-wing guy. After he had some success with CNN and it was floated that he might buy CBS – a gold-standard broadcast network – liberals foamed and fumed. It never happened. But something else did. Ted Turner, ever so slowly, was turning Left. And with one exception – his 1991 marriage to the famously left-leaning actress Jane Fonda – there was no better example of the culture Turner was incubating in his Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) than a 1988 seven-hour, three episode documentary that was his idea – the title: Portrait of the Soviet Union.
It appeared as both television episodes – with an introduction by Turner himself – and a very glossy coffee table-style book. The television show was hosted by the late actor Roy Scheider, famous for his role in the Spielberg blockbuster Jaws and an Oscar-nominated turn in The French Connection among other roles. The book version was authored by Britain’s Sir Fitzroy Maclean.
Let’s recall some of the lines from the TV show, now safely stored on YouTube. The show opens with an introduction by Turner himself, promising “a look at the heart and soul of Soviet life.” A narrator’s voice takes over touting the series as Ted Turner’s idea, saying that when the Soviets were first contacted “it was never imagined” that the series would “awaken a sleeping giant” and inviting viewers to get to know “this great land.” All of this done against a backdrop of everything from polo playing horsemen to a reindeer-driven sled, young dancers and, but of course, a glorious, flag-waving parade through Red Square. Scheider is introduced and off the viewer goes into a magic land of 1988 Soviet inspiration.
Right from the start, it is clear the idea is to celebrate the Communist state as Scheider rhapsodizes, to the tune of heroic music including the Communist state’s national anthem, as follows:
“Onward into the future. The dream of the Soviet Union. In a country covering one-sixth of the world, 280 million people from over 100 races, live in a federation of fifteen Republics. The Soviet Union, draped in history, born of bloody revolution, bound together by a dream that is still being dreamt. It is the dream of a socialist nation, marching towards the first Communist state. The Soviet Union – a mighty union…..Once the Kremlin was the home of czars. Today it belongs to the people…Atheist though the state may be, freedom to worship as you believe is enshrined in the Soviet Constitution…Modernization on a grand scale. A great success.”
In the archives of the Media Research Center is this assessment of the project:
“Perhaps the most amazing piece of pro-Soviet propaganda produced in the 1980s was Ted Turner’s seven-hour Portrait of the Soviet Union, shown in the United States on the CNN founder’s TBS Superstation. Even the New York Times, in a March 20, 1988, review, deemed it an embarrassment, saying that the three-part series ‘is possessed by the same spirit that once led George Bernard Shaw to throw his dinner out the window of a Soviet train — because food was redundant amid socialist milk and honey.’”
By the 1990’s, the Soviet Union may have gone but there was a new left-leaning cause to be defended: the Clinton White House. And sure enough, another Ted Turner property – CNN – took up the cause. The Media Research Center documented the doings of then-CNN president Rick Kaplan, Clinton pal and what was becoming known as “The Clinton News Network.” A few were:
- At CNN, Kaplan attended an insiders-only Gore campaign mock debate.
- At CNN, Kaplan produced a two-hour special on Clinton’s 1996 fundraising scandal. The special was biased in favor of Clinton, as Kaplan instructed CNN staff to “limit their use of the word ‘scandal’ in reporting on Clinton’s campaign fundraising woes.”
- At CNN, Kaplan became a repeat overnight guest in the Lincoln Bedroom.
All of this comes to mind as one takes in the recent criticism of Fox News by CNN’s current leader, Jeff Zucker. Note this as written up in The Hollywood Reporter:
“CNN president Jeff Zucker lashed out at competitor Fox News at an industry conference Thursday afternoon, saying that the network “is really state-run TV. It is a pure propaganda machine, and I think does an incredible disservice to this country.”
He said Fox News has changed substantially in the last two years, following the departure of late founder Roger Ailes. He described the change at the network as “shocking.”
“There are a handful of good journalists there, but I think they are lost in what is a complete propaganda machine,” said Zucker, who claimed Fox News “has nothing on” the Russian government-run TASS Russian News Agency.
Zucker added: “The idea that it’s a news channel, I think, is really not the case at all.”
Without a trace of irony, Zucker actually compares Fox to TASS, the Russian News Agency. This when the founder of CNN itself came up with the idea in the 1980’s of a salute-to-the Soviets series that even the New York Times found embarrassing because of its gushing Leftist salute. And the network became infamous in the 1990’s as “The Clinton News Network.”
CNN Chief Jeff Zucker, “the porn king off cable news”
Which raises the question. If Fox News is a “complete propaganda machine” – isn’t CNN? Except instead of being “pro-Trump” or “state-run TV” as is the Zucker accusation about Fox, CNN is the opposite – “liberal state-run TV”. And it is the latter because liberalism has always been part of the CNN culture thanks to the formative culture established by its founder.
As noted here by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, CNN’s coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office was, along with NBC’s, “the most unrelenting”. CNN’s coverage scored a full 93% negativity on its Trump coverage. That is nowhere close to the idea that CNN is a “just the facts” network
Among other things, this has resulted, as noted here at RealClear Investigations, in a push to remove CNN from the ubiquitous television monitors that permeate U.S. airports on the grounds that it has now become nothing more than leftist propaganda.
Zucker is obviously well within his rights to take CNN any direction he wishes. God bless a free press. But when one goes back and takes a look at the Portrait of the Soviet Union as presented by CNN’s founding father, then looks at the Clinton years coverage plus the Shorenstein analysis of the first hundred days of Trump administration coverage – 93% negative – it is more than fair to ask if CNN hasn’t become exactly what it is criticizing at Fox. A propaganda machine – for the Left. And that it is that in the first place because culturally speaking its corporate culture has always been thus.
If the “porn king of cable news,” Jeff Zucker, left CNN tomorrow, there is every reason to believe that the corporate culture would not change as it was clearly well-established long before Zucker ever arrived. As typified by what was effectively Ted Turner’s documentary – a documentary that might more accurately have been titled To Russia With Love.
Which, not to put too fine a point on it, was something the very media savvy late Roger Ailes understood in his bones. And which explains why exactly the conservative Fox News keeps relentlessly winning the ratings – and Sean Hannity is called “the King of Cable News.”
Jeffrey Lord is a frequent contributor to Hannity.com. You can follow him on Twitter @realJeffreyLord