This Is CNN Now

I don't watch CNN very often, so I would not have noticed a change in its coverage except for the fact that many people in my Twitter feed have been apoplectic about its recent change of top managers, followed by his terminating the contracts of Brian Stelter and John Harwood in quick succession.

My feed is convinced that the new CEO, Chris Litcht, has dictated positioning the network's future coverage to compete with Fox News, and some recent stories were given as evidence.

An anonymous (as far as I can tell) account, who claims to have worked at CNN for 18 years, had a long thread explaining what's going on, and I have to say it makes a lot of sense:

Each quarter, the Cable Operators release their subscriber base. For seven consecutive years, the cable operators have seen subscriber declines for 84 months. It’s called in the TV biz, “Cord Cutters”

97% of the “Cord Cutters” are under the age of 50. The majority of what is left watching cable like we have known, are very very old people

As demographics for TV rapidly has changed to a very old age group, the networks remaining with any traction (ESPN, News Nets, etc.) HAVE TO appeal to who is sitting on their couch watching news 24/7.

Again, they are very very old people relative to the US population.

In the ratings war, the scorecard is usually based on a 18-49 demographic. But not for News. No one buys news networks going after 18-49. No one. All advertisers on these nets buy them for 50+.

MSNBC went left. Fox News went right. CNN tried to play the middle.

The problem with CNN was they built a powerhouse in the 90’s. We printed money. Cash. Hand over fist.

Then MSNBC and Fox News came along. The race was on. MSNBC went velvet rope. Fox News went diner. CNN got caught in no man’s land.

But the money kept coming in.... Bernard Shaw hiding under the desk when Baghdad got bombed. Aaron Brown broadcasting for 20 hours straight during 9.11.

We loved the accolades. We sold on it. But what we didn’t do was take a look at what was happening.

The viewership started to splinter to MSNBC cause some folks wanted a left bent. But a lot went to Fox News.

In fact between 2008 and 2016, CNN lost 60% of its 50+ audience. Fox News saw a 70% increase in the same demo during the same period (mostly men). Fox News gave the audience what they want, an aggrieved white man perspective. While we chased the “next shiny object.”

Not arguing Fox News is right. Absolutely not. They are evil to the core.

In 2010, the team at CNN got the Fox News Strategy for sales and that was their strategy (they got ours too and MSNBC - happens all the time). Some of us said “uh oh, they’re right.” The audience is no longer 18-49. Others laughed and mocked it

Trump came and CNN started to make a shitload of money again by being the “counter” to Fox News but it was based on perception not reality. No one was still watching. Why?

While the rest of America is out there cutting the cord, Fox News doubled down on old people. And won....

News Networks are not here to defend democracy. There is only one goal and one goal only. Higher CPM’s [cost of impressions per thousand].

CPM is the currency used in TV to reflect the value of the programming. The higher the CPM, the higher the margin on that commercial being sold....

The ratio for Fox News CPM’s are much higher relative to their audience they attract, which means their margins are higher which also means the “value” to who they are selling to is more profitable.

Chris Litcht was given one edict: Raise CPM’s. That’s it. That’s all he has to do. And he believes this is how.

Which is depressing enough. And then the thread continues after a break:

We all [the networks] were killing it before the Citizen's United ruling. But that ruling opened up the flood gates exponentially.

Every 2 years, $1 billion would pour into the networks during election cycles. It changed how we did business.

News Networks make more money during the 3 months leading up to mid-terms than they do all year. Imagine candy manufacturers during October leading up to Halloween. Now multiple that by 10x. And a Presidential Year: Fuggetaboutit. Ch-Ching!

What made PACs and campaigns spend money? Was it the coverage in war zones? No way. We saw once we put people like Rick Santorum on the air, liberal groups would pour money into our pockets....

This is THE singular reason why no one in news talks about Citizen United. We made the decision in 2012 when $770 million was poured into News by PACs. After that, we told the anchors to stop talking about it.

Close your eyes and imagine CNN, MSNBC FOX NEWS without PAC spending. You can’t. They can’t.

If they lived in a world where PACs couldn’t spend money at will, they’d all be out of jobs. Simple as that.

They’ll never want it gone. I’ve seen the books. The business would shut down...

I've never fully considered how dominant PAC spending is within news network economics before. I  especially never thought of the way that putting obvious right-wing advocates like Santorum on the air would cause Democrats and Democrat-supporting PACS to spend more money with the network in an attempt to balance the coverage.