2022 Cable Breaking News: Not Really

In this world of uncertainty, one thing is constant: With scant exception, the news delivered by cable broadcast channels will either be incomplete, misleading, prejudicial or outright lies.

As usual one of the most misleading programs is Media Buzz, the long-running Howie Kurtz’s supposedly impartial look at the week’s news on Fox News Channel. But on his first program of 2022, on January 2, Kurtz again showed the true colors of Media Buzz by booking right wing stalwarts Gayle Trotter and Guy Benson to attack the current administration’s Covid messaging and the media for being soft on President Biden. Kurtz started the conversation by accusing the Center For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of being dishonest.  But the real deceit is when Kurtz pretends he is an impartial journalist. His guests over the years greatly range from right of center conservatives to far right extremists. Any objective media observer would label Media Buzz a more moderate right wing soap box than Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity (and other Fox commentators) but exceedingly right wing nevertheless. Perhaps the most yellow journalistic aspect of Media Buzz is that way too often Kurtz permits derogatory misinformation and outright lies from his conservative guests to go unchallenged.

On January 16, Kurtz said, “The mainstream media are suddenly going negative on President Biden.” Maybe he got his opinion from only watching his own network. The mainstream media had been hard on Biden for many weeks.

Two unforgivable demonstrations of shoddy, slanted journalism on Media Buzz occurred in February, when on Feb. 6 footage showed former President Trump saying that the only person killed during the January insurrection at the Capitol was the women shot by the police. Despite the distortion of the facts by Trump, Kurtz remained quiet, even though approximately 150 Capitol police officers were injured and several more died as a result of the riot. Then on Feb. 27, Kurtz read a few lines from New York Times columnist Bret Stephens essay about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which denounced the Russian action. But Kurtz’s taken out of context segment of the column made it appear that the columnist was criticizing the U.S.  

Listening to frequent Media Buzz guests like Mollie Hemingway, editor of The Federalist, a far-right organization, and Will Cain of Fox & Friends, a viewer would think that every liberal journalist was a graduate of the Baron Munchausen School of Journalism, and conservative journalists all have the virtues of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Atticus Finch.

Now that CNN has canceled Brian Stelter’s Reliable Sources, Kurtz touts Media Buzz as the only media analysis program on network television. But with weekly guests from the far-right Federalist Society and other extreme conservative advocates the program mostly resembles another of Fox’s paleoconservative programs.

Don’t trust me when I say that the Kurtz show is just another Fox right wing propaganda vehicle in disguise. Tune it in for a few weeks and you will see what I mean.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer deserves an early negative 2022 listing for his interviews with administration officials about their messaging regarding Covid. His questions are asked in a manner to get a reply that would create controversy instead of just eliciting information. Cable TV Grade A. True Journalism Grade F.

Three good examples of what’s wrong with cable news political coverage: 

• 1) A good example of what’s wrong with cable political news coverage was the January 19 Erin Burnett OutFront program on CNN.  After President Biden’s marathon two-hour press conference, all guest Abby Phillip, host of Inside Politics Sunday with Abby Phillip on CNN, could say was that the president didn’t get it, although she said it in many more words.  In her touchy feely manner she said of the president, “But what was missing was a sense of I feel what you are going through, and here’s how we’re going to resolve it.” Ms. Phillip’s would be better off sticking to the facts instead of telling viewers how she feels. Van Jones, the other guest, who was a former advisor to President Obama, was much more direct and zeroed in on President Biden’s problems: “I think what I came away with feeling was that the problems this country faces are bigger than one guy can deal with. You have a Democratic Party that can’t find a way to compromise with itself to help this president. You have a Republican Party that won’t cooperate to help this president and sometimes Biden can’t communicate well enough to help himself…” “And so you’re at a low point right now, I think the way forward is what he says. He’s got to get some wins on the board and he’s got to get out there and make his case better. But listen, with the numbers being what they are, there’s no way that one press conference was going to fix it anyway. You got to give him credit for being willing to stay in there and face the fire and keep pushing forward.”  In contrast to Ms. Burnett’s program, John King, on his Inside Politics January 20 program on the same network, booked three hard news political reporters and two veteran political strategists to discuss the Biden presser. The difference in the commentary and analysis between the two programs was striking: King’s guests provided concise analysis of Biden’s remarks, instead of the generalities provided by Ms. Phillip, and suggested what he can do to improve his standing before the mid-term elections. King’s program deserved an A-plus. Burnett’s a gentlewomen’s C-minus. Only Van Jones’s commentary prevented Burnett’s program from receiving a grade of F-minus.

• 2) The second example of the shortcomings of cable political news occurred on February 24, during discussions of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. CNN had the usual stale cable panel discussion, instead of having one true specialist on Russian-Ukraine politics, which included Abby Phillip, not exactly known as a Russian expert. As usual, her opinion was well stated, but the comment was in her usual general none specific analyses that cable commentators who are not experts on a specific situations are excellent at. I then tuned into   Chuck Todd’s program on MSNBC.  His guest was an actual Russian opposition leader to Putin. Who do you think was better qualified to opine on the situation?  Case closed. To be clear, Ms. Phillip might have background in U.S. politics, but to position her as an expert on the Ukraine situation is a disservice to viewers. Fox took a different approach. Instead of pretending they were featuring Russian-Ukraine experts, two veteran hard news reporters – Bret Baier and John Roberts – questioned the affect of the sanctions. It’s one of the few times that I can say that a discussion on Fox made for more honest journalism than on CNN.

• 3) Another major shortcoming of cable political reporting was evident on January 13, when President Biden finally made a speech detailing how the infrastructure money will be spent. Cable political news’s analysis of the subject was dominated by its regular broadcasters, most of who have no expertise in the matter and spoke in generalizations. Because CNN prides itself as the “hard news” cable outlet, I zeroed in on its coverage of the subject. Instead of booking guests with expertise who could talk intelligently and offer viewers insight about the infrastructure bill, CNN mostly relied on analysis by regulars Kaitlan Collins and Abby Phillip. Enough said. 

While the guest analysts on all cable political stations often provide analysis with insight, the staff analysts and beat reporters hardly ever provide anything new and, instead, offer viewers obvious comments camouflaged as expertise.

CNN prides itself on its hard news reporting. That’s true only during major happenings like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Otherwise it’s reporting is just as lame as Fox and MSNBC, even though it’s slightly better. 

Two on-going examples:

• 1)  Kaitlan Collins, the networks chief White House correspondent, excitedly details what White House spokespersons or President Biden has said. A Mynah bird can do that. All Ms. Collins does is parrot what officials have said. My first job as a journalist was covering high school sports. My editor used to say, “If you want to see your story in print, make sure it contains some information that other paper’s stories don’t have. Do some reporting and come up with new information or at least a quote that is different than what is said during staged press conferences. Don’t run with the pack.” I’ve yet to hear Ms. Collins report information that was different from other cable reporters, all who excel at pack journalism. And for those readers who do not know what pack journalism is, saying that cable reporters excel at it is not a compliment.  For those not familiar with the term it means every journalist reports the same story based on information from official sources instead of trying to uncover undisclosed information.

• 2) Contrasting Ms. Collins demeanor, Abby Phillip is always calm and collected as she gives her opinions on what an individual said. Why her opinion is more valid than anyone else’s is beyond me. What’s missing from both Ms. Phillip and Ms. Collins reports are what a news station is supposed to deliver – original news, not conjecture or carbon copies of reports on other stations. I can get more original news by tuning in the on-the-hour five minutes news summaries on my local radio station, WCBS in New York, which I do, than from watching CNN, MSNBC and Fox 24 hours a day.

Lack of space doesn’t permit me to list all the inane remarks by cable news hosts and reporters. But one that must be mentioned was said by Fredricka Whitfield, who anchors the weekend edition of CNN Newsroom. During a discussion about how Ukrainian teachers are conducting classes from remote locations Ms. Whitfield said at least that’s a “silver lining” learned from Covid. Her insensitive comment was made on April 9, the same day it was reported that 6,200,429 people had died from the disease and infections from Covid-19 and variants were increasing.

Critics of TV news have said that news programs are now crafted to provide entertainment. And Ari Melber’s MSNBC program certainly bears that out. Instead of limiting his guests to political experts, Melber often has show business personalities giving their take on the day’s happenings. That together with Melber’s “special reports,” whose contents are not at all special, gives him a place on this list.

Lame reporting on broadcast media is not limited to the cables, as was evident during a Biden presser, when Kristen Welker of NBC asked the president if he would run for a second term with Kamala Harris as his vice president. Good gosh. Did she really expect him to say anything but “yes.”? And Whoopi Goldberg’s lack of knowledge about the Holocaust didn’t prevent her from talking about it like she was an expert. Even though Ms. Goldberg is a regular on The View, which is not a cable program, she can be the poster girl for the cable TV culture:  Give someone an open mike and they think, or act, like they know everything. She’s also an example of why viewers should not depend on TV commentary as a source of information. Ms. Goldberg was suspended for two weeks for spreading misinformation, but that will not prevent anti-Semitic groups from capitalizing on her drivel.  But the most substandard reporting occurred on March 28, when David Muir, the anchor of ABC World News Tonight led what seemed forever about a report of the Will Smith/Chris Rock incident on the previous night’s Oscar telecast and gave short shrift to the most important news of the day – that a Federal Judge said that Donald Trump appears to have committed multiple felonies as he sought to return himself to power. Also disappointing from an important news perspective, as I was spinning away on a stationary bike, I tuned in Jake Tapper, the Washington anchor for CNN, and host of his weekday television news show The Lead. He seemingly spent more time on the Smith/Rock Oscar incident than the more than 3 1/2 hour tedious telecast of the show. Like Muir, the news about Trump was relegated to an after thought. I realize Tapper’s show is on cable – and anything passes for news on cable – but what’s newsworthy is that Tapper presents himself as a “hard news” person.)

Lately, the networks are adding more “hard news” political print reporters from prestigious publications. That’s a start to making the once prestigious broadcast and, hopefully, cable reporting more respectable. 

Nevertheless, in these days when American democracy is being attacked by a large percentage of Americans and extremist news outlets, where are the broadcast reporters who have the courage of speaking their minds as Walter Cronkite, Ed Murrow, William Shirer, Sam Donaldson and Dan Rather used to do. Today the only broadcasters that come closest to the aforementioned are Jim Acosta of CNN, Chris Wallace, who left Fox News for CNN, Shepard Smith, who  left Fox for CNBC (and whose show has been canceled) and very occasionally Jake Tapper of CNN. Instead of hard news what cable broadcasting political talkers largely gives us is the equivalent of talk radio with pictures – an analysis of news that has been reported by print reporters of major publications earlier in the day accompanied by slanted commentary.

In past columns, I’ve said that Shepard Smith and Mike Wallace provided Fox News with a modicum of respectability the network had as a trusted news source.  Now that they have both left the right wing propaganda network, any resemblance of trust has vanished. The same is true since Brian Williams has left MSNBC. It is now mainly a left wing version of the right wing Fox.

It’s now more important than ever for people who want to know the complete stories behind the news to read the news sections (not the opinion columns) of respected print publications and view the overwhelming amount of cable political programs as second rate entertainment, like TV sit-coms that should have been canceled after their pilot programs.

That’s because cable TV political coverage is a prime example of the worst type of news coverage: Pack journalism. And the same is currently true for network political coverage. (Another example of pack journalism are those after a ball game press conferences. But I’ve noticed a big difference between sports reporters covering them and the cable political reporter’s coverage of pressers.  Little, if any, of what is said by players and managers in those staged after the game press conferences ends up in print stories. Conversely, everything a cable political reporter says is based on what government officials disclose. And then come the round-table discussions). 

And not to be forgotten is an across the board failing grade to all the cable channels regarding their Covid coverage. Whenever the CDC changed its position on Covid, the cables unanimously said “too little too late,” when they should be applauding the CDC for revising its positions as the virus and situation changed.

What provides cable news with a semblance of respectability is the on-site coverage of its correspondents during fast-breaking news, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But that only occurs, maybe, once a decade, if that often. In between, cable news programs provide analysis from self-anointed experts with little expertise on what they are reporting. It’s as if just because someone is on TV viewers should believe they are listening to knowledgeable specialists.

What might best demonstrate a lack of respectability was cable’s coverage of the months leading up to the 2022 mid-term elections.

Lawrence O’Donnell on his MSNBC program The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell acted as a PR arm of the Democratic National Committee by having on his programs a constant stream of Democratic candidates for office and anti-Trump guests. The saving grace for Mr. O’Donnell was that he makes it clear to viewers where he stands on political matters without conveying false information or using verbiage to enrage viewers, which is the case by Fox commentators.

O’Donnell’s programs were the reverse of what opinion hosts on Fox News did during the run-up to the elections. Much of what Fox News commentators said was similar to what Donald Trump did – inflame viewers to believe that anyone who opposed Trump was a danger to democracy.

An example of the above: Despite respected pre-election polling showing that the red wave was hopeful thinking for Republicans, Sean Hannity on Fox cited less known polls showing that the GOP would win senatorial elections in races including those in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia, even though Fox’s own polls showed no such thing and reported so on its hard news coverage. Then after the elections were over the Fox opinion hosts zeroed in on another fabrication – that voting machines were fixed to give Democratic candidates margins of victory.

Both MSNBC and Fox should not be considered accurate disseminators of political news.  But there is a difference: MSNBC commentators do not support viewers taking to the streets. And that’s a big difference.

Of course opinions on cable political programs are not the only ones that viewers should not bet the farm on. Listening to hawkers on financial programs on CNBC and Bloomberg should be preceded with a warning – if we knew what we were talking about we wouldn’t have to do this for a living.

Perhaps I’m remiss about not recognizing that all the cable announcers are Renaissance people who have the ability to intelligently converse on all topics as situations change – from politics, to economics to world catastrophes like floods and earthquakes and fishing rights disputes, to what government leaders of various countries might be thinking.  But I can’t stop from believing that most of what they say is based on their own opinions without knowing the facts of a situation, because being a facile talker is what’s necessary to succeed on cable. 

The saga of Michael Avenatti, lawyer for Stormy Daniels, the pornographic film actress, who said she had been paid $130,000 to keep quiet about a sexual encounter she claimed she had with Donald Trump, is a prime example of the shortcomings of taking what you hear on cable TV political shows seriously. 

Some people believed the two could bring down Mr. Trump, who denied Ms. Daniels’s allegations.” Because Avenatti agreed with the program hosts political leanings, he was a constant guest on the programs of Ali Melber, on MSNBC, and Brian Stelter, on CNN. It’s doubtful if they did due diligence into Mr. Avenatti’s background before booking him. In any event, the Times reported that Mr. Avenatti has been a criminal defendant in several cases and “jurors convicted Mr. Avenatti of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, agreeing with accusations that he used a bogus letter to trick Ms. Daniels’s literary agent into sending him almost $300,000 in publisher’s payments meant for her.” Mr. Avenetti also made appearances on Anderson Cooper 360, on CNN, MSNBC’s Morning Joe. MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, and many other programs. (I’m still waiting for the hosts of those programs to publicly apologize for hyping Avenatti.)

There are four prime reasons that I consider cable news sub-par journalism:

Corrections: Cable rarely corrects a mistake. Prominent print pubs always do.

Reporting: Cable White House reporters are often praised by anchors for doing a superb job, when in reality all that’s being done is 

parroting what government spokespeople just said. Pick up the next day’s major print pub and compare the stories they run to what was reported on cable and you’ll see what I mean. The print stories are filled with facts, cable with conjecture.

Opinionaters: A cable reporters automatically becomes a “wise person” by giving an opinion during round table discussions, when in reality all they’re providing is their own opinion, which is not more valid than anyone reading this who closely follows political news, especially those who read prominent papers such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post, print pubs that provide details about happenings, not headlines and opinion talk as cable does.

Camouflaging the News: Often, what is presented as news on cable political shows is nothing more than an individual’s spin on the news. Shameful.

A prime example of cable TV’s inept political coverage can be summed up in one sentence: Too much so-called “expert” analysis; too little original reporting regarding news that hasn’t been reported first elsewhere. 

The year of 2022 once again highlighted prime reasons why I believe that opinions expressed by cable news staff anchors and reporters   should not be taken seriously.  Whether the subject was Covid, the economy, the Russian-Ukraine situation, and so many other topics, cable news staff “analysts” became immediate experts. Commentary on cable political news programs, 99 % of the time, should have a disclaimer chyron saying, “Opinions by our anchors and reporters should not be considered as having the same validity as those voiced by true experts on the subjects discussed.”

The cable news playbook is to give anyone a title and an open mike and hope the viewers think they are experts on topics they discuss. Of course, they’re not. And the viewing public should realize that.