CNN Adopting More Substantive Style?

There has always been a clear difference I noticed when watching partisan interviews on Canadian news in comparison to American news. While American stations like CNN focus on big, loud debates with many personalties, Canadian news often has individual guests on one after another. (Image: CNN) However, this might be changing. When watching CNN over the past few weeks, I noticed a growing trend on its shows to feature more one-on-one interviews compared to panel discussions with four or more people. So what does this change mean?

Simply speaking, I believe that this offers a more bipartisan format (assuming one group doesn't always receive the rebuttal slot). Why is it more bipartisan without a back-and-forth discussion? More often than not, panel discussions become an opportunity to yell talking points in response to a comment rather than develop ideas.

By focusing on panel discussions, CNN has historically gone for the entertainment value they provide. It also allows the network to push many big names onto the screen at once. One-on-one interviews allow the interviewees to say their side of an issue uninterrupted. This style has been a long-standing feature of many CBC broadcasts, especially shows like Politics with Don Newman.

CNN adopting this style means there could very well be less shouting matches and more discussion as a result. If the host of the show plays a fair and balanced role in the interview, the viewer will benefit by seeing constructive discussion and each side of the issue without yelling. Just in case you aren't familiar with the styles, I've included screenshots of each. What do you prefer?

Panel Style (Source):

One-on-One Style (Source):

Read more...

CBC Floats Over Details

It is interesting to me that a public media outlet such as the CBC would downplay a left-wing concern that even Drudge put on his front page. Is the CBC being neutral or being sloppy? (Image: CNN) Hilary Clinton, Obama's Secretary of State, has been visiting Chinese officials this past week. Instead of focusing on a controversial remark that has many bloggers frustrated and concerned, CBC decided to stay positive.

During the trip to China, Clinton made the controversial remark that the economic situation takes precedence over humanitarian concerns. This comment was not in the headline of the CBC article, as it was with many other mainstream versions of the news.

The concerns are being relayed in the mainstream press, except CBC's that report placed the controversy low in the inverted pyramid. The AFP wire story was headlined "Activists 'shocked' at Clinton stance on China rights" in comparison. Why did CBC do this?

To me, this statement by Clinton should raise alarm bells for anyone acting in the public interest. How could it not be a concern, as explained by many responses to the news, that this stance will allow China to feel less pressure in future dealings? CBC did not act in the public interest in this article.

Some may not be surprised by this failure by CBC, but as someone who has had some respect for its work, I am a bit concerned by it. Some might not even see this as a failure, but I can't agree with that stance. The structure of the CBC article downplays the importance of this development. Even if there is significant information and background it is after the proverbial fold.

It baffles me that the CBC would publish such an article. With such an important issue of public interest at stake, the public media failed to act in a way in line with its "not-for-profit" goals.
Read more...