SIKANKU: CNN must act boldly: Martins, Smith are worthy replacements for Dobbs.

by Etse Sikanku

It’s pretty clear that CNN is going through some rough times. Now that Dobbs has left the network there is even less reason for conservatives of any kind to tune in.

If CNN is going to do well in this time slot they will have to recognize that just another hour of straight news will be downright boring. Yes, we all know that journalists are supposed to be transmitting information but journalism is also a privilege.The public service role of journalism will be incomplete if those in this position do not go beyond regurgitating “facts”.

Now I love John King because he’s my favorite kind of reporter (right up there with Ed Henry).However I doubt he’ll do anything to change the situation unless he alters his straight jacket reporter kind of presentation. Indeed if you consider CNN’s attempts at in-depth coverage, hard news and investigative reportage you’ve got to feel sad for their current position.

There’s got to be a reason why O’Reilly and Olbermann are doing better: partisanship and opinion journalism. CNN can tap into this model by appealing to the truly independent, non-partisan base. How? By finding someone who combines neutrality with the kind of forcefulness exhibited by Roland Martins, all mixed with a dose of Fareed Zakaria’s intellectual stimulation and Shepherd Smith’s on air presence. Is this so impossible? I know this sounds improbable, even mischievous and might NEVER happen but if it gets too hard they could take a chance on me, lol.

Anyway my point is this: there’s every indication that television viewers want more than straight news by the time it’s 7pm. Why not replace Lou with someone with a little more gravitas such as Martin or someone in the caliber of Zakaria. In fact CNN could be more daring by negotiating a toned Shepherd Smith from Fox since he’s one of the few personalities who’s loved by both the left and the right.

John King seems a safe choice plus everyone agrees he’s in love with that magic wall but he lacks star presence and will leave CNN playing defensively.

SIKANKU: Lou Dobbs quits: gain or loss?

Etse Sikanku

Yesterday was one of those rare days I got to scout TV channels in order to catch up with the television world. Little did I know that my short glimpse of Lou Dobbs will be the last I’d see of him on that station.

Lou's departure from CNN is a great disappointment because the network has lost one of its most independent thinkers. I know the man has been heavily criticized for his so called anti-immigration stance and his coverage of Obama’s citizenship issue. In addition it's a bit embarrassing to see him almost gagging CNN reporters to agree with his viewpoints anytime they report on his show.

His opinionated show may be at out of step with CNN’s notion of journalistic objectivity but at least he’s got an opinion even if you disagree with it. Don’t you ever get frustrated with people who you know are on TV simply because of their looks and nothing else? You’ve got to admit that Dobbs at least is not pretentious, synthesizes information and formulates an educated opinion which he brings to the public square. Isn’t that what the American ideology of democracy—which they’re seeking to export to the world—is based on? I cannot help but wonder how they expect the rest of us to buy it when they don’t seem to be sold on the idea themselves?

There is nothing wrong with reporting the news as it is but even in journalism school you learn that “news is a socially created product, not a reflection of an objective reality” (Reese, 1996, p.21). Since this is not a class paper (and I should probably be writing one now to save my grades), I don’t want to get into theorization. In fact, I don’t think we need theorists to tell us that news reports are often influenced by a variety of factors other than the search for “truth”.

If this is the case, then CNN’s cancellation is defeatist. Secondly, people are always going to tag them with an ideological label anyway. Moreover their recent slump in ratings shows that television viewers should not always be perceived as passive. Yes, there are times when it pays to be neutral or pursue a “middle along the road” approach. But there are other times when viewers want to be engaged. And that is where people like Lou Dobbs come in. After all hasn’t it been noted that “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality"? (Dante)

Instead of "throwing the baby out with the bath water" CNN should have re-structured Lou's show to permit his editorializing without allowing him to leave.