In an effort to improve viewership among conservatives, CNN recently initiated talks with conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh regarding a future show. This is a tacit admission that Fox News, CNN's main competitor, is right: conservatives overwhelmingly find that the major networks, and CNN, do not represent the conservative point of view. CNN has watched over the past five years as the infant Fox News Channel's ratings have improved and now surpass CNN. Conservative viewers have left CNN in droves because there is now a viable alternative to CNN's unbalanced coverage. Over the past six months, Fox has averaged a .8 Nielsen rating, while CNN has garnered only a .7, even though CNN is available in more homes. It's only natural that CNN might court a well-known conservative like Mr. Limbaugh to mitigate Fox's advantage. CNN should be commended for considering this action, which would increase the ideological diversity and balance of the network.
Though no deal has been finalized with Mr. Limbaugh, there has already been a deluge of criticism from liberal interest groups. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), said, "CNN's image will forever be tarnished by giving someone like Limbaugh an even bigger microphone." Perhaps it will -- among liberals. But bringing a different perspective to the network, especially in an opinion format rather than as a part of the news division, would merely facilitate diversity of thought at the network and would not necessarily sacrifice the network's objectivity.
Any media departure from the liberal orthodoxy seems to be cause for concern from interest groups. Gandy said, "CNN shouldn't have to sink to the level of Fox News Channel to win viewers." This is ironic because, by adding Rush Limbaugh, CNN would be mimicking exactly the strategy that turned Fox into a powerhouse: diversity of opinion. As for the pejorative "sink to the level" comment, CNN is likely guilty of no more than moving toward the political center. Were CNN to follow Ms. Gandy's advice, it would continue to omit the conservative viewpoint and lose viewers. So much for choice.
CNN knows it gets few conservative viewers. A look at congressional offices exposes this reality. Nearly all of the Democrat staffers tune in to CNN for news, while the vast majority of Republican staffers watch Fox. In an effort to determine why Republicans dislike CNN, Walter Issacson, chief of CNN, recently met with top Republican leaders. When this meeting became public, Democratic leaders Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle immediately cried foul and accused the network of pandering to conservatives. While the concern of Democrats about undue influence is understandable, they need not worry. If a network were perceived as insensitive to the needs of minorities, it would not be unreasonable for management to meet with minority leaders. Likewise, when conservatives are dissatisfied with CNN's coverage, it is understandable that management would search for the source of this discontent.
The problems of media bias and unbalanced coverage are ones that are more problematic on television than in print media. The New York Times is known to have a very liberal editorial page, but these opinions are clearly differentiated from the news sections. And, the paper occasionally tolerates dissent in the form of William Safire's columns. Similarly, The Washington Times, by all accounts, has a conservative opinion page. An element of these philosophies may seep into their respective coverage of the news, but at least an attempt is made to keep the two categories distinct. Television news, on the other hand, offers a far less clear distinction between objective fact and subjective opinion. There is no back page for opinion on the airwaves. Consequently, the line gets blurred. For networks like CNN, which employ a greater number of liberal commentators, it's inevitable the conservatives will wonder if coverage is accurate and balanced.
Fox's success stems from the competing viewpoints that it offers. On shows like "Hannity and Colmes," a liberal and conservative viewpoint are offered and the viewer is free to decide which side has the stronger case in the free market of public opinion. Network news editorializing, especially by mainstream anchors like Dan Rather, often offers the mainstream viewer no such choice.
It's a shame that CNN executives waited until Fox News surpassed their network in the ratings before realizing CNN's weakness among conservatives and potential for bias. But by taking steps to promote more viewpoints on the air, CNN has improved the credibility of the network and may be able to win back some of the conservative viewers it has lost to Fox. Score one for diversity (of thought).
