The other day I mentioned how everyone was upset about having to miss the Packers/Cowboys game because most cable companies don't carry the NFL Network. The other night's Republican debate on CNN illustrated the other side of the argument for ala carte cable.
Saying that CNN exhibited the journalistic standards of a junior college school paper would be a slight to junior college school papers. The various plants they allowed from Democratic interests at the debate should be embarrassing to the network but they'll just shrug it off.
It's no secret that CNN's ratings have been in a tailspin. I, for one, never tune into them. If I want to know what's happening in the news - I go on line. If I want to watch something unfold live - I turn to Fox News. I don't think I am alone in getting my news this way. Yet I am forced to subsidize CNN (and CNN Headline News) every month on my cable bill.
If given a choice over what cable channels you have to pay for - how many people do you think would voluntarily pay for CNN? I'm guessing that the number would be much less than the number who opt to pay for Fox News and even much less than the number of people who opt to pay for the Weather Channel.
Maybe next time - the Weather Channel should host the debates instead of CNN. At least people can expect the Weather Channel to be less biased and more professional. Then again - with CNN setting the bar so low - it would be hard not to.
Post a Comment