Republican Crisis Management

Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, many party stalwarts are so upset with the billionaire businessman that they are considering backing an independent party candidate.   Others believe that the party will take a such a severe shellacking at the polls in November with Trump that the party could lose control of Congress.   

Trump himself put Republicans on notice Sunday in an interview on ABC when he said,  "This is called the Republican Party, it's not called the Conservative Party."  Trump later added, "I think it would be better if it were unified...there would be something good about it, but I don't think it actually has to be unified in the traditional sense."  The question for many Republicans is how can they embrace a candidate who is not a true conservative, and whose extensive use of personal attacks has dragged the campaign into the gutter?

Conservative commentator William Kristol says the answer is don't support Trump.  Kristol called Trump unqualified for the presidency, on CNBC Monday, because of his lack "character and temperament."   While ruling out voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton, Kristol said, "We don't need a binary choice.  The system is set up to allow independent candidates to get on the ballot." Actually, he is misinformed on the last point.  For instance, the Texas deadline for independent candidates to file an application to be included on the November ballot is Monday, May 9.  And the application, "must contain 79,939 signatures of registered voters who did not vote in the presidential primary of either party." 

Kristol met in Washington last week with former GOP standard-barer Mitt Romney to discuss the prospects for a third party candidate.  Romney has been critical of Trump's candidacy, but he has said he is not interested in a third party run.  The Washington Examiner reported Romney said he currently could not support either party's candidate.  Nonetheless, he lamented, "I am dismayed at where we are now, I wish we had better choices, and I keep hoping that somehow things will get better, and I just don't see an easy answer from where we are."

Many establishment Republicans have decided to focus their attention on the down-ballot races that may be jeopardized with Trump at the top of the ticket.  Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, in a statement Friday posted on Facebook, said, "In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, as I have done my entire life."  Neither his brother or father, both former Republican presidents, will endorse Trump.  Trump called Jeb Bush "dishonorable" for reneging on his pledge to support the GOP candidate.  

The Trump candidacy has left many incumbent Republican Senators and Representatives squirming.  Arizona Senator John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential candidate, in in a tough reelection bid this year in a state with a large Latino population.  McCain, perhaps walking a fine line on Trump, told CNN, "You have to listen to people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party."  He concluded, "I think it would be foolish to ignore them."  McCain has stressed he is running his own campaign, but recent polls show he is tied with Democratic opponent Ann Kirkpatrick.

Meanwhile, rhetoric involving Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan has reached the boiling point.  Ryan said last week he is not yet ready to endorse Trump.  Trump supporter and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin told CNN she would work to defeat Ryan by supporting his primary opponent in his Wisconsin district.  Trump is scheduled to meet with Ryan and other party leaders in Washington Thursday, and he has said he would not rule out removing Ryan as the chair of the Republican Convention.  

The ongoing political battles involving Trump and other Republicans are taking attention away from the still unresolved Democratic primary.  They are also unsettling for GOP efforts to raise campaign funds.  Do donors put their money behind Trump, or instead only target down-ballot races?  And while Trump has "expanded" the party base during the primaries, he has also alienated many traditional Republicans. 

Following Thursday's meetings in Washington, no doubt the participants will all say they had a good meeting, and that they have agreed to work to unite the party.  But, given the tenor of the Republican campaign, how can they really unite?   Of course, these are politicians.

   

Carson Plays Politics

Dr. Ben Carson, the Republican candidate for president and former neurosurgeon, says, "I am not politically correct.  I will not be politically correct."  This approach to his campaign has helped him secure second place in polls taken of likely Republican voters, trailing only Donald Trump.  But will it play well in a national election?

Carson recently explained his non-PC attitude in an interview with The Hill.  “I want people to see me as an honest person, a person who is actually willing to express what they believe” Carson said. “The way I look at it, if people don’t like that, I’d rather not be in office."  But are the things Carson is saying really what most Americans believe?

For instance, Carson drew criticism for remarks he made about the Nazis.  In his new book, Carson writes that the Holocaust would have been less deadly had the German citizens been armed.  Last week, he told CNN,  "The likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed."  And, this past Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation, he explained his remarks were not "hyperbole at all."  He continued, "Whether it’s on our doorstep or whether it’s 50 years away, it's still a concern and it’s something that we must guard against. That’s one of the real purposes of having a constitution. I think the founders were really quite insightful into looking at possibilities and understanding what has happened in other places and trying to put together something that would prevent that from happening here."

The Nazis slaughtered more than six million Jews, and no group would be more sensitive to such a threat than the Anti-Defamation League, which monitors anti-Semitism.  But they oppose using the Nazis in America's gun control debate.  The organization's director, Abe Foxman, said in 2013, "The idea that supporters of gun control are doing something akin to what Hitler’s Germany did to strip citizens of guns in the run-up to the Second World War is historically inaccurate and offensive, especially to Holocaust survivors and their families."  

Apparently, the Nazis are Carson's go-to metaphor.  In March, 2014, he was asked by Breitbart News about his claims that Americans are living in a "Gestapo age."  He responded, “Very much like Nazi Germany - and I know you’re not supposed to talk about Nazi Germany but I don’t care about political correctness - you had a government using its tools to intimidate a population,” he said.  “We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe.”   Is Carson really being honest, or is he pandering to an audience?

Carson got headlines when he said a Muslim should not be elected president of the United States.  "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," he told CNN.  He further explained that Islam is not compatible with the Constitution, saying that a president's faith should matter depending on what that faith is.  "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter," he clarified.  But Article VI of the U.S. Constitution specifies, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."  Is Carson being honest, or is he playing on people's fears?

Earlier this year Carson said on CNN he "absolutely" thinks being gay is a choice.  He further explained, “A lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay.”  A few days later Carson apologized for his response, saying,  “I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended.”  Is Carson's apology honest, or is it disingenuous?

On marriage equality, Carson wrote in his book, America the Beautiful, “if we can redefine marriage as between two men or two women or any other way based on social pressures as opposed to between a man and a woman…(it) is a slippery slope with a disastrous ending, as witnessed in the dramatic fall of the Roman Empire.”  Of those ten million Americans who have enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, Carson has said that Obamacare is “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.”  And when asked what he would have done to keep a gunman from going on a killing spree, he said, "Not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me."  Carson continued, "I would say, 'Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can't get us all.'"  His remarks understandably offended some family members of the recent mass shooting at Umpqua Community College.  Is Carson truly being honest with these comments?

Carson has attacked the press for the criticism he has received for his controversial remarks, observing, “It seems like the more they attack me, the better we do.”  Last week he told journalists at the National Press Club in Washington, “I will continue to expose them every time they do something, so that as more people understand what they are and what they’re doing, it will negate their affect.” He concluded, “Until they have the kind of transformation that’s necessary for them to become allies of the people, we have to know what they’re doing.”  Is Carson being honest, or is he just blaming the messenger?

Dr. Ben Carson has said, "I don’t want to be in office under false pretenses, just saying things people want to hear so I can get elected.”

 But isn't that exactly what he has been trying to do?

Run, Joe, Run

"Run Joe Run," is the cry Vice President Joe Biden is hearing more often as he attends public events.  Few politicians are as popular as Biden is today.  But, should he announce he is running for president, he will become a target for Republicans.

Biden, 72 years old, has had a long a storied career in Washington.  He was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972, at the age of 30, and he was subsequently overwhelmingly reelected six times by the voters of Delaware.  He served in a number of important positions while in the Senate, including Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.   His more than forty year career in elected office qualifies him to be president. 

Biden's life has been filled with tragedy.  Shortly after first being elected to the Senate, Biden's wife and daughter were killed in a car accident.  His sons Beau and Hunter survived, although they were badly injured.  He considered resigning to care for his sons, but was persuaded not to by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield.  In his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics, he wrote that he owed it to his late wife, who had worked hard to get him elected, to continue.  So he commuted daily between Capitol Hill and Delaware, a 90-minute train ride, to care for his sons.  Yet, following the accident, Biden told NPR in 2007 he had difficulty at first focusing on work.

Biden married Jill Biden five years after the accident, and, in the Senate, found himself on the front lines of many historic events, including the Vietnam War, Watergate, the collapse of the Soviet Union, America's two wars with Iraq, and the election of President Barack Obama.  In 1988, he overcame another tragedy, life threatening cranial aneurysms.

Biden was among the least wealthiest members of the Senate, and he is proud to say he has never forgotten his modest upbringing.  Loquacious and talkative, Biden is likeable and authentic.  Yet he has been prone to gaffs over his career.  When President Obama was preparing to sign the Affordable Care Act an excited Biden told the president, "This is a big F...ing deal," loud enough for microphones to capture it.  

But Biden was struck by tragedy again when his son, Beau, died of brain cancer this past May.  Biden was devastated, and he talked about it in a heartfelt interview with Stephen Colbert on CBS last week.  The impact of his son's death has weighed heavily on his decision to run for president, as he explained to Colbert.  "I don't think any man or woman should run for president unless, number one, they know exactly why they would want to be president and, number two, they can look at folks out there and say, 'I promise you, you have my whole heart, my whole soul, my energy, and my passion to do this." He then paused, and said, "And I'd be lying if I said that I knew I was there."  

With the Democrat frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, mired in controversies about her use of a private email server and her handling of Benghazi, more party voices are being raised in support of Biden entering the race.  Even some Republicans have said they would like him to run, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, who told CNN, "I would love to see Joe get in the race."  

Biden is struggling with the decision at a time when his popularity is growing, according to recent polls.  Beyond the burden of his son's death, he knows as an announced presidential candidate he will come under heavy attack from Republicans.   On the Senate Judiciary Committee Biden presided over two contentious Supreme Court nominations, Justice Clarence Thomas and the Robert Bork, who conservatives believe was treated unfairly in his failed attempt to get appointed.   Biden has failed twice to be elected president, in 1988 and 2007.  Biden's missteps include plagiarism, once in law school and another in 1988, which helped cost him his bid for the White House. When Donald Trump was asked by a conservative talk show host last week how he'd do against Biden, he responded, "I think I'd matchup great. I'm a job producer. I've had a great record, I haven't been involved in plagiarism. I think I would match up very well against him."   

Another concern for Biden would be how to campaign against Hillary Clinton.  In 2008, candidate Obama contrasted his opposition to the 2003 war in Iraq with Clinton's Senate vote to authorize the war.  Biden also voted to authorize the war, although he now says he made a mistake.  And Biden's candidacy will also be viewed as a continuation of the Obama presidency, which has continually come under furious attack from Republicans as divisive and overreaching.  Without question, Vice President Joe Biden's current popularity will take a hit should he decide to run for president. 

In August, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote of a conversation Beau Biden, who was near death, had with his father urging him to run.  He knew his father always wanted to be president.  Even with all of the challenges that come with such a decision, Vice President Biden has faced more daunting obstacles many times before in his life.  Stay tuned.  

Christie vs. Paul

The escalating public dispute between New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has exposed the deep rift that exists between factions of the Republican Party.   But these two men have turned their differences into a food fight over "pork" and "bacon".   

The dispute began last week when Christie raised concerns about the dangers of libertarianism, espoused by Senator Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the National Security Agency and other national security issues.  "I just want us to be really cautious because this strain of libertarianism going through both parties right now and making big headlines I think is very dangerous," Christie told a gathering of Republican governors at the Aspen Institute in Colorado.  

The always blunt governor then said,  "These esoteric intellectual debates, I want them to come to New Jersey and sit in front of the widows and orphans and have that conversation, " referring to the people who lost family members in the September 11 terrorist attacks.  He concluded, "And they won't, because that's a much tougher conversation to have."

On Sunday, a prickly Senator Paul lashed back, attacking the governor for his federal funding requests following Hurricane Sandy.  "They're precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut spending, and their "gimme, gimme, gimme, give me all of my Sandy money now," he told reporters.  "Those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense." 

Gimme, gimme, gimme a break, Mr. Paul!  The annual U.S. defense budget is $700 billion, larger than the combined defense budgets of the next dozen countries.  Meanwhile, Hurricane Sandy was the second most destructive storm in U.S. history; it left in its wake 159 dead and an estimated $69 billion in damage.   Nonetheless, Mr. Paul tore into the governor on Monday night in an interview with Fox News, "It's really, I think, kind of sad and cheap that he would use the cloak of 9/11 victims and say, 'I'm the only one who cares about these victims.'" 

Governor Christie, a former prosecutor, responded to Mr. Paul in a press conference Tuesday.  “So if Senator Paul wants to start looking at where he’s going to cut spending to afford defense, maybe he should start looking at cutting the pork barrel spending that he brings home to Kentucky, at $1.51 for every $1.00 and not look at New Jersey, where we get $0.61 for every $1.00,” Christie said, referring to the amount of money each state receives for each dollar it pays to the federal government.   “So maybe Senator Paul could — could, you know, deal with that when he’s trying to deal with the reduction of spending on the federal side.  But I doubt he would, because most Washington politicians only care about bringing home the bacon so that they can get reelected.”

On Tuesday evening, Senator Paul struck back at the governor in a CNN interview.  “This is the king of bacon talking about bacon,” he said. “You know, we have two military bases in Kentucky. And is Governor Christie recommending that we shut down our military bases?”  Then he raised the ante.  “He’s making a big mistake picking a fight with other Republicans, because the Republican Party is shrinking in — in New England and in the northeast part of our country."  He continued, “I’m the one trying to grow the party by talking about liberation ideas of privacy and the Internet.  And attacking me isn’t helping the party.  He’s hurting the party.”

Paul then puffed, “Why would he want to pick a fight with the one guy who has the chance to grow the party by appealing to the youth and appealing to people who would like to see a more moderate and less aggressive foreign policy."

Governor Christie and Senator Paul are both positioning themselves for the 2016 presidential election.  The Republican Party suffered a stinging defeat at the ballot box one year ago that resulted in a self-examination of its core values.  But there is a wide chasm between its conservative right and its more centrist members on the future direction of the party.  

These differences are reflected in the public spat between Mr. Christie and Mr. Paul.  With three more years remaining before the election, Democrats, who will likely nominate Hillary Clinton as their standard-bearer, are certainly enjoying the show.  

Issa Metrics

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is determined to link the White House, and President Barack Obama, to the so-called IRS scandal, even though there is no proof one exists.  The pugnacious, and severely ambitious partisan is more interested in scoring political points than in getting to the truth.

Earlier this month he made his intentions clear during an appearance on CNN's State of the Union.  In speaking about the source of the IRS's inappropriate use of search terms, such as "Tea Party", in its scrutiny of applications for tax-exempt status by conservative groups, Issa pointed to the nation's capital.  Issa called White House spokesman Jay Carney a "paid liar" for his claims that the problem was based in the IRS's local Cincinnati office.  "This is a problem that was coordinated, in all likelihood, right out of Washington headquarters and we're getting to proving it," Issa said.

Of course, "in all likelihood" and "we're getting to proving it" show he does not have the facts to back up his claims.  But that will not stop Issa from doing everything to keep his investigation in the headlines, including dribbling out juicy bits of witness interviews from closed-door sessions to selected media outlets.  For instance, one of the IRS employees interviewed by the committee said their supervisor told them the direction to single out conservative groups came from the Washington headquarters in March 2010.

But Representative Elijah Cummings, Democrat from Maryland, and fellow committee member, called for the entire interview transcripts to be released.  He also released testimony from another IRS official, a manager in the Cincinnati office, who describes himself as a conservative, which appears to explain how the IRS came to target conservative groups.  "There was a lot of concerns about making sure that any cases that had, you know, similar type activities or items included, that they would be worked on by the same agent and the same group," the manager said.  He also said politics was not a factor, and he had no reason to believe the White House was involved.

In response, Issa said, "The testimony excerpts Ranking Member Cummings revealed...did not provide anything enlightening or contradict other witness accounts."  He then added, "The only thing Ranking Member Cummings left clear in his comments today is that if it were up to him the investigation would be closed. Fortunately, the decision to close the investigation is not his to make."

The IRS scandal first made headlines on May 10 when an IRS official apologized for the IRS conduct at a legal conference, which triggered a FBI criminal probe.  President Obama fired the acting IRS chief, who is a Republican, because of the scandal.  An inspector general's report criticized the way the IRS screened conservative groups, saying it placed the agency's impartiality in question.

In an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that more than a dozen FBI agents were assigned to investigate the matter.  "It's a high-priority investigation and it needs to be handled with care, but it also needs to be pushed aggressively because it's a very important case," Mueller told the committee.

There are good reasons for Congress to be investigating the IRS actions.  First of all, it is unacceptable for the IRS to be singling out any group for political reasons.  While all of the Tea Party applications were approved, many organizations had to deal with unfair demands.  Was this political, or confusion, or just insensitivity on the part of agents?

There was a flood in tax-exempt applications following the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling in 2010, which made it legal for corporations and unions to spend money on campaigns through political action committees (Super PACs).  Section 501(c)(4) of the IRS tax code specifies that Super PACs seeking tax-exempt status must operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.  But a 1959 IRS interpretation of the code changed the word "exclusively" to "primarily".   Exactly what is primarily?  Why was the interpretation changed?  Should it be exclusively?

Representative Issa has served in Congress for more than a decade.  Before being elected, he was a very successful businessman who amassed a fortune estimated at $450 million.  But his brash and shoot from the hip style have rubbed even members of his own party the wrong way.   His selective release of transcripts in the IRS investigation has opened him up to criticism that he is trying to get the Obama administration rather than pursuing a sound investigation.  
 
Earlier this month, Issa said, "My gut tells me that too many people knew this wrongdoing was going on before the election, and at least by some sort of convenient, benign neglect, allowed to go on through the election."  His bottom line, "I'm not making any allegations as to motive, that they set out to do it, but certainly people knew it was happening."   Issa's unsubstantiated allegations may get him headlines, but they also raise Serious questions about his motives and judgment. 

CNN: "The Newsroom"

CNN's embarrassing mistake on Thursday of declaring the U.S. Supreme Court overturned President Barack Obama's health care law was unforgivable.  The rush to be first prevailed over the need to be right for the desperate and ratings challenged CNN.  The incident was also a black eye for all television news.

The Newsroom, which premiered Sunday on HBO, was an overly dramatized attempt to decry the current state of the television news business. The program, which was filled with smart dialogue, internal conflict and self-righteousness, was a bit misleading about what happens behind the scenes at a cable news network.

Nonetheless, Aaron Sorkin should be praised for raising some important questions about television news. However, on Wednesday's CBS This Morning, Sorkin said, "News shows should be exempt from having to deliver ratings." Really? If there were no news ratings how would media companies pay their news gathering expenses?

Global news organizations, such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox, each cost several hundred million dollars to operate per year. For example, the Fox News Channel invests around $700 million annually, surpassing CNN for the first time in 2010. CNN has about 46 news bureaus worldwide, while Fox News has fewer than 20.

The idea that network news divisions were once allowed to be money-losing operations is not really true. No matter, today there is no way media companies can cover the massive costs of operating a quality and highly competitive global news organization by allocating funds from their other divisions. And why should they since the news business is a big business?

CNN and HLN (Headline News) combined make about $600 million in annual profits. The Fox News Channel makes more than $800 million in profits per year, and MSNBC about $200 million. The cable news companies benefit from two streams of revenue, advertising dollars and subscription fees. Fox News receives slightly more than CNN in advertising revenue per thousand viewers (CPM), but enjoys a huge advantage over CNN in monthly revenue per subscriber. Broadcast news organizations, such as CBS and ABC, are most heavily reliant on just advertising dollars.

In all cases news organizations are heavily dependent on ratings. Advertisers pay to have their commercials aired on newscasts based on how many viewers their ads reach. The higher the ratings the more a network can charge for its commercials. And if there is great demand for a cable news channel the subscription fees are likely to be affected.

In a report titled "The State of the News Media 2012" released three months ago, the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism highlighted the strength of the cable news business model. "One reason for the vigor is that the business model of cable news -- in which the cable channels receive half their revenue from fees bundled into monthly cable subscriptions from customers and half from advertising -- has proved over time to be remarkably resilient," the report said, "even as other sectors of the news industry continue to search for sustainable revenue streams."

But total cable news audience growth has pretty much flattened out. The news audience is increasingly more reliant on the Internet and mobile devices for information. Facebook and Twitter are impacting news coverage. And, to reinforce one of Sorkin's points, cable news programming often devolves into mindless chatter, hackneyed talking points and senseless spin. The topics are frequently predictable, the content is repetitive and news stories are often over-hyped.

NYU professor Jay Rosen wrote last year about his frustration with CNN:

"Too often, on-air hosts for the network will let someone from one side of a dispute describe the world their way, then let the other side describe the world their way, and when the two worlds, so described, turn out to be incommensurate or even polar opposites, what happens? CNN leaves it there. Viewers are left stranded and helpless. The network appears to inform them that there is no truth, only partisan bull. Is that real journalism?"

While all three of the cable news networks are facing ratings challenges, CNN has fallen and apparently it can't get up. Fox News has cornered the truly devoted conservative viewers, while MSNBC appeals to the liberals. That leaves CNN more or less in the middle trying to be all things to everybody in order to hang on to their loyal following. They seem to have lost their identity. Their programming strategy appears ad hoc, and their day-to-day production is uneven. CNN has one star, Anderson Cooper, but he is being misused. In fact, CNN only does well in the ratings when there is breaking news, but recently Fox News has been winning this category too.

Last month Turner Broadcasting President and CEO Phil Kent described some of CNN's problems as "self inflicted." CNN reports to Kent, so it was particularly noteworthy when he said, "We haven't put the best shows on the air." That's for sure, and nothing erodes viewer loyalty more quickly than poorly produced shows.

CNN can improve their current ratings performance just by increasing its original reporting, improving its writing and story-telling, focusing on more relevant stories and helping viewers understand why they should care about the issues it highlights. It can improve ratings by pursuing impactful investigative reports, challenging talking points and spin during newsmaker interviews, replacing some of its overused contributors, doing a better job of designing and executing programs, providing better teases, intros and tags, adding extra value in every report and using some imagination. These steps will give viewers more of a reason to watch CNN for longer periods of time at a sitting, and reason to return again more frequently each week.

At the same time CNN should think about a longer-term strategy. What new approach can it take to ensure its viability in the rapidly changing media landscape over the long haul? The times they are a changing.

Aaron Sorkin is a bold creator and a brilliant storyteller who produces with swagger and purpose, and casts his productions with strong and powerful talent. CNN is a fabulous news organization with many wonderful professionals. Perhaps there is a message in The Newsroom for CNN afterall.

CNN Struggles

"The news is the star," was the driving vision of founder Ted Turner when he created CNN in 1980.  And that was especially true for a fledgling 24-hour cable news channel that had no competition.  But now that news has become largely a commodity that is available instantly and distributed on the Internet, mobile devices, cable news channels, broadcast television and radio, CNN is struggling for viewers.  

Unless there is a major news event, most people are not heavy news consumers.   Those who do regularly watch news tend to be older and very passionate about issues affecting this country.  For instance, on a typical weekday about 5 million people watch cable news at 8pm.  That means about 305 million Americans are doing something else.

Cable news ratings can go up if viewers increase the amount of minutes they watch a cable news program, or they increase the number of nights they tune in each week.  A typical CNN viewer is likely to watch a program for only a few minutes, usually at the top of each hour.  Of course, many potential CNN viewers don't even tune in if there is no major breaking news to check on. 

On the other hand, Fox News has created program franchises around well-known commentators, many of whom have had successful talk radio careers.  Fox News viewers, who are most passionate about their politics, tend to be heavy viewers.  They watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity for more minutes each hour, and more frequently each week than typical news consumers.  Even when there is no major news, Fox News viewers tune in because the star is the news.  To a lesser extent, MSNBC benefits from a passionate audience that tunes in to hear liberals Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Shultz. 

However, both of these networks build interesting programs around their stars.  The content is thoughtfully shaped, and the programs are well produced, to keep the viewers engaged to the end and drive them on to the following program.  Program flow between 5pm and 11pm is very important factor.  Cable news networks like to build their viewership and deliver ever-increasing numbers to the next time slot.  Prime time is the most valuable real estate for advertisers and programmers.  That's where the real money is.

When major news breaks out, a large number of viewers still tune first to CNN.  They have a global organization that consistently provides great breaking news coverage.  But major news breaks out only a few days a year, and Fox News and MSNBC are cutting into CNN's advantage.  Adding to the rating's challenge, CNN has too frequently also shuffled talent and programs, to no avail.  CNN's cable fees and advertising revenue have held up to some extent because CNN is bundled with other Time Warner properties, but there is heavy downward pressure.  For CNN, this has been an "annus horribilis."

CNN has fallen and they can't get up.  Worse, this just in, they have hired Chef Anthony Bourdain to do a weekend show.  Huh?  And there is word that CNN will increase its international news.  Noble, but the problem is that, as important as it can be, regretfully most international news fails to attract viewers.  Of course, viewers will watch the Arab Spring, the Tiananmen Square student uprising, the Iraq War or the senseless slaughter of Syrian children for a few days.  But even loyal news viewers are more likely to watch news that directly affects them. 

When it comes to revenue, morning joins prime time as the most important time periods for cable.  Daytime and weekends are much less important.  So programmers focus resources and key personnel around these time periods. CNN has many fine journalists in their employ.  But many are miscast or not used properly. 

Soledad O'Brien now anchors the latest version of CNN's morning show.  O'Brien is a smart, experienced anchor who happens to be extremely nice.  But in her new program she has apparently been coached to be more confrontational and aggressive.  Consequently, the program is very hard to watch.  Anderson Cooper is the biggest star CNN has, but he is being mismanaged.  Cooper is a terrific journalist who is great broadcasting live from the frontlines of breaking news.  But his impact has been diluted because his CNN program is rerun an hour after its first airing.  What works best are his hard-hitting investigative pieces.   What works worst is the fact that he is anchoring poorly produced afternoon talk show that undermines what is best about Cooper.  

John King and Wolf Blitzer are both great reporters, but neither is a strong anchor.  And even they are dragged down by weak program production, a problem for most CNN programs.  Their shows fail to grab viewers at the top and drive them through the full hour.  The openings are weak, the teases are indifferent, and content is too frequently repeated.  Often any sense of urgency feels manufactured and hyped throughout, making almost anything "Breaking News." 

Experts or commentators are paired in mindless "he said-she said" debates, to quote NYU professor Jay Rosen.  Last year Rosen wrote, "But too often, on-air hosts for the network will let someone from one side of a dispute describe the world their way, then let the other side describe the world their way, and when the two worlds, so described, turn out to be incommensurate or even polar opposites, what happens?… CNN leaves it there. Viewers are left stranded and helpless. The network appears to inform them that there is no truth, only partisan bull. Is that real journalism?" 

These might be some of the problems that Turner Broadcasting President and CEO Phil Kent recently called, "self inflicted."  Last month he admitted, "We haven't put the best shows on the air."  That's for sure, and nothing erodes viewer loyalty more quickly than consistently poor shows.  No matter, given CNN's mission to play the news right down the middle, it will be impossible for them to catch up with Fox News whatever steps they take.    But CNN can regain some of its viewers with more original reporting, better writing and story-telling, more relevant stories, faster pacing, impactful investigative reports, interviews that challenge talking points and spin, commentators that add value, better written teases, intros, tags—in other words, give the viewer a reason to be engaged.   And do all this while fully leveraging social media and the many platforms of Turner and Time Warner.

Clearly, CNN is about to make a management change—probably after the November elections.  But it should immediately improve the quality of its day-to-day production, and honestly evaluate its programming strategy, anchors and other key talent around a clear mission statement and purpose.  

It won't be easy, but remember thirty years ago it wasn't easy for Ted Turner and his pioneering CNN team.   

The Party of War

So desperate are Republicans to overcome a huge gender gap among women that they will instantly seize any opening to drive a favorable story line and raise money.  But these tactical maneuvers are not going to change the uncertainty that even many Republicans feel toward their presumed presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

For voters, one of the underlying concerns with Romney is trust.  He has shown a consistent pattern of changing positions on issues to gain support, or saying anything that he thinks will help him win, especially in negative campaign ads.  He will not let the facts get in his way.  

For instance, earlier this month Romney accused President Obama of waging a war on religion and even worse!  "I think in this country there is a war on religion.  I think there is a desire to establish a religion in America known as secularism.  And I know, based upon reports, that the Obama administration gave this a lot of thought."  Well this charge is patently false, according to senior White House advisers.   And it doesn't make any logical sense.

 

Romney is constantly spinning untruths about President Obama.  “I was disappointed in listening to the president as he’s saying, ‘Oh Republicans are waging a war on women.’” But President Obama never said that.   It was fabricated by the former governor, who then continued,  “The real war on women is being waged by the president’s failed economic policies.”  Right!  Candidate Romney has stated that 92% of the job losses under Obama have been among women.  This charge is misleading because it fails to count the millions of men who disproportionately lost their jobs in the last few months of the Bush presidency.

Distortion, negative campaigning and lies seem to be run of the mill for Governor Romney and his campaign.  His tactics and his campaign positions, including defunding Planned Parenthood, have so turned off women that their support of him is 19%  less than it is for President Obama in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

It is because of this huge gender gap that Governor Romney and his campaign have been seizing every opportunity to strengthen his support among women by increasingly Ann Romney's role.  She has become his executive in charge of women.  Governor Romney recently spoke about his wife on the Fox News Channel, “And she points out that as she talks to women, they tell her that their number one concern is the economy.”

Comments like these are what Hilary Rosen was addressing on CNN when she clumsily stumbled into the "mommy war."  Rosen said, "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I am hearing.  Guess what?  His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."  Ouch Hilary!  Rosen continued, "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we worry - and why we worry about their future.  I think, yes, it's about these positions and, yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions."

And a war of words there is!  The Romney campaign saw an opening and jumped on it.  "If you're a stay-at-home mom, the Democrats have a message for you: you've never worked a day in your life," Romney's senior campaign advisor Beth Myers wrote in a fundraising email titled "War on Moms."  No sooner had the Republicans begun their attack than the super sensitive Obama campaign tossed Rosen under the bus too!  President Obama, Michelle Obama, advisers David Axelrod and Jim Messina all made comments critical of Rosen, who was once a Democratic strategist and has visited the Obama White House more than 30 times.  

This dust up is representative of the hyperbolical, 24/7 media crazed era we live in today.  And it seems that Republicans all too often are prone to characterize conflicts and policy differences in terms of war.  For instance, Republicans accuse President Obama of waging "class warfare" against wealthy Americans because he has proposed increasing their tax rates.  

President Obama's support of the "Buffett rule,” which would have billionaires pay federal tax rates that are no less than their secretaries, has drawn extreme anger from conservatives.  As an example, on Thursday Romney adviser and former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu called it, “a class warfare agenda that President Obama seems to be embarking on in this campaign.”  Republicans would rather cut tax rates for upper income earners and pay for deficit reductions with cuts in government programs that help low and middle income earners.  This conservative fiscal strategy is known as "starve the beast." 

Republicans also claim that increasing the top tax rates will hurt many small businesses and slow the nation's recovery.  They call it a war on small business.   And when it comes to regulating businesses, Mitt Romney's election website is filled with "war-mongering."  "The Obama administration’s war on carbon dioxide—what Time magazine has called “the most far-reaching environmental regulatory scheme in American history”—is the highest-profile EPA effort."  And on energy the website says,  "As the Obama administration wages war against oil and coal, it has been spending billions of dollars on alternative energy forms and touting its creation of “green” jobs. But it seems to be operating more on faith than on fact-based economic calculation."

All this Republican talk of war is meant to deflect attention away from their number one problem: Mitt Romney.   It is also meant to energize and mobilize the party's base.  But conservatives see a flawed candidate--who has held dubious positions on health care reform, abortion and gun control.  So you can bet that Republican strategists are now busy behind closed doors feverishly drawing up their plans for Romney's 2012 campaign.  Of course, using an Etch a Sketch.