3 ms·

The making of CNN was Desert Storm. They covered it better than anyone else. There and then they hooked the 30-40 demographic of the time and exploded. They've

by toyg 5y ago

The making of CNN was Desert Storm. They covered it better than anyone else. There and then they hooked the 30-40 demographic of the time and exploded. They've lived off that reputation for decades at this point.

matwood 5y ago
> They covered it better than anyone else. Doesn't CNN still have more reporters world wide than any other US based news org? I imagine the BBC has the most when comparing news orgs around the world. I think this is why CNN still gives better news coverage than other stations, but the opinion shows drown a lot of that out.
protomyth 5y ago
CNN had reporters hanging out a hotel window reporting live, and then basically did the absolute funniest con at the door while one of the reporters hid in the bathroom. I remember watching it at my friends during the first night of the bombing. They were the only network with any clue. As a 20ish year old those were reporters I could respect.
olivermarks 5y ago
@toyg so true, they were 'young', fresh and growing in credibility in that era compared to the crusty old network free terrestrial TV news anchor shows. They sold shock and awe really well for the MiC. https://youtu.be/oPNHYi0x2Mk https://youtu.be/oPNHYi0x2Mk
- Lammy 5y ago
  > They sold shock and awe really well for the MiC. Like that time they interviewed Osama bin Laden right before the 1998 Embassy bombings to make sure the public knew who he was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orawG7vt68o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orawG7vt68o
davidf18 5y ago
RickJWagner 5y ago
Several good points above. Don't forget about the captive audience in airports, too. That kept CNN artificially in the public eye.
- ki85squared 5y ago
  Zucker's decision to axe CNN Airport was yet another bluster on his part. It was used not only for live CNN and HLN but it syndicated content from Turner's other networks like Cartoon Network and TBS. His decision kept Discovery from adding its content to the rotation. Zucker rationalized the decision by blaming streaming services and other mobile media but I don't buy that because Airport was still invasive - i.e., people look up from their devices and could still be seeing CNN, etc. today. And, from a business perspective, it required very few internal technical resources (a single master control system and operator) so the costs were almost certainly exclusive to whatever fees CNN paid to airports to install their receivers and displays. (Full disclosure: I'm a former operations-level CNN employee, half speculating from my time at CNN WHQ)
- markoman 5y ago
  Trump kept CNN in the public eye, too, with all his outbursts against Jim Acosta and near constant mentions of 'fake news CNN'. Thereafter, anyone who opposed Trumpian tyranny would seek out CNN.

by toyg 5y ago

matwood 5y ago

> They covered it better than anyone else. Doesn't CNN still have more reporters world wide than any other US based news org? I imagine the BBC has the most when comparing news orgs around the world. I think this is why CNN still gives better news coverage than other stations, but the opinion shows drown a lot of that out.

protomyth 5y ago

CNN had reporters hanging out a hotel window reporting live, and then basically did the absolute funniest con at the door while one of the reporters hid in the bathroom. I remember watching it at my friends during the first night of the bombing. They were the only network with any clue. As a 20ish year old those were reporters I could respect.

olivermarks 5y ago

@toyg so true, they were 'young', fresh and growing in credibility in that era compared to the crusty old network free terrestrial TV news anchor shows. They sold shock and awe really well for the MiC. https://youtu.be/oPNHYi0x2Mk https://youtu.be/oPNHYi0x2Mk

Lammy 5y ago
> They sold shock and awe really well for the MiC. Like that time they interviewed Osama bin Laden right before the 1998 Embassy bombings to make sure the public knew who he was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orawG7vt68o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orawG7vt68o

davidf18 5y ago

RickJWagner 5y ago

Several good points above. Don't forget about the captive audience in airports, too. That kept CNN artificially in the public eye.

ki85squared 5y ago
Zucker's decision to axe CNN Airport was yet another bluster on his part. It was used not only for live CNN and HLN but it syndicated content from Turner's other networks like Cartoon Network and TBS. His decision kept Discovery from adding its content to the rotation. Zucker rationalized the decision by blaming streaming services and other mobile media but I don't buy that because Airport was still invasive - i.e., people look up from their devices and could still be seeing CNN, etc. today. And, from a business perspective, it required very few internal technical resources (a single master control system and operator) so the costs were almost certainly exclusive to whatever fees CNN paid to airports to install their receivers and displays. (Full disclosure: I'm a former operations-level CNN employee, half speculating from my time at CNN WHQ)
markoman 5y ago
Trump kept CNN in the public eye, too, with all his outbursts against Jim Acosta and near constant mentions of 'fake news CNN'. Thereafter, anyone who opposed Trumpian tyranny would seek out CNN.