3 ms·

Funny. There used to be, back when CNN was a news network...

tptacek 3y ago
Did there used to be? Or did CNN function more like a utility, something between what it is now and the Weather Channel, which is how I remember it? Because it's not that you can't stand up The Weather Channel But For News; it's that you can't compete with Fox and MSNBC doing that.
- storkhm 3y ago
  That is a great analogy. That is how I remember it also. More high brow and not something you would really watch for an hour straight. The old CNN was meant to be as "entertaining" as the Weather Channel.
blihp 3y ago
Even then, not really. Most of the time they had 4-6 hours of actual programming that they just repeated.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  This is what I remember. They had basically an hourly rotation of segments, and every once in a while they would update them. But if you had watched for 2 hours, there was a pretty good chance that a lot of the second hour was completely repeated.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
I'm skeptical. The "C" in CNN is sort of the giveaway that there was never really any legitimacy there. Am I picking on cable as a whole, suggesting it was always a profit-driven entity that runs counter to level-headed news reporting? I guess I am. And I'll defend the "big three" networks that existed before cable because news was only a small portion of their broadcast schedule. I don't think the networks objected to Walter Cronkite (etc.) being the loss-leading face to represent their corporate integrity.
snowwrestler 3y ago
Nah, same amount of news, way less competition for eyeballs back then. CNN had its best commercial times when the Internet was still very small. For years, if something important happened in the middle of the day, CNN was kind of it, in terms of finding out what was going on quickly. If it was REALLY big, the networks might break into their daytime programming, but that was a very high bar.
eyelidlessness 3y ago
To be fair, CNN’s heyday was mostly centered around the major international crises between the end of the Cold War (“the end of history”) and major uptake of the internet. Similar events would be treated as a “slow news day” today, because the audience only cares about international news when it suits them. Their major domestic coverage of the LA riots would set better precedent for a US audience, except everyone is either inured to the exaggeration of non-news to that proportion or acutely aware that news of that proportion like mass violence is barely reported at all.

Did there used to be? Or did CNN function more like a utility, something between what it is now and the Weather Channel, which is how I remember it? Because it's not that you can't stand up The Weather Channel But For News; it's that you can't compete with Fox and MSNBC doing that.

storkhm 3y ago
That is a great analogy. That is how I remember it also. More high brow and not something you would really watch for an hour straight. The old CNN was meant to be as "entertaining" as the Weather Channel.

blihp 3y ago

Even then, not really. Most of the time they had 4-6 hours of actual programming that they just repeated.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
This is what I remember. They had basically an hourly rotation of segments, and every once in a while they would update them. But if you had watched for 2 hours, there was a pretty good chance that a lot of the second hour was completely repeated.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

I'm skeptical. The "C" in CNN is sort of the giveaway that there was never really any legitimacy there. Am I picking on cable as a whole, suggesting it was always a profit-driven entity that runs counter to level-headed news reporting? I guess I am. And I'll defend the "big three" networks that existed before cable because news was only a small portion of their broadcast schedule. I don't think the networks objected to Walter Cronkite (etc.) being the loss-leading face to represent their corporate integrity.

snowwrestler 3y ago

Nah, same amount of news, way less competition for eyeballs back then. CNN had its best commercial times when the Internet was still very small. For years, if something important happened in the middle of the day, CNN was kind of it, in terms of finding out what was going on quickly. If it was REALLY big, the networks might break into their daytime programming, but that was a very high bar.

eyelidlessness 3y ago

To be fair, CNN’s heyday was mostly centered around the major international crises between the end of the Cold War (“the end of history”) and major uptake of the internet. Similar events would be treated as a “slow news day” today, because the audience only cares about international news when it suits them. Their major domestic coverage of the LA riots would set better precedent for a US audience, except everyone is either inured to the exaggeration of non-news to that proportion or acutely aware that news of that proportion like mass violence is barely reported at all.