WI: CNN exists in the 1960s

For clarification, in this scenario, is CNN identical to OTL, ie. owned by Ted Turner(or someone of similar ideological positioning), and is it headquartered in Atlanta? Or does it just have to be a 24 hr news network?

Assuming it's more or less the same network as OTL, one thing that strikes me about CNN is just how milquetoast it really is, in terms of its impact on politics and social issues. People say(rightly or wrongly) that Cronkite turned the public against the Vietnam War, Woodward and Bernstein brought down a president(somewhat harder evidence for this one), and FOX epitomized the rise of the reactionary right. I really can't think of any similar items for which CNN can be credited or blamed.

For the most part, the indictment against CNN just seems to be some nebulous charge of "dumbing down the news", because they break everything down into soundbites, but no solid examples are usually cited to back up this charge. The closest it comes to anything tangible is the Gulf War, which they supposedly made into a video game(or something), but even then, it's not usually claimed that they had an actual impact on what people thought about the conflict, in terms of being for or against it.

So, a 1960s CNN probably just means more self-styled high-brows complaining that the public is being spoonfed journalistic pablum, but with Vietnam, urban riots, student protests, and various assassinations being cited as the examples, instead of the Gulf War, Rodney King, and OJ.
 
Last edited:
It probably is the case that more people know the actual name of Clarence Thomas' favorite adult-entertainment performer than would know it, had it not been broadcast nationwide on CNN. But even there, the network probably didn't have much impact on the fact that he was accused of harassment to begin with. Rising feminist consciousness about workplace equality probably had more to do with Anita Hill coming forward.

So, extrapolating back to the 1960s, minor details about major events would probably be better known among the general public, but the events themselves would be no more or less major than they were in OTL.
 
And I also think that the early 90s get a bad rap in terms of being known as the time when "news and entertainment became indistinguishable." Leopold and Loeb were even less important than O.J. Simpson, but, adjusting for the absence of television, their trial in the 1920s attracted just as much hoopla.
 
Last edited:
And I also think that the early 90s get a bad rap in terms of being known as the time when "news and entertainment became indistinguishable." Leopold and Loeb were even less important than O.J. Simpson, but, adjusting for the absence of television, their trial in the 1920s attracted just as much hoopla.
It's amazing how the Great Depression and WWII erased people's memory of the roaring 20s. How many people remember that the KKK was anti-Catholic?
 
It's amazing how the Great Depression and WWII erased people's memory of the roaring 20s. How many people remember that the KKK was anti-Catholic?

Indeed. Back to Leopold and Loeb for a second...

The international superstars would be the topics of headline after headline. Members from the Chicago Cubs would visit them in jail, WGN attempted to broadcast the final verdict, and Orson Welles starred in a movie based off of their murder.

I've read the book under review there, and yes, some of the Cubs actually showed up at the jail where LNL were being held, and asked to see "the famous murderers". One of them played catch with the killers in the prison yard for a while.

Can you imagine if someone murdered a child in the year 2017, and MLB players visited the jail to pal around with them just for kicks? There would be ceaseless wailing about the moral collapse of American society.

I was thinking of the Lindbergh Kidnapping as another case of overhyped crime reporting from the same time period, though it is not the 1920s in either the calendar sense(1932), nor, arguably, the cultural sense(post-Black Friday, though pre-FDR and still Prohibition.)

link
 
with more of a 24-hour news cycle, the whole negative side of the Vietnam War will likely be told earlier and told more:

that we already have and are continuing to drop a huge quantity of bombs, against a largely guerilla force,

that we're supporting a dictatorial South Vietnamese government. Now, are they better than the communists? Might depend on which day of the week you ask people , and how they and their family members have been affected by the actions of both sides.

And we're made ourselves unpopular through previous unwise actions.
 
Last edited:
. . . one thing that strikes me about CNN is just how milquetoast it really is, in terms of its impact on politics and social issues. . .
Disagree. As much as I might like to see CNN get in the ditch and fight with Fox, I think CNN tries to differentiate by being nonpartisan.

Generally, I'm saying CNN tries to be right down the middle.
 
Disagree. As much as I might like to see CNN get in the ditch and fight with Fox, I think CNN tries to differentiate by being nonpartisan.

Generally, I'm saying CNN tries to be right down the middle.

Well, I wasn't really commenting on their ideology(which I agree, tends to be middle-of-the-road), but on the impact they've had on public opinion, which I think has been relatively slight. I can't really think of an issue where CNN's reporting or commentary has been cited as pivotal to public perception.
 

Wallet

Banned
Would most Americans be willing to pay for cable in the 1960s? ABC, CBS, and NBC were free. It wasn't until the 80s/90s when people were willing to spend more then they earned on credit.

Also, journalism was still very respected and obviously you can't have 24/7 news without 90% of it being pure rat shit. Also, life was different. People watched TV after dinner. Kids watched on Saturday mornings or after school. Housewifes during the day. But there would be times when the public wouldn't be watching tv

More likely is Howard Hughes doing his planned 4th network.
 
Also, journalism was still very respected and obviously you can't have 24/7 news without 90% of it being pure rat shit. Also, life was different. People watched TV after dinner. Kids watched on Saturday mornings or after school. Housewifes during the day. But there would be times when the public wouldn't be watching tv.
God, I wish it was still like that, but you know without the sexism, racism, and homophobia, among other things.
 
Disagree. As much as I might like to see CNN get in the ditch and fight with Fox, I think CNN tries to differentiate by being nonpartisan.

Generally, I'm saying CNN tries to be right down the middle.
CNN, at least as of the past few years, has been anything but nonpartisan.
 
For clarification, in this scenario, is CNN identical to OTL, ie. owned by Ted Turner(or someone of similar ideological positioning), and is it headquartered in Atlanta? Or does it just have to be a 24 hr news network?

Assuming it's more or less the same network as OTL, one thing that strikes me about CNN is just how milquetoast it really is, in terms of its impact on politics and social issues. People say(rightly or wrongly) that Cronkite turned the public against the Vietnam War, Woodward and Bernstein brought down a president(somewhat harder evidence for this one), and FOX epitomized the rise of the reactionary right. I really can't think of any similar items for which CNN can be credited or blamed.

For the most part, the indictment against CNN just seems to be some nebulous charge of "dumbing down the news", because they break everything down into soundbites, but no solid examples are usually cited to back up this charge. The closest it comes to anything tangible is the Gulf War, which they supposedly made into a video game(or something), but even then, it's not usually claimed that they had an actual impact on what people thought about the conflict, in terms of being for or against it.

So, a 1960s CNN probably just means more self-styled high-brows complaining that the public is being spoonfed journalistic pablum, but with Vietnam, urban riots, student protests, and various assassinations being cited as the examples, instead of the Gulf War, Rodney King, and OJ.
I think it's mainly just that people/I hate 24-hour news as a concept. That's why they have to cover so much meaningless bullshit, because when you have to cover a full 24-hours, of course you're gonna start reporting pointless shit just to fill time.
 
Would most Americans be willing to pay for cable in the 1960s? ABC, CBS, and NBC were free. It wasn't until the 80s/90s when people were willing to spend more then they earned on credit.

Also, journalism was still very respected and obviously you can't have 24/7 news without 90% of it being pure rat shit. Also, life was different. People watched TV after dinner. Kids watched on Saturday mornings or after school. Housewifes during the day. But there would be times when the public wouldn't be watching tv

More likely is Howard Hughes doing his planned 4th network.

Cable actually started in the 50s as a way for rural areas to get better TV signals. With earlier cable technology, you could see a cable network that focused on news for financial professionals (an earlier Bloomberg TV).
 
Well, I wasn't really commenting on their ideology(which I agree, tends to be middle-of-the-road), but on the impact they've had on public opinion, which I think has been relatively slight. I can't really think of an issue where CNN's reporting or commentary has been cited as pivotal to public perception.
I can't really think of an issue either. Not one they've busted wide open. Or really pursued and stayed ahead of the curve as regards other news organizations.

But then, even the Washington Post in its heyday, say, through the (?) 1990s (?), how many stories did they really take the lead on? (whose name is not Watergate! ;) )

And if a major media outfit can only do this like once every ten years, then we enter the realm of baseball statistics in which a team can have a good streak or a bad streak and it doesn't particularly mean much.
 
I think it's mainly just that people/I hate 24-hour news as a concept. That's why they have to cover so much meaningless bullshit, because when you have to cover a full 24-hours, of course you're gonna start reporting pointless shit just to fill time.
24-hour news fearmongere a lot. Lots of crime and kidnapping.
 
CNN, at least as of the past few years, has been anything but nonpartisan.
Okay, I will swing at this pitch. :)

Yes, I think when Trump tells a lie, CNN is willing to say it's a lie. So, by and large anti-Trump.

But when's the last time they've taken on a large corporation with sustained journalist coverage, for example, Monsanto, Chase Bank, HSBC, Nestle? And I realize this is asking a lot because CNN themselves are a large corporation, as are their advertisers.

Or, how have they covered Trump's missile attack against Syria? And it's a hard issue for the dictator Assad did use chemical weapons (strong evidence). But has CNN interviewed any seasoned, experienced peace activists who might have a ton of ideas for doing things in the broad range between passivity and war? For example, Code Pink Women for Peace, seem impressive, don't know a great deal about them.

Or, right now, drought in Somalia and neighboring countries and predicted famine. The terrorist group al-Shabab has been distributing food supplies, apparently partially through their donor network and partially through raiding food relief convoys. Well, of course, to win the hearts and minds of the people. And what we need to do is rather obvious, considerably better security than normal for food convoys, we distribute more food than al-Shabab, probably by at least a 2 to 1 ratio in our favor, we take on the role of the steady eddie good guys in it for the long haul, trade where we offer square trade deals, genuine economic development, etc. And, oh yeah, along the way, we easily play al-Shabab better than they play us. Some chance that a terrorist group may moderate over years and decades, but we shouldn't count on this fact.
 
Last edited:
Top