CNN: Veering right and aiming low

Some TV pros argue Isaacson's visit to Capitol Hill only telegraphed CNN's fixation on Fox's newfound influence.

"[Fox News chief] Roger Ailes has always been in their face, now he's in their head," says Reese Schonfeld, former CNN pioneer who served as the network's first president. (Those at CNN insist the episode was blown out of proportion and that Isaacson never asked Republicans how to court conservatives.)

But Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, defends Isaacson's trip to Capitol Hill. "Why not have a meeting with Tom Delay? Walter is trying to save his network. If conservatives are abandoning CNN to go to Fox, then he'd want to find out why. But Walter needs to know what the arguments are, to get a bill of particulars, and if they're out of whack to take that into account. But when your competitor is eating your lunch, you'd be a fool not to respond."

Perhaps the better question is does CNN even have a liberal bias? Or is that ongoing campaign just smoke and mirrors, an attempt to throw CNN off stride?

"Might Fox want to use this against us? Of course, that's Roger Ailes' style," says Aaron Brown, who recently left ABC News for CNN, where he'll soon anchor an evening newscast. "But it doesn't have much to do with the truth or the facts."

FAIR's Hart agrees: "Right-wingers and Republican Party operatives have argued about that and complained for years. But they're long on rhetoric and short on facts."

A recent FAIR report studied guest bookings on CNN's prime-time news show "CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports," and found that of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests between January and May of this year, 39 were Republicans and 28 were Democrats. By contrast, 50 of the 56 partisan guests booked during the same time on Fox News' nightly "Special Report with Brit Hume" were Republicans.

"Conservatives get a fairer shake on CNN than liberals get on Fox," agrees Jones.

There are additional signs CNN is treating Bush quite gently. CNN's signature weekend political chat show, "Capitol Gang" (executive-produced by conservative columnist Novak), recently expanded to a full hour, which, on Aug. 18, gave conservative panelist Kate O'Beirne time to tape a segment pitching softball questions to Karen Hughes on the lawn of the White House. ("You're a very cohesive group. Where does that come from?")

Perhaps that's why even strident Republicans are now offering up solid grades and even faint praise for CNN's job in covering the new Bush administration.

"I haven't seen any red flags that got me hopping out of my seat and screaming at the TV set," says conservative Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.

"I'd give them a B, and that's higher than all three of the networks," adds Baker at the conservative watchdog group the Media Research Center. To really win conservatives back, "it would take them doing something dramatic in prime time. Something like hiring Rush," he says. ("If Rush Limbaugh is on he will be in a limited fashion and designed to reflect political perspectives from both sides of the aisles," explains one CNN executive.)

While the catcalls from the right subside, the accusation of a liberal bias continues internally at CNN, from longtime host Bob Novak, according to one senior CNN source.

"It's continuous and his line is always the same: 'I'm the only true conservative at CNN.' Walter [Isaacson] comes to town and Novak pulls him aside and says, 'I've been in D.C. for 43 years I know the answer to CNN's problems: It's liberal.' Walter says no, it isn't. Novak says regardless, it's perceived that way. You need to make the pilgrimage to the Hill. That was all Novak."

Asked for a comment, Novak said he had "no interest in talking about that at all."

Chandra Levy, of course, is a topic CNN can't stop talking about. Despite the fact that the news organization has not broken a major story during the four-month scandal, CNN, by a cautious count, has devoted more than 200 separate shows to the Levy story. And more than 50 since Condit's interview on ABC two weeks ago. By comparison, during that same two-week period, alleged serial killer Nikolay Soltys, accused of stabbing to death six family members in Sacramento, was on the run from the law for 10 days, and the subject of a massive law enforcement manhunt. CNN found room for just 10 shows about that case.

CNN's tenacity on the Levy story caught some CNN competitors off guard early on. "I was very surprised that they stayed with the story," says one senior Fox News executive.

A CNN spokesman stresses that even all that Levy coverage still only represented a fraction of its summer stories.

But the feeling among some internally is that the tabloid tone of the Levy coverage has been unmistakable and "has probably been a reaction to Fox," says one CNN source. "What choice do they have?"

The network's Levy performance has enraged some journalism pros. "CNN's been appalling, just disgraceful," says Jones at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "It's been a mistake and it's not responsible journalism."

CNN's Bedingfield offers no apologies: "I think it's a story of great interest to our viewers. It's a mystery. There's a public official at the center. You have law enforcement involved. There are a lot of angles. And I happen to think it's a real news story." (In July, CNN gained 200,000 more prime-time viewers, compared to July 2000.)

"The Chandra Levy story is sort of an exaggerated self-parody of what's wrong with TV news," argues Robert Jensen, associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas. "Why in the world does anybody even have to offer up a critique? It's just absurd on the face of it, and highlights how trivial American journalism has become."

Jensen was referring to CNN's "Ground Hog Day"-like prime-time lineup this summer of returning pundits who endlessly chewed over a stagnant story, seemed to get most of their expert information by reading the morning papers, and then spun webs of what-ifs, with many trying to stitch together a workable narrative that put Condit at the center of Levy's disappearance. The whole time CNN hosts were careful never to poke holes in the paper-thin scenarios.

Says Bedingfield at CNN: "I'm not in any way embarrassed by our coverage of the Levy/Condit story."

Indeed, Isaacson had instructed his troops not to "hold their noses" when pursuing the story, according to the New York Times. Despite that, one CNN source says, "the hand-wringing that takes place has been pretty extensive."

Which explains one reason why CNN is in such a bind; its competitor is busy playing by a different set of rules. Or does anybody think Fox News' Paula Zahn did much hand-wringing the night after she invited a psychic on her show to reveal the supposed whereabouts of Levy's body?

"You can't compete with Fox on their terms," warns former CNN president Schonfeld.

That's something the cable news giant may have to learn for itself.

• View blog reactions