Michael Fanone claims CNN declined to run op-ed critical of network for hosting Trump town hall

[Joinfortmill]

https://www.rawstory.com/cnn-contributor-michael-fanone-claims-cnn-declined-to-run-op-ed-critical-of-network-for-hosting-trump-town-hall/

'CNN contributor and former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Michael Fanone alleges the network declined to run an op-ed critical of its decision to host a Donald Trump town hall next week, Puck News reports...Fanone, who was badly beaten in the Jan. 6 insurrection, blasted the network for giving the former president who is currently under investigation for his role in the attack on the Capitol. Fanone received an electrical shock to his neck and was beaten with a flagpole in the attack on the Capitol.

Fanone told Puck News that “allowing Donald Trump an open forum on a major television news network is the moral equivalent of putting an AR-15 in the hands of someone mentally unstable.”

Puck reports that the Trump town hall is part of CNN chairman and C.E.O. Chris Licht’s efforts to broaden its audience to attract more conservative and centrist viewers.

Big Mistake, CNN (my words).

[Leghorn21]

1. Thank you, Mr. Fanone

RESPECT

[Alexander Of Assyria]

2. AR 15 in the hands of someone mentally ill...is great entertainment! Any dissent is not tolerated!

If only Hitler were available…

[Cha]

3. TY & Michael Fanone.. what are

you afraid of CNN? Some Criticism for your Propaganda for Ratings Bullshit?!

[ellisonz]

4. Michael Fanone is so right. Trump must be blacklisted.

[Uncle Joe]

5. *rump; the town-haller that would burn the town hall to the ground.

Thanks for the thread Joinfortmill

[liberalmediaaddict]

6. Licht lives in a fantasy land

Puck reports the Trump town hall is part of CNN chairman and C.E.O. Chris Licht’s efforts to broaden its audience to attract more conservative and centrist viewers.

Conservatives and centrists don't exist in Trump's Republican party anymore.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

10. People should actually read the Puck article.

It shows that CNN is trying to re-establish itself as a news network that embraces high standards of journalism instead of highly-biased partisan sensationalism.

CNN has certainly succeeded in becoming the leading global news network, with a far larger footprint than any of its rivals. In that regard, at least, CNN has provided people around the world with a shared record of the day’s news, and a common perspective on historical events for anyone who cares to watch.

What’s undeniable is that during the last decade, with Jeff Zucker at the network’s helm and Trump in the White House, CNN’s reputation for traditional, just-the-facts journalism was often overshadowed by the hyperpartisan, hair-on-fire rants and Brady briefing room diatribes of some of its most notable hosts, correspondents, and contributors.

The network continued to produce “facts first” journalism day in and day out, and it never lost its global news-gathering infrastructure, as evidenced by its best-in-class coverage of the war in Ukraine. Nevertheless, CNN gave its critics in the White House and at Fox News enough ammunition to portray it as a biased network, and leave Republicans with the impression that it had abandoned fair-minded journalism altogether.

The politics of both Fox News and MSNBC provide scant room for nuance, let alone any deviation from party doctrine. On both networks, you are more likely to find hosts and contributors shaming the opposition, rather than seeking to understand it, interrupted only by commercials for erectile dysfunction medication or blood thinners.

Meanwhile, the fringes of the political spectrum are often given the most air time, simply because they shout the loudest and serve as useful bogeymen for the other side. Fox News would have you believe that A.O.C. speaks for every Democrat, while MSNBC often provides the incorrect impression that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a proxy for the mainstream G.O.P. Neither is true, of course, but their programming decisions have created a massive white space in the center of the market for CNN to own.


According to the people that I talk to in and around CNN, Licht sees this opportunity. He aspires to elevate the conversation and provide viewpoints that better reflect the full spectrum of public opinion. And frankly, he wants to make the content smarter, a decibel lower, and above the my-side boosterism.

This liberal Democrat sees Licht's goals for CNN to be laudable. I wish him success in turning CNN away from hyper-partisan, hair-on-fire sensationalism, adn to restore professional journalism at CNN.

Liberals and Democrats win when the news is covered accurately and with as little bias as possible, and we lose when sensationalism and extremism crowd out reason.

[gratuitous]

14. Puck (who he?) should be really mad at his editor

An incendiary sentence that "CNN's reputation . . . was often overshadowed by the hyperpartisan, hair-on-fire rants and Brady briefing room diatribes of some of its most notable hosts, correspondents, and contributors" should be followed up with a list of such "rants" and "diatribes," don't you think?

I mean, it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but just what does Puck think is a rant or a diatribe? Did he have a list in there and his editor cut it? Or did he just figure that "everyone knows" what he's talking about, and his editor didn't ask for any examples? The reader is apparently left to trust that Puck is putting forward a good-faith argument, but is that warranted? Nobody outside of Puck's head can say.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

16. Puck is a website. The author is Dylan Byers.

I left out this nugget:

Can Licht succeed in making CNN a booming business of grown-up table centrism? Veterans of the cable news business will argue, with substantial evidence, that outrage rates and nuance doesn’t. Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow are the highest-rated hosts on their respective networks, and both rate significantly higher than anyone on CNN...

Licht also said, “I’m not here to focus on ratings,” and encouraged the network to get away from overly dramatic headlines and clickbait.

Just the words I would expect should cheer liberal Democrats.

But i guess some people prefer sensationalism and click-bait extremism? Hard to maintain a liberal democracy with an ill-informed citizenry.

https://archive.ph/COTbP#selection-617.75-621.114

[gratuitous]

20. Okay, Dylan Byers and not Puck, thanks for clarifying

I'm not as up on all the sites as perhaps I should be; one of them is Puck.* We're still left with the question of Dylan Byers and his authenticity / good faith description (without examples) of what he considers to be a rant or a diatribe. Did Byers have some examples for his reader to judge and his editor cut them? Or did he just put his bald assertion out there for its click-bait contrarian stance and his editor didn't ask him for any examples? We don't know.

*See what I did there? An example!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

23. I can only assume that Puck and Byers assume their readership has turned into MSNBC

for more than a few minutes and is acquainted with the tome of the "journalism" found on that network and what's on FOX.

We should strive for more reason-based journalism.

[gratuitous]

28. So you don't know what Byers is referring to, either

But for some reason it pleases you for him to say it, and you'll give him full credit for making a good faith argument even without specifying what he's talking about when he says that unnamed CNN reporters are going off on rants and diatribes. Your hard-headed clear-eyed reason-based concern is duly noted.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

29. Of course I do. The examples are too numerous to document.

Turn on MSNBC or FOX for any period of time and the criticisms are self-evident.

[gratuitous]

34. "Too numerous to document" Called it!

Post number 14. Thanks for playing.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

36. I think its funny that the sensationalism of cable news is something you seem to dispute.

I'm not *playing*

Such sensationalism is bad for the future of liberal democracy in this country. And the alternative is odious to me.

[gratuitous]

39. I think it's funny you can't name even one instance

But you're totally convinced that there are all these rants and diatribes, but you can't name even one and neither can Byers. Such evidence free conjecture is a poor excuse for actual reality-based discussion. But you seem convinced that what you feel or imagine is more reliable than reality.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

40. Okay. I'm done.

[uponit7771]

49. +1,

[ecstatic]

43. So Rachel Maddow and other MSNBC hosts are too partisan? Too sensationalist?

And viewers of such shows are ignorant and ill informed? Hmm ok. I don't see it that way. They are simply reporting the news without sugarcoating what's happening. Why would anyone want to hear a watered down or "both sides" version of what's happening in this country? That's fine if that's what someone wants--I think most Americans prefer to bury their heads in the sand. But clearly that's not what the vast majority of DU wants.

Also, CNN will fail. I stopped watching for the most part. People who are actually attracted to politics / political shows tend to have a viewpoint -- left or right. If you don't have a preference, then you're not going to be interested in politics/ political shows in the first place. There is no audience for what licht imagines. At best, he can try to put something together like The View or their ridiculous crossfire show from the early 2000s.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

44. Maddow, for example, did a whole podcast on "Ultra" and never once mentioned that

the "America First Committee" was made up of both right-wingers (who did dominate the group) but left out that it included a significant number of isolationists Democrats like Burton K. Wheeler, Chester Bowles, David Walsh, George Peek, Joseph Kennedy, and others. That was a major journalist lapse IMO. In fact it was "sugarcoating" history in a partisan fashion.

Offering informative news programming that aims to minimize sensationalism and bias is often mischaracterized as "both siderism" here on DU. That's a false charge. Hard hitting (but fair) journalism works for us as liberal Democrats in a way that sensationalism and a hair-on-fire conspiracy theory approach does not.

CNN may fail. Many people seem to prefer slanted news that validates their biases and targets their outrage rather than engaging their intellect and reason. That's a shame.

The populist road leads to autocracy. I strongly prefer reason-based liberal democracy, myself. And having responsible news outlets is one fundamental element of maintaining a free society as far as I'm concerned.

[uponit7771]

50. democrat does not mean liberal especially in those days, there were PLENTY of conservative ...

... democrats and there are a handful of them now.

You'll have to pic another example, Maddow is correct in her verbiage and assessment that the organization was full of right wingers.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

54. Burton Wheeler was a "progressive" Democratic Senator from Montana.

Philip La Follette (son of Bob) founded the Wisconsin Progressive Party.

Chester Bowles was a liberal Democratic intellectual who (among other things) served as JFK's Ambassador to India.

They (and more) were all members of the America First Committee.

From Wikipedia:

American isolationism of the late 1930s had many adherents, and as historian Susan Dunn has written, "isolationists and anti-interventionists came in all stripes and colors—ideological, economic, ethnic, geographical.

Making up this eclectic coalition were farmers, union leaders, wealthy industrialists, college students, newspaper publishers, wealthy patricians, and newly arrived immigrants. There were Democrats, Republicans, socialists, communists, anticommunists, radicals, pacifists, and simple FDR-haters."

While the bulk of the AFC was right-wing, ignoring the significant numbers of center-left to far-left isolationists who bucked the policies of FDR and who made common cause with far-right isolationists is anti-historical and bad journalism. Don't you think?

FDR saw things correctly. He was unfortunately hemmed in by isolationists on both fronts right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

We need to know the actual history so be don't repeat the same sorts of mistakes.

[uponit7771]

55. The exceptions that proves the rule, mostly right wingers not exclusively so doesn't take away ...

... from her bottom line point.

Not a good example

[Just A Box Of Rain]

59. It takes away from Maddow's bottom line, as she completely ignore the historical fact

that the America First Committee included significant number of isolationists who were Democrats, "progressives," socialists, or communists, along with the right-wingers and supporters of fascism.

It made Utra anti-historical in that regard.

Good journalism doesn't sugarcoat history just to conform to a presenter's ideological biases.

[uponit7771]

63. What percentage means "significant"? That group was pro-fascist and anti Semitic which ...

doesn't sound progressive at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee#:~:text=but%20it%20was%20controversial%20for%20the%20anti%2DSemitic%20and%20pro%2Dfascist%20views%20of%20some%20of%20its%20most%20prominent%20speakers%2C%20leaders%2C%20and%20members

She's been on the air for over half a generation of humans, there should be other examples that are evident.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

65. We could have a long discussion about politicians and movements who claim to be "progressives"

and how they stack up on that front.

But people like Burton Wheeler and Philip La Follette certainly attempted to wear the mantle of being "Progressives" in the 1930's.

I prefer the progressive nature of people like FDR, HRC, and JRB myself.

[ecstatic]

58. That's not true

Receipts. Excerpt from the transcript of the Ultra podcast:

... William Power Maloney took in the sight of hundreds of documents and envelopes bearing the names of all sorts of members of Congress: Republican Congressman Stephen Day of Illinois, Democratic Congressman Martin L. Sweeney of Ohio, Democratic Senator David Worth Clark of Idaho, Republican Congressman George Tinkham of Massachusetts, Republican Congressman Jacob Thorkelson of Montana, Republican Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota, it just went on and on.

Envelopes bearing the names of Senators Rush Holt and Senator Burton Wheeler and Congressman Clare Hoffman, and all sorts of others. They were all being held in that D.C. apartment raided by William Maloney that day.

All these sitting members of Congress. From both parties. All of them, Maloney now realized, apparent participants in this operation funded and run by the Hitler government to disseminate Nazi propaganda to the American people. How many members of Congress were in on this thing? How far did it go?

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-podcast/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra/transcript-bad-angle-n1300107

But does that even matter considering Democrats and Republicans switched sides? Labeling pre-1950s politicians by party is arbitrary and beside the point.

Here's the thing: it's okay that you don't agree with Rachel and apparently most people on this forum. But just own it, don't try to smear her and other hard-working journalists as biased sensationalists or liberal equivalents of Tucker.

The reason that you don't like primetime MSNBC hosts is obvious: On another thread, you wouldn't answer the question of whether tfg tried to overthrow the last election because you said he has not been convicted. That view puts you on the opposite side of primetime MSNBC hosts, most Americans, over 93% of Democrats, and even children who quickly put 2 and 2 together on January 6th. So now you need a safe space to watch TV without being forced to hear about trump's coup plot, but maybe, to your credit, you're not okay with over the top propaganda from Fox News either. Well good luck. Enjoy CNN and trump's ridiculous, lie-filled town hall.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

61. "Progressive" Senators and other politicians did not "switch sides."

These were not Dixiecrats. Nor were the socialists and communist isolationists on the right.

History matters. One can't have "alternative facts."

[dsc]

41. Rep Greene is mainstream GOP

she is why McCarthy is speaker. Everywhere the GOP has power it is enacting the policies that Greene suggests or at least as close to them as they can get. Look at Florida, look at TN, look at NC to name three.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

42. I'm not sure why you are posting this in response to my post?

I don't think Greene is mainstream in any measure, but that she has such influence in the GOP is an indictment of today's Republican party.

It is not a mainstream party.

Their agenda is extremist.

[krkaufman]

47. Trump town hall

Difficult to see how airing a Trump town hall is elevating the discourse or returning CNN to a news-centric stance.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

48. News organizations have always covered the leading candidates of both parties

no matter how repugnant those candidates might be.

Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and (the arguably the worst) Donald J Trump.

It isn't the role of the press to deplatform major candidates in a free society. Rather they should shine a spotlight on them.

Trump will continue to weaken under the scrutiny.

[BlueKota]

7. I agree with Fanone.

CNN has given up any semblance of legitimacy under Licht. They might as well rename it Fox-Light!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

11. Exactly the opposite of the reality of the situation.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

57. So if Trump is the R candidate, do they still refuse to cover that?

What about when he is the primary frontrunner?

I hate Trump, but the reality is he may be the candidate for the Rs and he's going to get coverage.

[dchill]

8. Absolutely right.

[MrsCoffee]

9. But, but I thought they were all about both sides and being fair....

Ok, I never thought that and am tired of being told that.

[rsdsharp]

12. I think it's irresponsible of CNN to give Trump a platform,

but have you ever seen a cable network run an “oped?” The Fairness Doctrine has been dead for more than 30 years, and it only applied to broadcast entities when it was in force.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

17. So you are coming out against the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine?

[rsdsharp]

19. No. And there is no possible way you could take that from my post.

My point was, and is, that the Fairness Doctrine would have been the only possible argument to run the oped. However, Scalia and Bork struck it down, and Reagan vetoed the attempt by Congress to make it law. Even if it weren’t dead, it would not have applied to CNN. CNN is a cable network, not a broadcast entity, and the FCC has no jurisdiction over it.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

21. No, the Fairness Doctrine would bolster the reasoning of having the leading political candidate

of the Republican party on a news network, no matter how reprehensible you, I, or Michael Fanone might find Donald J Trump to be.

I understand the Fairness Doctrine of old didn't not apply to cable stations. That was an unfortunate development, as hyper-partisan extremist clickbait posing as "news" is bad for liberal democracy.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

26. No I understand the Fairness Doctrine very well.

It would preclude replatforming a political party because a news organization disliked (hated or loathed) their candidate.

I understand the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable news, which explains, in large measure, why cable "news" has been a cesspool.

[NewJeffCT]

13. Since Fox News debuted in the mid to late 1990s

CNN has been lurching more and more to the right in vain attempts to win back all the right-wingers who defected to Fox to find a safe space of alternative facts. It has never worked before and won't work this time.

[Kablooie]

15. CNN sees a vacuum that Fox News scandals may create

and is jumping in to try and grab the MAGA audience for themself.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

18. Not even remotely accurate.

[uponit7771]

53. They are delusional and disconnected

[senseandsensibility]

22. CNN will regret this move

For the first time I am starting to think that they may have to back down or adjust their format.

[Evolve Dammit]

25. This makes my blood boil. FU CNN

[democrank]

27. As CNN goes low, go high and refuse to watch

Trump should be in prison, not the guest of honor on CNN. Wonder who’s in charge of the flag backdrops? Any Democrats submitting questions? No? Didn’t think so.

[senseandsensibility]

30. I am glad that I happened to read this here, because

even though MF is a CNN employee, the station will probably never mention it. Shades of FAUX, am I right?

[nowforever]

31. CNN currently has lowest ratings ever

This will sink them even further, if that's even possible.

[Mr. Ected]

32. Though I do not support CNN's decision here, I also know they're in a precarious situation

Most of us are absolutely certain that Trump has been a one-man crime spree and most likely the actual instigator of the J6 violence. However, until he is charged with a crime, at least at the federal level, he is still the ex-President, the least worthy of that title of all time, but it's an unfortunate fact. Once charged, the playing field should tilt, but you know it won't. Even if he's convicted, we'll have "Trump Watch 2026 - Day 121" running 24/7 on CNN.

[senseandsensibility]

33. It's the format that's the problem

Only republican voters will be in the audience asking the questions. He certainly is not owed that.

[uponit7771]

51. right ?! Why give that man a forum that favors him personally?!?! Licht might have P tape of his own

... there's no way someones that stupid

[Celerity]

35. fuck CNN and their normalising fascism, & a retro fuck off to 60 Minutes for doing the same w/ MTG

It was all summed up in February 2016:

Leslie Moonves on Donald Trump: “It May Not Be Good for America, but It’s Damn Good for CBS”

[Just A Box Of Rain]

37. Neither CNN nor 60 Minutes has done any such thing.

Lesley Stahl did the nation a great service in exposing MT Greene's extremism to a mass audience.

[uponit7771]

52. The "mass audience" doesn't know about Benedict Donald's extremism by now? tia

[Just A Box Of Rain]

56. Somehow Trump is the leading Republican in the race, so that question is hard to fully answer.

The greater the extent to which he is exposed, the greater the odds (which are already quite high in my estimation) that Joe Biden, once again, beats him like a drum.

I expect 2024 will be a much greater victory in terms of the popular vote than 2020. That will have its own significance.

[uponit7771]

60. With only 55% of republicans wanting him to run again that means very little at best. CNN knows ...

... what they're doing and its not exposing America to Benedict Donald's stupidity.

Normalizing stupidity especially with a crowd mostly made up of GQP ... leaning ... voters doesn't serve the greater good

[Just A Box Of Rain]

62. I think Trump will fail.

Shining a light on him will aid in his failure AFAIC.

No one is "normalizing" Trump, and that's true of the man himself. Every time he opens his mouth he loses support.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

[uponit7771]

64. In 2018 this would've been a good point but we both know his stoic terrorism is more dangerous than

... getting an extra point of negativity to someone who wont be voted in again under normal circumstances.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

66. We disagree on that front.

I think Trump is sinking under the weight of his ongoing legal troubles, cratering support among "normals," his egomaniacal shtick growing very old, the growing distaste of the American public for a chaos agent who threatens our republic, and the contrast provided by one of the greatest presidents ever in Joe Biden.

Shine a light on Trump. He will continue to shrink.

[MrsCoffee]

70. Shine a light on him? Yea that worked out so fucking well last time.

Keep digging those heels in.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

72. Trump won for reasons other than him getting media attention.

Surely you understand that's that case.

And Trump proved to be a disaster of a president, an insurrectionist, a man on trial for a civil rape case that he's likely to lose, and one with an indictment in place, with more pending.

The more he talks, the less likely he is to be re-elected. He is figuratively hanging himself, and I prefer to give him enough rope.

Against this chaos agent, we have a great president in Joe Biden.

Trump is going to get beaten like a drum.

The press will help in his undoing.

Why would I not hold to my values and my political reasoning? They have served me well over my lifetime as a liberal Democrat. The press has a job to do in a free society, it is best that they do that job. Trump will, come out looking bad.

[progressoid]

74. Exposing Trump didn't hurt him in 2016.

An enabling and complicit media helped put him in office.

...https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

[Just A Box Of Rain]

75. No, other forces put Trump in office in 2016. And shame on them!

The public is a lot wiser today.

Trump will self-destruct in the light of day. The press should pour sunlight on him, as he will wither.

[progressoid]

77. "The public is a lot wiser today."

[Just A Box Of Rain]

78. I guess we will need to disagree on that point.

There is a disgustingly large MAGA contingent in this country--that's for sure--but they are too small in number to elect Trump.

And Trump is unlikely to be aided by those who attacked our party from the left and voted Green or sat out in nearly the same way as in 2016.

I think many people have learned their lessons after that disaster.

It is a shame it had to come to that disaster for some to see how dangerous it was to enable Trump and to buy into the lie that there is "no difference" between Trump and Democrats. That mentality cost us dearly.

I'm confident in many people's ability to learn. Humankind will always include those who are incapable of growth.

[Walleye]

45. They want to cut back on sensationalism yet they have Trump at a Townhall meeting? Nonsense

[housecat]

46. Giving facts and fantasies equal time and equal standing is a recipe for disaster.

[Chakaconcarne]

67. CNN has their established audience

I don't think that'll change much...

Even with friendly questions, dipshit will still go off-track, end up looking like an idiot and reminding everyone who he is.

I say don't watch and let it play out.

[republianmushroom]

68. the new Fox broadcasting, CNN ?

[DENVERPOPS]

69. CNN is interested in making money. Period

Total viewership determines the rates charged for advertising......

It is simple, if you appeal to the Right Wing, you instantaneously get the 70+ million Trump voters............

Same goes for appealing to the enormous numbers of Evangelicals and right wing Quasi-Christians.....

FOX figured that out long ago,

Everything we see in today's world is a case of Follow the money.............

It is said that money is the root of all evil. That is incorrect. GREED is the root to all evil. Only once before, in our countries history, has that ever been on display more than in the last ten years. The other time being the Gilded Age that drove the nation into a complete Depression that lasted for years and years........

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely

[BComplex]

71. Screw Chris Licht and CNN.

They took a seriously wrong turn.

[CrispyQ]

73. "Centrist" as in insurrection against the country by a sitting president is A-OK, centrist?

JFC.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

76. CNN has aired the best reportage I've seen on the Jan 6th insurrection on any network.

Have you seen the Special Report?

The CNN of the real-world is very unlike the bogey-man invented by some here on DU.