By Joshua I. Weiner

While in Italy on vacation this summer, I decided to see what was on television. To my surprise, I watched what seemed to be CNN. But something was terribly wrong. Where, I wondered, was the update on Chandra Levy? Why did Larry King not appear and begin to pontificate? Why were there no interviews of Chris Tucker? Was this strange network, complete with news stories covering fluctuations in the global market and major international news events, really CNN?

Well, yes, in a way. It was CNN World—not the American CNN station that we in this country are accustomed to watching. In just a few moments of watching CNN World, I began to remember what the network used to be, and to better understand what it has become.

There was a time in even the recent past when CNN was the authority in television news. CNN would run live news coverage while other networks were showing soap operas. At night, CNN would present the day’s news while other networks covered local murders and fires. In short, CNN was the place to find the most important news of the day.

Those days are over. I am disgusted with what the network has become. The producers seemingly can hardly contain themselves as they bounce breathlessly from coverage of one non-event to another. In August, for example, CNN interrupted a live press conference with Corey Stringer’s teammates with a live press conference hosted by Chandra Levy’s father. More alarming is when the network isn’t able to recognize which of two events is the more significant. CNN interrupted a speech by our current president to bring us live coverage of our former president playing the saxophone in Harlem.

If anything ever displayed the danger of 24-hour news networks, it was this Summer of Chandra. Sadly, it has become clear these networks have had to manufacture news in order to produce enough content for the entire day. This becomes especially clear when the networks even invent news about themselves. Once this summer, for example, CNN ended their coverage of a major bombing in Israel to present a special half-hour broadcast boasting how the network was the first to learn of President George W. Bush’s stem cell decision. Even worse, CNN’s information was incorrect—and a mistake that was conveniently not mentioned once Bush’s actual position became clear during his speech. Apparently misinformation is better than no information.

By far, the worst offender has been Larry King, a man who, like CNN, was once a respected role model in his business. The Chandra Levy case is quickly becoming to Larry King what O.J. was—and still is—to Geraldo Rivera. Just last year, Larry King would have been excited to interview President Clinton. Come September, however, he is satisfied, even gleeful, to interview Gary Condit’s son. And this is a full four months after Chandra disappeared. When he is not landing these “major” interviews, King makes do with his regular Chandra Levy panel which, as far as I can tell, is made up of former lawyers and an anchorwoman from Court TV—a rag tag group of two-bit noted non-experts who have become mini-celebrities of their own through their nightly guesses as to Chandra’s whereabouts.

What’s next, Chandra Levy panel action figures? These are not the only non-experts to begin appearing in the place of people who actually know what they are talking about. In one of the most egregious breaches of journalism, Larry King interviewed Bradley Whitford for a show about the presidency. It took me a while to figure out why an actor was being questioned about the responsibilities of the president until I realized that Whitford plays a White House staffer on a television show about the presidency. Apparently, fiction and reality have now merged for CNN.

When I watch CNN now, I am reminded of a phrase from a famous commercial that was used by Walter Mondale to stunning effect against Gary Hart in 1984: “Where’s the beef?” Without question, CNN has gone soft on what used to be hard news.

I do not mean to imply that CNN is the only network that has gone down this road recently. Many networks have begun sacrificing news for ratings. Even Dan Rather’s sanctimonious refusals to cover the Chandra Levy case seemed intended to generate news rather than monitor it. Even more convincing is a recent experiment proving that when networks present news in non-sensational formats, the results are conclusively lower ratings.

Even so, I remember the days when CNN reporters broadcast while being bombed in foreign lands and when typical Larry King Live guests went by titles like “Mr. President” or “Senator” rather than “the blonde one.” I’m afraid that kind of serious journalism is gone, and its absence is most noticeable on CNN. I think the death of news sounds pretty sensational.

So why doesn’t someone do a story on that?

Joshua I. Weiner ’03 is a government concentrator in Leverett House.