I was looking forward to CNN+. I wanted an ad-free way to consume the daily news and mindlessly listen to pundits. I think if it was just Anderson Cooper doing this for 20-30 minutes it would've been totally worth the $3/month for people like me.
Instead what they delivered was the crap, low effort documentaries they put on to fill gaps in their airtime. Reruns of Anthony Bourdain, weak medical information from Sanjay Gupta, and more social justice than you can shake a stick at.
How on earth did they waste $300m on this? Anderson Cooper 360 with no ads is all they needed.
No because "Anderson Cooper 360 without ads" isn't what they put on there, they put on the documentaries—not the pundits. Perhaps you don't like the pundits but the average CNN viewer does and I think might willing to pay $3/month for it.
In fact I was surprised that paying for CNN+ I couldn't even watch Anderson Cooper 360 with ads! All you get is a 10-minute per day preview live stream of CNN unless you can "login through your cable provider".
Sounds a classic case of innovator's dilemma. The "classic" CNN simply wouldn't let CNN+ have all the resource they needed for that would hurt the cash cow of the "classic" CNN.
Their point is that the average CNN viewer might be willing to pay for a service with different content. CNN+ did not serve the content they were referring to, so your flippant footnote does not apply.
Well the market has spoken, you're right, Anderson Cooper (as far as I know) is a very popular show. It just also spoke in this specific context.
I don't really care for CNN much either way, but every once in awhile somehow I get the "right" CNN International channel/vibe/show and it feels like what I thought international journalism should be.
> Anderson Cooper (as far as I know) is a very popular show
No, it's not a very popular show. Anderson Cooper is last amongst the three major primetime cable news shows. For example, for the week ending March 30th at the 8 PM slot you have (Total Viewers in thousands) [0]:
Tucker Carlson Tonight: 3676
All In W/ Chris Hayes: 1445
Anderson Cooper 360: 890
Now keep in mind that >300,000,000 people live in the United States. So, not that many people are watching cable news to begin with. And definitely not that many young people who may subscribe to a streaming service instead of cable. I don't think there is any sizable market for a streaming service of Anderson Cooper.
It seems pretty popular to me. You're misconstruing "that's popular and people watch it" for "I agree with what the person is saying".
Many people watch it. It makes money. Anderson Cooper makes money. Ergo the market is speaking quite clearly.
For example, as vile, absolutely stupid, and wrong as Tucker Carlson is, the market is clearly speaking and he's quite popular.
Now if you want to change your definition or raise your bar or something, sure go for it, but without any parameters I think anyone on prime time on CNN or any major news channel is by definition popular.
> You're misconstruing "that's popular and people watch it" for "I agree with what the person is saying".
Not at all. I just cited some statistics. Making a value judgement is actually what you did:
> For example, as vile, absolutely stupid, and wrong as Tucker Carlson is, the market is clearly speaking and he's quite popular.
The first definition of popular is “regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general”
The key word being the last one in this case “general.” Based on the statistics I cited cable news is a niche to begin with. And based on his viewership, Anderson Cooper is a niche within a niche. Not “generally” popular.
For the record I don’t watch any of these shows so I don’t have a horse in this race. Not sure why you feel you need to defend Anderson Cooper’s (non) popularity so hard? It’s certainly not a very popular show as you originally stated. But you’ve since lowered the bar that anything on mainstream cable is “popular.”
I made a value judgement to demonstrate the ability to separate preference from fact. Maybe I didn’t need to do that, but if I can get in a swipe at Tucker Carlson I’ll take it, because he is despicable and vile.
I’m not defending Anderson Cooper. Don’t care about him. To say he’s unpopular though without defining popularity is a mistake you are making, not me. Even if we used your definition here, which we weren’t, it would still be true that he’s popular. He’s a household name. He’s clearly popular. We are talking about him right here. What more proof do you need?
So back to the original discussion regarding Anderson Cooper, the market has spoken. He’s popular. To say the market hasn’t spoken would be incorrect, given he’s on Prime Time on CNN lol.
So what exact point were you trying to make here? Because I think you’re just arguing to argue and it’s really not a good use of time for you or me.
You are now confusing the person Anderson cooper with his show. Your original comment was about the show which is the 22nd highest rated news program. Relative to the others that doesn’t seem very popular to me.
Both Anderson Cooper the person and Anderson Cooper the show are popular, and the market is validating that by the fact that he’s on prime time on CNN.
Being 22 just proves that it’s popular. Would you say the #22 app on the App Store isn’t popular? It’s fine if you draw a line there. I don’t.
Yes, there are a lot of people whose identity is totally wrapped around politics. Got to Twitter. There are people who would spend hours on Twitter engaging in toxic fights with random people on internet.
This is the reason I think reality TV shows have some utility for society. At least it lets people engage in something that is less harmful and less toxic than the Twitter culture war. It's better for society if people spend time on reality TV shows than Twitter culture war.
> Anderson Cooper 360 with no ads is all they needed.
That would be a good way to get a little money from streaming and lose a lot of money from cable distribution, not a net win. There's a reason none of the news networks whose owners have streaming services do that with their big-draw cable news programs.
That’s not a collapse, it’s a right-sizing. TV news and CNN in particular got a ratings boost during the Trump administration and a huge bump during the 2020 election. The numbers they have now are around where they were in 2015. IMO it doesn’t suggest terminal decline. A headline like that doesn’t get as many clicks, though.
The ads on all of the cable news channels indicate that their audience is rapidly aging. These channels have become background noise for nursing homes.
not sure how hundreds of people and millions of dollars spent to produce content that gets the views of a mildly popular bedroom YouTuber doesn't suggest "terminal decline."
Well an entire generation of people aren't watching those big-draw cable news programs so status quo thinking = eventual death. Not that they can't pivot when it's really necessary, seems like Disney made the switch at near the optimal time for example, but it's gonna have to happen some day.
I don't watch CNN in the same way I read WSJ. CNN is mostly just entertainment watching people argue with some news and information. I don't consider it high-brow at all.
I put it on in the background while I'm doing something else for mindless entertainment. In my experience this is how most people watch CNN. I don't think people sit down to watch it like they do a film. I certainly don't, neither does my family.
I quit subscribing to cable because I was tired of the endless repetitive ads for hair loss pills that came on every 10 minutes. Get rid of that and I'll happily continue consuming their content.
There is a thriving piracy scene on YouTube and somewhat on twitch of CNN, MSNBC, and fox. Tend to have commercials edited out. I'm not quite sure why they are being streamed because almost none of them are monetized or linked up to patreons or anything. Sort by upload date and over twenty minutes
So...with everyone blocking out ads (which I do hate and am pro-ad-blocker), how do journalists get paid? I'd personally rather pay for access to decent journalists (which I do), from numerous different sources. CNN being one of those sources (mainly for Fareed Zakaria, Anderson Cooper, John King, Jake Tapper). I would just personally rather do without the opioid constipation and mesothelioma lawsuit ads.
how much news do you really need? I ask Google Assistant to "play the news" every morning and it covers the bites from many different sources in around 15 minutes while I'm still half asleep and I'm up to date with everything non-tech for the past day.
It’s kind of an addiction that I had to learn to step away from. Especially when COVID first broke out and you could have dramatic things happen in the span of a few hours. However at the end of the day it’s just entertainment and had little bearing on my life.
Instead what they delivered was the crap, low effort documentaries they put on to fill gaps in their airtime. Reruns of Anthony Bourdain, weak medical information from Sanjay Gupta, and more social justice than you can shake a stick at.
How on earth did they waste $300m on this? Anderson Cooper 360 with no ads is all they needed.