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.
To each his own, I wouldn't watch that even if THEY paid me for it. Also, the market has spoken ...