The Atlantic published a lengthy, but I will admit,
fascinating profile on Chris Licht.
He's the relatively new head of CNN and there's a lot to dig into, so
let's get started with what motivates his vision for CNN?
What's his vision in the first place, and is he succeeding in carrying it out?
Spoiler alert no, he is not succeeding, however,
according to Tim Alberta, who wrote this profile in The Atlantic.
He writes that, when he took the helm of CNN in May of 2022, Licht had promised
to reset with Republican voters and with their leader, meaning Donald Trump.
He had swaggered into the job, telling his employees that the network
had lost its way under the former President Jeff Zucker.
That their hostile approach to Trump had alienated
a broader viewership that craved sober, fact driven coverage.
These assertions thrust Licht into a two front war,
fighting to win back Republicans who had written off the network while
also fighting to win over his own journalists.
Many of whom believed that their new boss was scapegoating them
to appease his new boss, David Zazlav,
who'd hired Licht with a decree to move CNN toward the ideological center.
I'm gonna pause for comment from Cenk, cuz I know you have a lot to say about that.
>> Yeah, every part of this story is wrong, and
it's not to say that this story is not helpful.
It's actually a really good journalism,
he exposes what was going on behind the scenes.
It's very helpful, okay, so don't get me wrong.
It's just that he lives in the same bubble as everyone else in Washington, so
he assumes these things that should not be assumed.
So, for example, Zazlav wants to move people to CNN to the ideological center?
No, he doesn't.
The ideological center, according to the polling,
is very progressive on economic issues, right?
So, instead he wants to move it to the center between the extremist Republicans
and the corporate Democrats, which is actually an extremist position.
There's a reason why CNN is not popular, they think,
if we just did objective journals, but you never did objective journalism.
You did journalism to help the status quo and
to maintain corporate power, so every assumption is wrong.
They're, if we just move to the center that isn't the center and
we just represent corporations better, that'll help me with my ratings.
No and no and no, so Chris Licht was sent on a mission that is impossible.
He didn't do himself any favors with the way that he has conducted himself, but
no person could do that job.
And it doesn't matter, because when they fire him and they put the new person in.
I will guarantee you ahead of time,
they will also suck in the ratings cuz the mission is wrong.
>> Also, so there are two things happening simultaneously, right?
Because I remember during this era, I watched a lot of CNN.
I always had it in the background as I was working on the show,
just to make sure I didn't miss something that would break in the news.
I literally can't even do that anymore, it's unwatchable.
But back then, it was still unwatchable, but
at least I had a better sense of news that was breaking as it was breaking.
Now, what I noticed was, they were very critical of Donald Trump,
extremely critical.
And everything was an emergency, everything was a disaster,
everything was worth getting panicked about.
But then at the same time, they went out of their way to provide jobs,
contributor roles to various Trump figures, right?
Corey Lewandowski is a perfect example,
Corey Lewandowski was working as a contributor over at CNN as he
was simultaneously working on Trump's campaign.
>> And by the way, that was not under Licht, that was under Zucker.
>> Yes, exactly.
>> Zucker is a great guy who challenged Trump, is he?
No, he ran on what's called a swarm strategy,
where they swarm around one topic.
Remember, the plane, and they wouldn't get off the missing plane, right?
So in this case, Zucker had a mandate to talk about Trump endlessly.
And at the time, remember, in 2015, 2016, they were not critical,
they weren't even critical.
They're the patient zero in platforming Trump and making him what he is today,
that was not under Licht, that was under Zucker.
>> That's right. >> So
this apologist thing about, Zucker was so tough on Trump, my ass he was.
There's no one more responsible for Donald Trump than Jeff Zucker,
who also picked him out of, he took a failed businessman.
Donald Trump, with six bankruptcies that he knows, and
pretended he was an incredibly successful businessman on a show
called The Apprentice when Zucker ran NBC.
Zucker also hired Jeffrey Lord, who was a zealot right wing lunatic and
made it seem like Trump was perfectly fine.
Now he's leaking all over and trying to bury Licht, look, I got no love for Licht.
I got no love for any of these guys, but fair is fair, right is right.
Zucker, who is the worst of the worst, not pretending, Licht's too nice to Trump,
please, that is an affront to the truth.
>> That is definitely a fair point, now, the question is,
does Licht wanna coddle Republicans?
He's certainly been accused of that, both externally and even internally, and
here's what he had to say about that.
So, when he'd warned Audie Cornish, journalist Audie Cornish during a company
town hall about taking a condescending tone toward Republicans.
Surely it sounded to some reporters like he wanted them to coddle the crazy right
wingers who would use their platform to destabilize the country's democratic
institutions.
Licht looked annoyed, we are not an advocacy network, and if you want to
work for an advocacy network, there are other places to go, he told me.
You can find any flavor of advocacy in the news organization that suits your need,
we are providing something different.
And when the crap hits the fan in this world, you're not gonna have time for
that advocacy anymore, you need an unbiased source of truth.
That's what he argues.
>> See, that makes no sense, okay, why does it make no sense?
Everybody says, Licht is wrong, and then they never answer, okay,
what's the correct thing to do?
So let's be constructive, okay?
So when you're looking for an unbiased source of news,
would you go to someplace that says, no, we are going to cater to Republicans and
cater to Democrats in order to get neutrality and balance?
No, you will not go to that place, cuz they're declaring to you,
we're not going to be honest with you.
We're just gonna appease the Republican and Democratic politicians.
We're gonna appease the people in power,
that has nothing to do with the truth or news.
No, if you wanna go to a place that has unvarnished news,
you would go to a place that challenges both Republicans and Democrats.
>> Totally agree, yeah, that's the difference, right?
But when you're in a situation where you're hyper obsessed with ratings and
you're more concerned about alienating half of the country by telling the truth.
Well, then you're gonna engage in this weird, false, equivalency coverage,
which to the credit of some reporters over at CNN they're very concerned about.
Which is why they're pushing back against what Licht is trying to do.
They think it's actually incredibly damaging,
because they don't believe that the two sides are equal in every situation, right?
They wanna be able, according to my read of this story,
they wanna be able to call out Republicans or Donald Trump when they
engage either in bad behavior, in the case of Trump criminality.
And again, I respect that, but I do think that what CNN screwed up on,
and Chris Licht gets to it in this next quote is true, right?
They hyperventilated about too many things and treated everything like it was
an emergency, and eventually people just stopped believing CNN, right?
Let me give you his exact quote, and then I'll go to you real quick.
Licht said, Trump had goaded the media into outrage porn, provoking journalists
to respond with such indignation so often that audiences began to tune out.
When everything is an 11 on a scale of 10, Licht said, it means that when there's
something really awful happening, we're kinda numb to it.
That was a strategy, and I felt like the media was falling for that strategy,
what do you think about that quote, Cenk?
So that quote is true, but the problem is that it needs much more context,
if you just take it by itself, then it's gonna be misleading.
So here's what I mean by that, so no one hates false equivalency more than I do,
I've been fighting against it for 25 years now, okay?
So, yes, unfortunately, on a lot of economic issues, Democrats and
Republicans agree in their theater around it, right?
But, they don't agree on judges, they don't agree on social issues.
Every once in a while, the Democrats do something positive,
like fund more IRS agents so that the rich can't cheat on their taxes, etc.
So you have to be clear about what is true and what is not true, and
put aside your partisanship, okay?
On the other hand, I have no sympathy for the CNN reporters,
producers, editors, etc.
That say, we can't do false equivalency,
so we have to make sure we challenge Donald Trump.
Well, that sounds like I should have a lot of sympathy for that, right?
Yes, but did you ever challenge anyone else in policy?
>> Good point.
>> So did you ever challenge Joe Biden when he lied about wanting to cut
Social Security six times?
He did wanna cut it six times, but you covered for him, right?
Did you challenge Joe Biden when he had an outrageous lie about getting arrested with
Nelson Mandela while protesting apartheid?
I mean, if Trump had said that lie, we'd never hear the end of it.
>> That's true. >> And we shouldn't hear the end of it,
the idea of letting Trump off the hook is maddening,
that is not the correct strategy.
And CNN is partly doing that because of Zaslav and Malone, who runs the board,
who is their biggest investor, and those guys are right wingers.
And so they wanna let Trump off the hook, that's not the answer.
The answer is also hold other corporate politicians accountable,
whether they're in the Republican or Democratic Party.
But no one in the building at CNN is prepared to do that,
you tell them to be aggressively challenging.
All those Democratic politicians are, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,
whoa, no way.
Now, in terms of the outrage, yes,
Trump creates a thousand outrages, >> In a day.
>> In a day, now, you do have to cover all those but why do I agree with that quote?
Because in this, MSNBC is way more guilty than CNN,
anytime, Trump's about to go to jail.
Trump's about to do, Trump's bad, Trump's bad and about everything, so
they cried so much wolf.
When you don't need to cry wolf, he actually is really bad,
he already does a thousand bad things.
Why did you bother to embellish an extra 50?
You turn to MSNBC, they're, Trump sneezed, and
his second cousin, once removed, is really angry about it.
I don't care about his cousins, this is nonsense, focus on the policies that
are killing this country, but they don't wanna do that either.
By the way, did MSNBC really disagree with the giant tax cuts for
the rich or all the money sent to the defense contractors?
Cuz I haven't seen a lot of segments on MSNBC complaining about the Pentagon
budget.
>> Listen, at the end of the day, what this is really about, what his vision is,
I don't even think it's ideological, okay?
They need high ratings for advertising,
to make a profit and make their investors happy.
This is for profit media, it's a for profit media model.
Now, there's a way to implement a for profit media model where you're not
constantly hyperventilating about potentially alienating people.
I think we do a good job, we're not a nonprofit, we're also not publicly traded,
and I think that makes a huge difference, right?
But just going back to Licht,
I wanna give you one more statement from him in regard to his vision for media.
But more importantly, then pivot to an example he provides for good journalism.
And if you think Cenk is already animated,
just wait till you see his [LAUGH] reaction to this.
He says this, if something's a lie, you can call it a lie, okay?
You know what you're dealing with now, I think he changed the rules,
meaning Trump of the game.
And the media was a little caught off guard and put a jersey on and
got into the game as a way of dealing with it.
And at least at my organization,
I think we understand that jersey cannot go back on, because guess what?
It didn't work, being in the game with the jersey on didn't change anyone's mind.
So that's what Licht is saying in regard to CNN putting a jersey on as opponents to
Donald Trump and then going at it, okay?
But then he provides an example of who he thinks is a great journalist and
wait for it, it is Jake Tapper.
So the new boss told people inside CNN that Tapper's 04:00 show,
the lead was the model.
>> I told you.
>> Was the model.
>> When he moved him to 09:00, even when he first came in,
I said, he's going to love Jake Tapper.
>> No, get a load of this, he called him tough, respectful, inquisitive.
>> Yeah, of course.
>> [LAUGH] What?
>> So, look, Jake Tapper is the one, all right,
I don't wanna get into personalities.
The bottom line here is, guys, the jersey comment is more important, okay?
Because they view challenging a politician as putting on a jersey.
No, that's the jersey of the referees, you're supposed to do that at all turns.
That's not putting on a jersey, if you don't challenge
the President of the United States when Donald Trump was president,
well, then you're obviously not a journalist, right?
The refs, journalists are supposed to be the refs,
they're supposed to challenge both sides.
>> Yes. >> They're supposed to call fouls
on both sides.
But the reason they actually have the jersey on,
is because they never challenge corporate politicians.
It's not just Democrats, they'll challenge AOC, they'll challenge Bernie Sanders,
those are outsiders.
Those are rebels, anti establishment figures, but the establishment figures.
Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Joe Manchin moderate, moderate,
moderate, master legislator, amazing, wonderful.
No, you're putting on a jersey there for corporate rule, and
it's never mentioned in any of these stories.
>> Right. >> Because they all assume it,
you ask him, hey, you ask a fish, how's the water?
They say, what water?
And that's Tim Alberta, does a really interesting, good piece of journalism.
But even him, if you asked him, he would have said what water?
>> Look, I have a theory on why that is, right?
Because if you look at the media today, I would say the bulk of the coverage
tends to focus on the very shallow differences between Democrats and
Republicans and those tend to be culture war issues.
Let's just keep it real, culture war issues or
manufactured conflicts about legislation, like the debt ceiling bill.
Let's keep it real, corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans were in cahoots
the whole time, they both loved what the end result of that legislation was.
They wanted to cut spending that impacts positively ordinary people,
and continue increasing spending on things like defense.
That's exactly what they did, they're in cahoots when it comes to those issues.
There is virtually no difference between corporate Democrats and
corporate Republicans.
The only way they differentiate themselves is through manufactured culture wars.
And that is what the media takes their lead, and that is what the media covers.
So there's this lie about how different both parties are, and
it's who are you rooting for, blue or are you rooting for red?
And that's what's missing from it, Cenk,
that's why there's no mention of corporate power in this piece.
That's why there's no distinction between Democrats and Republicans,
blue versus red when it comes to corporate issues.
That's why there's no mention of corporate money,
that is not even in the mainstream media's consciousness, and that is a problem.
>> It's a giant iceberg of a problem.
So look, you'll see in the article things that show you what the problem is, but
he never explains it cuz he doesn't know it himself.
So, for example, he'll talk about, well, they need access to Republicans, wait,
why do they need access to Republicans?
A journalist, if you wanna get good sources of information, okay, fair, right?
But if you wanna put them on television for your ratings.
And so you're gonna sell out the truth by appeasing them to put them on air.
As they did with Trump in the town hall, but
as they do with every politician in every instance.
Well, you're not really doing journalism, you're just doing access to power.
But no one mentions that cuz it's too uncomfortable cuz that's what they all do.
And then one other word that's a key word in the article and
you'll see throughout in all of this coverage, is tone.
Well, what should the tone be?
The tone should be respectful of politicians, why?
Press is supposed to be the fourth estate,
they're supposed to challenge the powerful.
They're supposed to challenge the government, but everyone,
including the good guys assume no.
Their job is to kiss as much ass as humanly possible, and so
we're having a debate about whether Chris Lick kissed enough ass and the right ass.
The whole debate is wrong.
>> Yeah, I mean, journalists are supposed to be muckrakers, they're supposed to rake
the muck, instead, they engage in the mucky behavior themselves.
And that's the huge problem that has led to a huge portion of the American
public just rejecting and failing to believe in our institutions.
And I don't blame them for that, given what the press has turned into.