360 Friday: Anderson Cooper Tries Out A Talk Show Format With A Live Studio Audience

Hi everyone. I can't say I've really given this whole 360 Friday talk show thing much thought. Honestly, I was pretty skeptical that it would ever actually be filmed, much less see the light of day. But air it did, and as your trusty reviewer, I suppose I shall weigh in. This post is just going to focus on the format. They're supposedly continuing coverage of the race study next week, so I'll deal with content at that time.

My initial visceral reaction upon viewing the first few minutes of the new format was to be fairly weirded out. It was my show. But it wasn't my show. You know? Actually, the experience was almost akin to having a dream about the show. Like, you know how sometimes you have a dream about your house, and you know it's your house, but there are extra rooms or something? It was kinda like that. It wasn't a bad dream. It wasn't like suddenly being naked in front of your ninth grade science class. But it also wasn't awesome like that time you dreamed you made out with Collin Farrell either. Ahem.

For my regular readers, it probably goes without saying that this 360 Friday format is not the route I would take to save them from their ratings woes. But dismissing the entire concept just because it's not exactly to my liking is rather unfair, so I shall just work with what they gave me. I will, however, note that at this point I really don't have the slightest idea of what they're trying to do. Years ago, I would have just assumed that the big cable news show had elaborate plans that I the lowly viewer couldn't begin to grasp. Yeah, not anymore. These days I'm not confident they know what they're doing either.

I'm not even sure who this new format is geared toward. It really had the feel of something that was trying to cater to their fans or regular viewers. So, I dunno, maybe they're trying to shore up their base. Because it seems rather counterproductive to try to use this format to gain new viewers. The other four days of the week the format is different. How's that supposed to work? Unless of course this whole thing is not so much about ratings as it is about them only having to do four live shows a week.

Or maybe they're going to try to change the entire show over to this format, which I think would be a colossal mistake. How that would work and what that might do to Anderson Cooper's career is beyond me. There are a lot of issues in that scenario to ponder (issues that I can guarantee would be written about extensively in the press if this speculation came to fruition), but I'm waaaay ahead of myself here. They just had their first show. It's a little too early to say the eulogy for the original 360 format.

Though I have my criticisms, there was no part of the show that I considered to be a train wreck, and there were a few parts I quite liked. For example, the intimacy of the set itself was a nice change of pace. Logistically, I know it can be hard to get all the guests in the studio, but it really does make a difference. I am so sick of heads in boxes. I also loved that for the most part, the screen remained uncluttered. No obnoxious graphics and sound effects or irrelevant technology. Just the necessities and a little bit of bump music. Now that's something I wish they'd adopt for all five days of the week.

The conversation itself had a Real Time with Bill Maher feel, which is a show I like a lot. Unfortunately, I have my doubts that 360 can capture that show's popularity. Anderson Cooper is not Bill Maher; he's an objective journalist. The reason shows like Real Time and The Daily Show work so well is that the hosts have a distinct point of view. It's not always a point of view that can be pigeonholed as left or right, but it's a point of view nonetheless. And that goes against everything Anderson has strived for in his professional career. So what is our anchor's role? Moderator? That's what he always does. I suppose it's something to tinker with.

Something I'm not sold on is the live studio audience. It's just, well, weird. I'm not so sure I actually want to hear them laughing and clapping. I'm also wondering if 360 has considered the accusations of bias that might come their way. Look, I don't think it's any secret that 360's viewership seems to skew left. I don't state that comment as a reflection on the show--for the most part I believe they do try to be objective. You can't help it if your viewers don't land equally on both sides of the partisan divide. So, my question is, what happens when liberal guests/viewpoints consistently get more applause? Or even worse, what if a conservative is booed? People will begin to notice.

I also think 360 is severely underestimating the draw of live television. Are Fridays really always going to be taped now? Meh. That's not must-see viewing for me. There's no urgency with a taped special; no possibility of anything truly amazing happening. If it's a subject I'm interested in, I'll usually try to catch it, but as a general rule, taped news is not something I schedule into my day. Not to mention the fact that this new format means that live news would stop for the west coast at a ridiculously early time. Yes, they've got someone doing live updates, but c'mon.

That's pretty much the meat of my criticism. As far as the odds and ends, at times the tone felt uneven, and some of the laughs felt forced. Personally, I wouldn't write many jokes; I'd just let them happen. For a guy who is a reporter, Anderson has crazy good comic timing. When it comes to humor, he wields a scalpel, not a mallet. Please don't try to make him into Jay Leno. The whole "have you seen this video, Kevin?" thing was pretty awkward. Don't get me wrong, I love Kevin, but my first thought was, "oh God, a sidekick."

I think the entire quiz segment needs tweaking. Given this was the first show, that's pretty natural. Also, it was great to see Jack Gray, though again, his appearance had me wondering exactly who this show was geared toward. Despite his gabillion Twitter followers, how many people actually know who he is and what he does, versus those who just casually read his funny tweets? I'm not sure that question can even be answered. But he was presented as someone we should know. And if they're working on shoring up their base, that's perfectly appropriate. If not...I just don't know.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. I hope they're successful in what they're trying to do--whatever that may be. But I also hope that it involves maintaining the integrity of a news broadcast. Remember, so far it's just been one show. This could all get scrapped next week or it could be the beginning of a massive shift at CNN. Only time will tell.

Musings About Anderson Cooper 360's Ratings & Why, Despite Excellent Reporters, I Trust The Daily Show More Than CNN

Hi everyone. It's been a while since I've fulfilled the "other newsy musings" part of this blog's mission statement (up top, people!). With all the AC360-related chatter in the headlines lately, I figured this was as good a time as any. As someone who has been doing reviews of this show for about three and a half years (I know, I can't quite believe it either), I was reminded of something last week when I took a few days off to simply watch, but not blog: I'm not a regular viewer. Sure, I'm regular in a literal sense in that I watch almost every night, but is my experience regular? Not even close.

When I'm watching the show, I'm focused on accurately getting down facts, obtaining a full enough understanding of the information that I'll be able to regurgitate it in my own voice, zeroing in on criticisms to point out, and yes, finding things that will (hopefully) add some amusement to my post. In other words, I've got stuff to do. I think this is why it's taken a while for me to really understand one of show's biggest problems now: it's boring.

Shortly after one broadcast last week that I watched without blogging, I found I wasn't able to remember anything specific about what had been covered. During another show, one of the most interesting take-aways was a Dr. Scholls commercial (they have machines you can step on now that tell you what's wrong with your feet!). There are exceptions to be sure (you know I love me the Gary Tuchman), but for the most part, 360 has become forgettable. As one of my commenters once put it, the show has turned into something that you would leave on in the background for the noise. It's now news muzak.

Unfortunately, it seems people aren't even turning the show on for the background noise. February's ratings were their lowest in total viewers ever. Pretty sad given that those numbers include a week's worth of excellent live reporting from Haiti. Speaking of the quake, about a week or so after it struck, the Daily Intel blogged a post titled, "If Anderson Cooper Can't Win After an Earthquake, When Can He Win?" At the time, 360 was still there, operating in hell. With so much death still happening, ratings seemed irrelevant, and it felt excessively mean for me to point out the show's failure in this area while they were doing such a great job.

But I bookmarked the post for a later date (that date being now) because I'd say its assessment is pretty spot on. As for the question asked, I think the answer is he can't; he can't win ever. Not anymore. Obviously, this is not just specifically Anderson or the show's fault. CNN has a pretty systemic problem, especially in primetime. What I've found particularly notable is the sea change that's occurred regarding breaking news. In the not too distant past, the network was known as THE place viewers turned to for big news events.

Judging by the numbers, however, they've recently ceded this ground to Fox News. Haiti quake coverage? Fox News won. The State of the Union address? Yep, lost again. I suppose the latter could be dismissed away by the fact that conservatives are much more politically energized right now, and those conservatives are more likely to be Fox News die-hards. Still, I find it hard to believe this stuff doesn't keep an executive or two up at night.

Of course, you're never going to get that impression from CNN president Jon Klein, who seems to be oblivious of the huge gap between what he says about the network and what actually shows up on air. During a recent interview with TV Guide Magazine, he once again emphasized his belief that CNN and the other cable news networks aren't even competitors. I think the pull quote from the piece is actually from the competing TV news executive: "When people come in who don’t normally watch cable news, they go to CNN. The question is how long can [the network] go on like that as more people get their news headlines on the Internet?"

This is a question I've brought up before, and if recent ratings are any indication, the answer is, um, not long. Obviously I can't know exactly what's going on with CNN's viewers--there are many different scenarios that could be at play--but it's no secret their base of loyal viewers is smaller than the other two cable news networks. And this goes back to being boring. To hear Klein and his ilk tell it, straight news simply can't be as engaging as the partisanship served up by Fox News and MSNBC. I don't think that's entirely true, and I also don't think CNN is quite the straight news network that he likes to say.

Perhaps CNN's greatest asset, and one of the main reasons I watch, is that they employ phenomenal reporters. Though it sounds strange, this is why the network endlessly frustrates me. They have this awesome infrastructure set up all over the world, yet when I turn on my TV, I'm met with endless pundits, analysts, and so-called experts speculating away about things that often aren't even relevant. How exactly is that better than Fox News or MSNBC?

Then there's my pet peeve, which is most likely the biggest flaw in journalism today: fake balance. According to Martin Kaplan, director of the University of South California Annenberg's Norman Lear Center, "Straight news is not what it used to be. It has fallen into a bizarre notion that substitutes something called 'balance' for what used to be called 'accuracy' or 'truth' or 'objectivity.'" When it comes to this journalistic offense, CNN is one of the worst culprits I've seen. For some reason, they've gotten it into their heads that the only way to be "objective" is to pretend like both sides are always equal.

During the height of Hurricane Katrina, Anderson did an interview with Senator Mary Landrieu that spoke for a nation. He wasn't taking sides or being opinionated in an egregious way; he was speaking truth to power. And viewers responded in droves. Why it took something so unbelievably horrible for this to occur--literally bodies on an American street--is beyond me. Things are not always equal. In fact, they seldom are. William Jefferson's freezer cash does not equal the massive corruption we've witnessed with the GOP. The consensus of 90 percent of the world's scientists does not equal a small percentage of climate change naysayers funded by Big Oil. And so on. I'm not even asking for the news to ignore skeptics, but my God, where's the context?

I find this kind of reporting can sometimes be more destructive than the information filtered through the partisan lens of the other two cable news networks. And I think it's hurting CNN's brand name, which just might be one of the reasons they've lost that number one spot for breaking news. Too often they try to be everything to everyone and in turn become nothing to nobody. They're bland. Sometimes finding the truth means taking sides, and they're not willing to do that. To wit, they're the complete opposite of The Daily Show. The above quote from Kaplan comes from this American Journalism Review piece, which really lays out the fake balance problem and explains why a comedy show often achieves better journalism than the so-called real news networks.

A few weeks ago, 360 reported on the ethics problems of Charles Rangel (which they recently followed up on). Then last week, The Daily Show, did the same. While watching the latter, I surprised myself with the realization that I trust TDS more than I trust CNN. Many times when watching a political report on CNN, I will find myself wondering if a small issue is being made larger to create balance, or controversial details are being left out so as not to alienate a subset of viewers. I never have this feeling with Jon and the gang. They're no bullshit. They're not trying to please anyone, or make everything equal, or maintain access. It may sound crazy given that they barely even do any of their own reporting, but I trust them. And the fact that even a regular CNN viewer like me can't say the same about them is pretty sad.

It's no wonder that there have been rumors that Anderson Cooper is jumping ship for CBS. According to CNN, they're false. Others claim it was actually Cooper's people that planted the story. That was one of my initial theories--that or CBS did it so that poor Katie Couric would have to accept a lower offer come negotiation time. And hey, if Anderson is using the fact that people still like him (despite his low ratings) as leverage to get a higher offer from CNN, it doesn't make him Machiavelli--it's pretty much how the game is played.

Or maybe he is looking to leave. It hasn't exactly gone unnoticed by regular viewers that he often seems pretty unengaged in the show (save Haiti and some other exceptions). I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if 360 went off the air within the next year or so. It's a vibe I've had lately that I've hinted at here and there. When it happens, I will initially be very sad, both for the loss of something I've invested in so long and for the staff who might experience lost or changed jobs. But honestly, I'll probably be a little relieved as well. (Yes, I realize no one is making me blog or watch, but what can I say, it's hard for me to quit things.) I just hope we get some notice. I always envisioned being given an end date, but after Erica's sudden departure and the way Lou Dobbs left his show, now I'm not so sure. One night I might sit down to find I'm about to do my very last review ever.

But back to Anderson, I'm not sure I see him as a network evening news guy. He is an excellent visceral reporter; he's an average anchor. Taking over for Katie would mean reading headlines from a prompter. He'd really be happy doing that? CBS isn't going to let their main anchor spend three weeks in Haiti or anywhere else. When it comes to keeping him from jumping, that's probably one of CNN's main cards. I know some of the regular viewers have long wished Anderson would quit CNN. I myself have sometimes thought he'd be a much better fit as a morning host to show his lighter talents, coupled with a higher profile at 60 Minutes for his newsier side (or maybe he'll join Oprah's new endeavor). But then there's that issue of breaking news on-the-scene reporting, which only CNN can offer.

This is all just speculation of course. Nobody except those directly involved have any idea what might go down. For now, with regards to the ratings, I'm not sure what to say anymore. It seems like they've reached a place where people expect them to suck and therefore don't watch. It's like a version of a self-fulfilling prophesy or something. Plus, some of the show's decisions seem counterproductive. For example, I just found out that on Wednesday they aired a piece on the Congo narrated by Anderson, but played it only in the second hour. It seems to me that a piece like that is what attracted many loyal viewers to this show in the first place. And it also seems to me that most loyal viewers are going to watch the first hour (because it's live) and not the second. Maybe I'm way off base here, but WTF? It's like they're not even trying.

I'm not going to get into anymore specifics regarding the show; been there and done that. I'd never want them to go partisan, but I think they can probably learn a thing or two from their competitors regarding airing an engaging broadcast. Outside-the-box thinking is desperately needed and no, I don't mean gimmicks. Of course, really shaking things up would mean CNN would have to admit it has a problem. I don't see that happening. So here we are. A network that will never reach its potential. I think both viewers and journalists deserve better than that.