Tag: CNN

Can David Ellison Save CNN?

At a time when trust in the mainstream media has fallen to historic lows, a bold corporate move is taking place, which has the potential to have a profound effect on CNN.

It is a business acquisition that affords the rare opportunity many free press devotees have been waiting for: the restructuring of a once-prestigious cable news network.

The acquisition just may hold the key to the restoration of journalistic integrity and balance.

Paramount Global, under the leadership of CEO David Ellison, is acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery, a major entertainment company.

Warner Bros.happens to be the owner of CNN, and also some valuable but beleaguered film and TV assets as well.

Paramount’s bid, which prevailed over competitors that included Netflix, has the possibility of significantly altering the current media and entertainment landscape.

The resulting entity, when measured by revenue, will be in the world’s top-four entertainment companies. Additionally, it will be a significant player in Hollywood’s global streaming, linear television and cable programming, and entertainment output.

CNN has a growing self-inflicted credibility crisis. Once revered as a global standard bearer for straight news reporting, the network has increasingly become an outlet that prioritizes a one-sided narrative over news, and opinion over objectivity.

Ratings have suffered accordingly, and public confidence has continued to erode.

Polls now consistently indicate that a majority of Americans view many of the major cable news outlets with deep skepticism, particularly CNN. This is obviously unhealthy for our national discourse.

The public’s right to have access to accurate information is no partisan issue. Rather, it is the cornerstone of an informed citizenry.

Whenever a major news outlet is more consumed with the pursuit of power and fame instead of integrity and truth, the situation becomes a zero-sum game.

Enter CEO David Ellison, the son of mega-billionaire Larry Ellison. The younger Ellison is now steering an old-line Hollywood studio toward a new destination.

He is transforming Paramount (a company where the writer of this article was once employed) into a media and entertainment powerhouse.

Ellison has already signaled a willingness to make “sweeping changes” where necessary, while simultaneously pledging to uphold editorial independence. This is a balance that should inject some major accountability regarding inaccurate reporting.

CNN presently has a sizable track record of dispensing falsehoods. The Jussie Smollett attack tale, the accusations against the Covington Catholic students, and the fabricated narrative surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop are a few of the more egregious examples.

Most recently, the network claimed that officials in President Trump’s administration had supposedly made the admission that the Pentagon and National Security Council “did not plan” for Iran’s attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, the charge was made that the economic impact of the military operation had been underestimated.

CNN appears to have ignored the fact that the operation was explicitly designed to neutralize Iranian naval missile threats to shipping. The network’s selective reporting evidently prompted White House Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to remark, “The sooner David Ellison takes over CNN, the better.”

There are concerns on the part of some that too much media “consolidation” is taking place, which could result in reduced competition. However, the alternative could make things much worse, i.e., that CNN and other media outlets would simply be allowed to continue to harm the public with their unfettered false narratives.

Ellison is suggesting a different path, one that is focused on rebuilding viewer trust.

Under new ownership, CNN could benefit from a fresh perspective that tilts toward factual reporting as opposed to ideological slant. This is what Ellison appears to favor as he addresses the challenges at CBS News with what some observers have called a “conservative-friendly” openness to diverse viewpoints.

This news redo is not about one political side scoring a win. It is about the public scoring one.

The current fragmented media terrain is one that is saturated with social media echo chambers and partisan outlets. A restored CNN led by competent executives at Paramount may actually be the catalyst to reverse course.

For far too long the American people have been receiving news that is really just propaganda dressed up as journalism. The moment has arrived for a return to news that can be trusted.

Ellison has a window in time in which he can deliver exactly that.

May the the long-awaited CNN makeover begin.

Anti-Trump Media Attempt to Tamper with the Manafort Jury

manafort-mueller-ap-er-180103_hpembed_2_4x3_992

Paul Manafort worked as a manager for the Trump campaign for approximately three months back in 2016.

A high-profile trial has been taking place over the last three weeks in the courtroom of Judge T. S. Ellis. Manafort has been charged with eighteen counts of income tax evasion and bank fraud. The jury in the case is presently deliberating.

Still smarting from the unexpected results of the 2016 election, many in the mainstream media have been feverishly covering each step of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as well as the Manafort trial, which they view as the singular most important legal event for Mueller thus far.

However, two recent events that happened during the trial have seemingly generated concern and even anxiety within the mainstream media over the possibility that the trial’s outcome may not be the one for which the outlets had longed.

First, Manafort’s defense team rested its case without presenting witnesses or actual evidence of any kind, making it abundantly clear that the defense lawyers were taking the position that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof.

Second, while still in the process of deliberating, the jury asked four questions of Judge Ellis.

The first three questions dealt with relatively trivial matters concerning forms, exhibit lists, and such. However, the fourth question, which requested that the judge “redefine reasonable doubt,” set off waves of nervous discussion within mainstream newsrooms.

In this case, the burden of proof that rests on Muller’s shoulders is to present sufficient evidence so that the jury will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort is guilty of the crimes with which he has been charged.

By inquiring about the “reasonable doubt” standard, it could well be the case that the jury had been wrestling with the issue of whether or not the evidentiary burden had been met, which could indicate that a possible hung jury, or even an acquittal, is forthcoming.

Either of the above results would constitute a major blow to the already sinking reputation of the special counsel probe. The partisans that populate the newsrooms of the mainstream media would not be able to tolerate such a result.

This may explain why CNN, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC Universal, and the Associated Press sprang into action and had their lawyers file a motion to seek the release of the full names and addresses of every one of the jurors.

The timing of the request is extremely suspicious, and there is little, if any, newsworthiness in obtaining this type of information. The mainstream media were apparently unconcerned with the names and addresses of the jurors when they were selected weeks ago, yet they rushed into court to seek the unveiling of the jurors’ names and addresses on the day after the same jurors inquired about the meaning of “reasonable doubt.”

Fortunately, Judge Ellis ruled against the motion, and in the process revealed that he had personally received death threats and therefore had to be guarded by federal agents.

Judge Ellis also indicated that he was convinced that the jurors could be placed in harm’s way if their names and personal contact information were released. He additionally told the courtroom that the jurors were “scared” and “afraid.”

This jury has not been sequestered. The media outlets that filed the motion are fully aware that there is a high probability that the individual jurors will find out that a host of wide-reaching news organizations were seeking to expose their names and locations.

Manafort has a constitutional right to a trial by a jury of his peers. The jurors, who are fulfilling a civic duty, should have their personal privacy respected during the deliberation process. Outing the names of jurors would be an unethical and egregious interference with due process.