The Nexstar-owned new kid on the block NewsNation proved its worth on Wednesday night after hosting it’s first ever presidential debate to the tune of 4 million viewers. At first glance, there were signs of possible failure. President Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee at the moment, didn’t show up and didn’t seem to pay too much attention to the debate.
SiriusXM’s Megyn Kelly worked as one of its moderators in a partnership between the two companies. Ironically, only CNN scheduled a post-debate show. MSNBC kept its debate postgame analysis to YouTube while Fox kept their programming schedule as normal as possible. A pre-recorded episode of Gutfeld! aired at 10 PM.
But from the moment the debate went on air, it was clear that when push comes to shove, NewsNation was ready for primetime. Because of its predecessor’s wide distribution, the network was much easier to find than many probably expected. It helped even more that The CW was simulcasting the show. Just like NewsNation, The CW has been another network slowly trying to prove its worth in the television ecosystem. A look at its ratings on Saturday afternoons when it airs ACC college football games shows the network is slowly making some headway. It was an important night for Nexstar and it’s newest properties and the company proved it had what it takes to produce quality programming. The debate’s ratings show that audiences agree.
The set design was very simple but balanced. It gave the feel of a typical debate while showcasing the look viewers would be able to find on NewsNation at any given hour. Nexstar also did an excellent job of promoting CW and NewsNation’s other respective programming throughout the telecast without forcing it down viewers’ throats. There weren’t too many repeated commercials and the moderators of the panel didn’t waste time promoting shows or hosts that air on the network, they stuck solely to the debate. Kelly’s appearance on the moderator panel also happened to be a Godsend, if anything. She found a way to ask pointed questions that got to the heart of issues that many conservatives are concerned about.
Kelly’s questions focused on hypocritical statements or stances each candidate has made without insulting them. Candidates were forced to distinguish themselves from their thoughts and ideas of the past. Elizabeth Vargas and Eliana Johnson also found ways to pit the candidates against each other and point out their differences without asking their questions in an ugly, judgmental way.
The only ugliness that may have appeared on air came from the political foes debating one another on stage. Kelly, Vargas and Johnson even found a way to keep candidates from wasting time on stage. Petty arguments and long diatribes were quickly interrupted. It felt like a group of aunties at Thanksgiving breaking up a discussion all the cousins were having so they could get to the dinner table and say a prayer for the food.
Although the debate was only two hours, it felt like it was longer – in a good way. Anticipation for the next moment in the debate could be felt in the air and time was going seamlessly. With fewer candidates on stage, everyone had more time to say their peace, and commercial breaks were far and few between. When a break took place, it also wasn’t long and it helped that some of the commercials aired had a bit of relation to what viewers were tuning into. While candidates were given time to breathe, the debate’s moderators weren’t afraid to intervene in order to get as many topics on the floor as possible. The constant switching of topics probably helped the debate seem so smooth.
A major difference between this debate and others was the screen space. Viewers were forced to really listen to what was being said because the candidates took up most of the screen. Graphics didn’t change up to reference the questions that were being asked or real-time polls from viewers that were tuning in or programming previews of what was coming up after the debate.
The only graphics that were shown identified who was speaking and the fact that viewers were tuned into a Republican Presidential Debate. It was an anomaly compared to most programming on cable news and television as a whole that includes graphics about social media, QR codes, a bottom line with other headlines, logos that change colors etc. Sometimes, less is more.
Despite all the positives, it was disappointing to see NewsNation ignore gun violence given the main story of the day. Three people were shot and killed while one person was injured on UNLV’s campus in Las Vegas, Nevada as preparations were being finalized for the debate.
As news broke of the incident, NewsNation chose to continue with a preview of the debate. At the top of their 4 PM hour, as the other three cable networks were wall-to-wall with coverage, NewsNation told viewers they were going to go over the top stories for the day. Instead of simulcasting coverage from their sister station in the area, KLAS, or even alerting viewers of what was happening in the first place, the network went into a pre-recorded interview with a voter who was anticipating the impending debate.
On any other day, if there is no breaking news going on, NN’s editorial choice makes sense. NewsNation is not a non-profit, the debate is the biggest event of the network’s history and they need people to tune in because debates are really expensive to produce.
The problem that lies here is that NewsNation is still a news station. Viewers deserve to know what is happening and to get coverage with the perspective NewsNation is able to serve viewers with even if there are a million other places to get news and information nowadays. What made matters worse is that none of the moderators referred to the incident during the program nor did they ask the candidates about the particular incident or their viewpoints on gun violence and how to curb it. It is so important that we don’t normalize incidents such as this by treating them like they are just a regular part of living in America. It should never be normal even if it is starting to feel that way.
Debates are extremely hard to produce. CNBC and NBC faced controversy during previous election cycles for some of the shows they’ve put on and both networks have been in existence for decades. CNN has faced criticism for town halls it has done in the past. NewsNation will always face some sort of criticism, critique, and controversy at some point. And they actually already have in reference to other endeavors they’ve tried out in this short time of existence. It is the nature of the business.
But to be able to pull off such a successful and informative debate as such a young company is something everyone in that newsroom should be extremely proud of and use as motivation moving forward. The world watched NewsNation on Wednesday night and is definitely paying attention if they weren’t doing so before.
Jessie Karangu is a weekly columnist for BNM, and graduate of the University of Maryland with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. He was born and raised in Baltimore, Maryland but comes from Kenyan roots. Jessie has had a passion for news and sports media and the world of television since he was a child. His career has included stints with USA Today, Tegna, Sinclair Broadcast Group and Sightline Media. He also previously wrote a weekly column for our sports media brand, Barrett Sports Media. Jessie can be found on Twitter @JMKTVShow.
Proof That Both CNN and Fox News Manipulate Their Audiences
Playing with numbers and technicalities is a function of what the media does today. Since the average person just reads the headline, viewers will likely move on if it confirms their own bias.
When news organizations collide, journalism loses. Last week, CNN posted on X saying “US inflation cooled down in January, offering some relief for Americans who have suffered through the steepest price hikes in four decades.” The same day Fox News posted “BREAKING: Inflation rises faster than expected in January as high prices persist.”
While these are seemingly opposite statements, both can be true at the same time. More importantly, both of these outlets are manipulating their audience.
People like their own opinions and want those opinions verified by others. This is what social media has done to news: You read the post, see your opinion is valid, and then move on to the next clickbait (confirmation bias). More importantly, both of these tweets are true because one is based on an estimate, and one is based on actual numbers.
Looking at CNN, while their post on X seems positive, their business headline is a little less positive, “Inflation cooled last month, but some price hikes continue to cause pain.” The change from tweet to headline is striking. One says Americans are getting inflation relief, the other says inflation continuing to cause pain. In today’s world of “Read the headline and move on,” this is why people feel CNN lies. Its post is in conflict with the headline— even though both are true statements.
It’s not until you read the article that people can see how this is possible. The outlet notes overall inflation did cool when comparing January 2023 (6.4%) to January 2024 (3.1%). Four sentences into the article it says, “CPI rose by 0.3% in January.” It goes on to break down why inflation is still high and causing pain in the pockets of Americans. Although the X post is factually correct, people on the right side of the political spectrum feel CNN is untrue because they see the inflation problem in their bank account.
Meanwhile, the Fox News X post and Fox Business headline are identical, “Inflation rises faster than expected in January as high prices persist.” However, the keyword here is “expected.” Inflation did cool year-over-year. However, because Fox is comparing the January 2024 number to what experts expected the number to be, what they have posted is factually correct. This nuance is sometimes lost on readers.
The article does not mention inflation is down year-over-year. However, nine sentences into the article, the business outlet says, “Inflation has fallen considerably from a peak of 9.1%.” The nuance of “expected” combined with the lack of mentioning year-over-year inflation is down is why the left side of the political spectrum believes Fox lies.
Let’s be clear, neither CNN nor Fox News have lied (on this one specific topic). They both chose to present the same data differently. It also needs to be noted, CNN and Fox News are not the only outlets that do this. They all do. Playing with numbers and technicalities is a function of what the media does today. Since the average person just reads the headline, viewers will likely move on if it confirms their own bias. The problem is twofold.
- Facts are no longer direct but skewed to fit a narrative.
- Some viewers accept headlines and posts without diving deeper into the article.
We have been trained to share a headline without reading the article. We’ve known this since 2016 when Columbia University and the French National Institute found 59% of shared social media links were never read. We’ve gone from headlines selling newspapers, forcing people to read the articles, to headlines being shared on social media, but people won’t read the articles.
This is only a small part of why The Messenger failed: neutrality. The sentiment of unbiased news was well-intentioned. However, America has lacked unbiased news since 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Many on the left believe this has helped right-leaning outlets. This is false. Not only has it benefited both sides of the aisle, it can be argued the progressives have benefited more than the conservatives (but that is a different article for a different day).
When news outlets collide, the American public loses. Not because we lack news, but because we lack the ability to read the full scope of the issues in one place. Outlets are not forced to present all sides of the political argument or present the entirety of data sets. Additionally, news is not being fully read. Headlines are now king. Shares, clicks, and likes keep the lights on in newsrooms. Most importantly, facts are now nuanced. This forces debate instead of continuity and cohesion.
Krystina Alarcon Carroll is a columnist and features writer for Barrett News Media.She currently freelances at WPIX in New York, and has previously worked on live, streamed, and syndicated TV programs. Her prior employers have included NY1, Fox News Digital, Law & Crime Network, and Newsmax. You can find Krystina on X (formerly twitter) @KrystinaAlaCarr.
Does Dealing With Criticism Ever Get Easier?
Engage in the content of the criticism and ignore the rest – or at least take the high road. If that gets difficult, end the conversation.
Thick skin. If you work in media, you gotta have it. If you don’t, you either won’t last or you won’t sleep – or both.
Even if you are neutral politically, super nice, and in it for all the right reasons, there always will be people who criticize you, and some will even make it personal.
Having “thick skin” is a cliché I’ve been thinking about and dealing with for years. I find it fascinating that, somehow, I am way more sensitive at home than I am at work – and by at work, I mean on the air for hours every day.
Even the angriest of listeners are engaging, and engagement is what I want. Sometimes, it can throw a show off-balance, but if handled properly, it should never fully derail you.
Over the years, I have modified my professional behavior, perspective, and attitude, yet my foundational approach has not changed. It began with my first full-time television job when a journalist/mentor of mine told me not to ever act interested in ratings. Rather, he said, focus on my performance and content — the rest would take care of itself.
In my first two anchor/host jobs, it worked wonderfully. I immersed myself in the job, and the ratings were strong. I thought it was a mandate to always take this approach, although in retrospect, I was probably more lucky than good. Regardless, following that mantra actually allowed me to learn my craft and not be overly aware that ratings mattered.
Ignorance was journalistic bliss.
Flash forward to 2024 and it all seems rather naïve, but I think the approach really works well with criticism, too, whether it be on social media, through phone calls or even with fellow hosts.
Just a quick note on nuance: Look at the sentence four paragraphs above – don’t act interested. Looking back at the guidance given by my mentor, his point also seemed to be that even if you are laser-focused on how a show is rating, don’t make it a major topic of conversation, and don’t let people think it defines you as a broadcaster and journalist.
All of it may seem like advice from Fantasyland, but in an indirect way, this approach also makes me less vulnerable to criticism. I simply don’t focus on it too much, and over time, it stopped bothering me even if I did focus on it. Make sense?
Of course, it’s not as if I like it when a listener rips me or the show, either directly or on social media; but I never engage emotionally, and if I do respond in any way, it’s usually content-focused.
That’s the key.
Engage in the content of the criticism and ignore the rest – or at least take the high road. If that gets difficult, end the conversation.
You have the conch. Never forget that.
Ultimately, you’ll feel better, especially knowing you did not take the bait and handled it professionally – no need to create any more tension than is already out in the media eether.
That brings me to the moment a host of a show on my station was sharply critical of an interview I had done, saying it was soft, and not holding the guest (a sitting U.S. Senator) accountable enough.
Specific questions were put forth that absolutely should have been asked, according to the host, and honestly, it was used as a chest puffer for that person to show why certain guests were scared to come on that later show.
And … I thought it was great.
Well, maybe not great, but I actually had no problem with it. First and foremost, they were talking about it, which is good. When I can provide that kind of grist, it’s good radio. It wasn’t always easy to listen to — I was still in the office doing some booking — but for some reason, it did not bother me. This from a guy who gets a one-second side eye from my wife of 20 years, and I think our marriage is in trouble.
In the end, a few of the criticisms were helpful, believe it or not: One or two of the suggested questions put forth on the later show should have been asked.
It’s all part of the balance I seek to create a place where members of both political parties feel comfortable coming on our network. I always reserve the right to ask difficult questions, and I do ask them (apparently not enough for some), but I also try and be balanced and manage relationships.
It’s delicate, and sometimes, elicits criticism – sometimes deserved. Meanwhile, I just focus on the content, naïve as that may be.
Brian Shactman is a weekly columnist for Barrett News Radio. In addition to writing for BNM, Brian can be heard weekday mornings in Hartford, CT on 1080 WTIC hosting the popular morning program ‘Brian & Company’. During his career, Brian has worked for ESPN, CNBC, MSNBC, and local TV channels in Connecticut and Massachusetts. You can find him on Twitter @bshactman.
CBS Mornings Scores Big Post-Super Ratings Win
CBS Mornings became the most-watched program from 7-9 a.m. in total viewers for just the second time ever for a CBS morning news show.
The historic ratings milestones continue for CBS as a result of Super Bowl LVIII.
Less than nine hours following what turned out to be the most-watched telecast in U.S. TV history to date (120.25 million of the near-124 million watching Super Bowl LVIII did so on CBS), CBS Mornings became the most-watched program from 7-9 a.m. in total viewers for just the second time ever for a CBS morning news show.
For the Monday, Feb. 12 edition of CBS Mornings, which featured co-host Nate Burleson from Las Vegas, the site of Super Bowl LVIII, and a visit from Jon Stewart in New York to promote his Daily Show return (which generated great ratings milestones of its own later that night), it delivered 2.9 million total viewers including 654,000 within the key 25-54 demographic, according to Nielsen Media Research. It marked its best total audience and demo figures since Feb. 4, 2022.
CBS Mornings topped ABC’s Good Morning America, the usual morning news viewer leader, by a mere 7,000 viewers; it also outdrew NBC’s Today (2.86 million) by 49,000 viewers.
CBS also bested ABC in A25-54 by +103,000; the sixth time CBS Mornings has led over Good Morning America this season based on the key demo.
This was not the first time a morning show benefited from a halo effect of what the network had aired the night prior. Mar. 8, 2021, was the first time CBS won in the morning. It was the day after Oprah Winfrey’s primetime interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry had aired which drew 17.1 million viewers for CBS. The Mar. 8, 2021 edition of CBS This Morning featured an exclusive interview with Winfrey and the premiere of never-before-seen clips from the Meghan and Prince Harry discussion, had delivered 4.793 million viewers with 1.026 million of them in the 25-54 demographic.
The program changed its title to CBS Mornings in September 2021.
For this 2023-24 season, CBS Mornings has the smallest deficit margin in viewers with ABC’s Good Morning America since the 2017-18 season and the tightest margin in A25-54 ever.
Douglas Pucci is a Bronx native and NYU graduate analyzing news television ratings for Barrett News Media. He did an internship at VH1’s “Pop Up Video” in 1997. After college, Pucci went on to design, build and maintain websites for various non-profit organizations in his hometown of New York City. He has worked alongside media industry observer Marc Berman for over a decade reporting on all things television, first at Cross MediaWorks from 2011-15 then at Programming Insider since 2016. Pucci also contributed to the sports website Awful Announcing. Read more: https://programminginsider.com/author/douglas/