I worked there for years and loved it. But today for example their hero story is this. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/30/health/back-to-normal-bias-wellness/index.html. Here's how I know it's terrible. They used to have people in fact check/ standards who would challenge you and in this case ask such journalistic questions as 'please include in this piece the definition of 'normal'. 'Also please include in this piece what has changed, specifically.' Now please include in this piece details of why it's your analysis, backed by scientific evidence or cited 'experts' that the current status quo as deviant from the previous status quo, will be permanent (mask wearing because we will never have immunity to covid or because new viruses will emerge? Lack of travel because? Schools remain closed because...?') etc. I used to be up till all hours of the night trying to be a better journalist when I worked there. Now it's just like 'A theory I scribbled in 5 minutes between zoom calls' is literally their top story. And breathe. Sorry, vent over.
That's not just CNN. That's life. Look at our President. Social media has taken our filter away. Passion is mistaken for fact.
The biggest problem with that article is that the headline misrepresents what it's about. It's not actually about whether or when things are going to go back to normal at all; it's about the human brain's responses to change. But CNN has definitely become more clickbaity, hence the melodramatic headline and front-page placement of this article, which seems more like it should be buried somewhere in Health. Is it true that headlines are written by editors, not the writers themselves?
(It would honestly be ridiculous though if every article which alludes to the disruption caused by Covid had to go back to square one and establish "what has changed, specifically". I think it's reasonable if that requirement has been relaxed since your time there, which I assume was pre Covid.)
I never, ever go to their website (trashy). I don’t mind their TV channel.
OP: what do you think has changed? Is it the ability to directly measure profitability of each story via digital?
It is that they now understand how to garner engagement but don't know how to wield the weapon responsibly. It's hard but not impossible
Here's what CNN and almost all digital media is like.
Headlines are written by editors who are rated on their traffic numbers. They spend a lot of time looking at Google Trends to see what people are searching for and then replicate those headlines on the site, and they all know the tricks ("5 Things You Never Knew About X!") that tend to get clicks.
Writers are young - like just out of college - and paid almost nothing. They're often asked to spit out 3 - 5 articles a day. Their performance is also tied to traffic. There's almost no reporting done anymore, and god knows no copy editing.
It's all complete trash.
Had the same reaction to that article, and to the headline as another poster mentioned above. Ridiculous. They also have an alarming headline today about Madrid "locking down" again, which (when you read the article itself) includes going to 50% capacity at bars and restaurants. We're not even to that number here and no one would say we're "locked down."
@ Anonymous I used to be a journalist, and it makes me so sad.
Jeff Zucker much?
I totally understand your POV, especially because you worked there, but the shift in Journalism probably pre-dates your term at CNN. Once news became monetized, it's been a race to the bottom. All networks do this. For some time, we saw entertainment news move to the forefront. Or violent crime dominating the local news . . . or biased political reporting. I get that you used to work at CNN . . . but I honestly feel like other networks are certainly on par or worse. But the "CNN brand" has certainly been a standard bearer in reporting . . . sign o' the times.
Thank you! The network is awful and so obsessed with Trump it‘s weird. They’re supposed to be journalists not political operatives.