CNN's Jeff Zucker offered advice to then-candidate Trump right before a CNN-moderated debate
CNN's Jeff Zucker offered advice to then-candidate Trump right before a CNN-moderated debate
"You cannot be elected president of the United States without CNN."
We have a new entrant into media executive quotes about Donald Trump leading up to the 2016 election:
"You cannot be elected president of the United States without CNN."
(Image via David McNew/Getty Images)
Last week, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson aired a recorded conversation between CNN boss Jeff Zucker and the president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, in which Zucker offered advice to the candidate, and, supposedly, perhaps even a little sweetener should Trump lose to Hillary Clinton.
The CNN chief then floated potential post-election plans for Trump, who Zucker previously had worked with as the former CEO of NBC Universal at the height of the popularity of Trump's reality show "The Apprentice."
"I have all these proposals for him," Zucker told Cohen. "I want to do a weekly show with him and all this stuff."
(Image via Fox News)
After this story broke, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple provided this point:
Those of us who have heard CNN executives blab about how their network plows a middle path between the extremes of MSNBC (avowedly liberal) and Fox News (conservative and corrupt) will recognize one of the pitches that Zucker passed along to Cohen. “Here’s the thing,” said Zucker. “You cannot be elected President of the United States without CNN. FOX and MSNBC are irrelevant — irrelevant — in electing a general election candidate.”
That commentary summons a forgotten epoch when CNN and Trump were not declared enemies. In the early primary months, for example, CNN carried Trump’s rallies live — a move for which Zucker later expressed regret — and the candidate appeared for interminable interviews with Chris Cuomo on “New Day.”
Indeed, candidate Trump received plenty of free airtime during the campaign, which would have cost billions in ad dollars. For example, in March 2016, the New York Times reported that Trump received close to $2 billion in free air time. By the election, it was up to $5 billion. (Hillary Clinton racked up a little more than $3 billion in earned media that cycle.)
Make no mistake: this was a decision by network executives; more Trump circus, more eyeballs. More eyeballs, more ad revenue.
Recall Les Moonves’s quote from early 2016: [Trump] may be bad for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”
So now that Zucker’s private conversation with Cohen is public, what to do about it? Having the head of a news network offering advice to a candidate, especially on the eve of the candidate’s debate on the exec’s tv network, raises some hairs.
For starters, credibility for CNN’s reporting takes a hit. (Of course, if they weren’t breaking news, then they weren’t already credible, apparently.) How can a viewer trust that what they’re seeing on air wasn’t brokered by the head of the network?
(You and I, media observers and practitioners we are, know this isn’t true; but there are a few hundred million Americans who don’t understand how our industry operates.)
Ethics in journalism is a constant, as well as evolving target. A lot of this is predicated on two interesting factors: a tribal elitism and a horse-race philosophy that trades on the former.
For instance, last week, Politico reported that Pam Stevens, a Republican communications consultant and former Trump administration official, had been paid by taxpayers to raise the profile of Seema Verma, the administration’s top Medicaid official:
Between October and November 2018, she arranged a "Girl's Night" to honor Verma, according to Stevens' billing records obtained by the committee. The off-the-record event was intended for media personalities and prominent women and was hosted at the home of USA Today reporter Susan Page. In documents obtained by the committee, Stevens described the event as a networking opportunity for Verma, although the evening carried a pricey tab: Taxpayers were ultimately charged nearly $3,000 to cover Stevens' costs in arranging the event.
This set off much criticism against Page and USA Today, with the outlet responding to the Washington Post:
USA Today spokesperson Chrissy Terrell said on Thursday afternoon that Page was “unaware” that the CMS was billed for the event, which the newspaper said was held to honor “two women who had recently gotten significant appointments, Heather Wilson to head the Air Force and Seema Verma to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — both milestone moments to be recognized.”
The newspaper defended Page’s decision to host the gathering, which the publication said are “routinely hosted” by female journalists to “honor significant accomplishments of both Democratic and Republican women,” with the journalists footing the bill. (Page paid $4,025 for catering, plus several hundred dollars for beverages and more money tips for the wait staff.)
“USA Today is fully aware of these long-standing events that recognize the accomplishments of women and fall well within the ethical standards that our journalists are expected to uphold,” the publication said, adding that Page “was not paid or reimbursed by the federal government” for the event.
These off-the-record meetings are a staple of Washington media, but they are just another straw that weighs down the credibility of reporters. It’s a cycle born out of class.
And as we know, trust in the media is pretty abysmal, scoops or not. One argument gaining momentum: start talking about elitism in media.
Poynter has a piece today about how elitism inside the journalism establishment is one of the most pernicious things about this industry. When you go to elite schools, you learn the art of networking, but also the ability of keeping out others. We need more plebeians from state schools in newsrooms and boardrooms.
On Friday, NBC News’s Dylan Byers wrote:
News is a business, with all the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing that entails. But it also has the distinction of being a business that markets itself by promising things — integrity, transparency, fairness — that make the behind-the-scenes machinations especially unseemly to the average consumer (and to many employees).
In response, Press Run’s Eric Boehlert says, sure, but:
That may be, but I know for a fact Zucker was not making these calls to the Clinton campaign in 2016 — he was not effusively praising the candidate, calling her with debate advice, or offering her a "weekly show."
As of now, according to two CNN sales reps speaking anonymously because they weren’t allowed to talk to the press, advertisers haven’t yet complained about the lapse in ethics.
But if their relationship with another network whose top executives have helped not just a president but a whole political party over the last two decades, I can’t imagine any advertisers will be upset in the elbow-rubbing and free advice offered by CNN.
Advertisers care about politics when it helps sell merchandise. Otherwise, all they care about are eyeballs.
Thank you for allowing me in your inbox. If you have tips, or thoughts about this newsletter, drop me a line. Or you can follow me on Twitter. If you liked this edition of the newsletter, please consider sharing across your social networks. Thanks, and have a great week!
Steely Dan, “My Old School”
Some interesting links:
For mergers:
ViacomCBS Reaches Deal to Sell CNET for $500 Million to Marketing Firm Red Ventures (Variety)
Oracle Wins Bid for TikTok in U.S., Beating Microsoft (WSJ)
For optimists:
Life on Venus? Astronomers See a Signal in Its Clouds (NYT)
For app economy:
Addicted to losing: How casino-like apps have drained people of millions (NBC News)
For marketers:
GroupM: Global Ad Demand Improving, Turning 'Positive' In Some Markets (MediaPost)
For billionaires who buy media companies:
The Intercept Promised to Reveal Everything. Then Its Own Scandal Hit. (NYT)
For wannabe TikTok:
Building YouTube Shorts, a new way to watch & create on YouTube (YouTube)
Disgusting. Thanks for the summary and insights. UGH!!!