On Speaking Terms

Way back in July of 2008, I wrote a long-form piece for this site and the Huffington Post that detailed a "stealth mission" I undertook into the heart of the Time Warner Center in New York City, home to the CNN offices that I worked at for a few years before being unceremoniously fired. What led me back there was a symposium on cable news and internet media and how the two were learning -- and sometimes not learning -- to coexist and interact. It was hosted by CNN DC Bureau Chief David Bohrman and featured a panel made up of relatively young, hip journalists who had supposedly proven themselves to be admirably adept at straddling the cutting edge between established and new media.

During the panel's conversation, one of the subjects that kept rearing its head over and over again was control of the message -- how CNN and the mainstream media in general cling to it because they have to, and how the very notion of it was antithetical to the new media experience.

At the time, I wrote this:

"What seemed to outright shock David Bohrman the most, however, was the notion that the panelists -- this new breed of journalists -- actually interacted with their audience, and did so free of many of the constraints that had previously been carefully put in place to shield both the members of the media and the organizations for which they worked. Bohrman may be a trailblazer when it comes to updating the philosophical mindset of the mainstream media, but both the technology and its true impact on what journalists do and what's expected of them is still well beyond his grasp. As I sat listening to him, I realized that likely without meaning to be, he was almost comically arrogant in his apparent belief that the multifarious corporate media giants could embrace the technology needed to thrive in the new world, yet still preserve the single most important necessity to their bottom line: control. Over and over again, the young panelists hammered home the fact that the internet has brought with it an unprecedented level of transparency in our society and culture, particularly when it comes to media organizations, and that the upcoming generation can smell marketed bullshit a thousand miles away, even through a broadband line. Bohrman, meanwhile, seemed to cling to the idea that the heavily-controlled CNN 'brand' could translate perfectly to all forms of new media -- that those who are relying more than ever on the internet for their information will trust a big-profit-driven news organization without question the same way they did when they, quite frankly, had no other choice."

I bring this up because there actually is one guy at CNN who was way ahead of the curve in understanding what new media and social networking is all about and who's used them to their full advantage -- but now comes the inevitable moment of reckoning. Of all people, Rick Sanchez has been at the forefront of adopting the near-instantaneous news and opinion gathering that Twitter provides and turning it into TV gold; his current show, Rick's List, is based almost entirely around the audience interaction the platform allows for. Sure, Sanchez can be a boob -- but he's always an entertaining boob, and it's the perpetual ego-stroke he gets from hearing from his viewers that keeps his love affair with Twitter going strong.

But as I alluded to two years ago, how long a leash is CNN willing to give the audience when it comes to its collective -- and unfiltered -- contribution to the network's product? Today over at Mediaite, there's a story about how Sanchez's open Twitter forum has led to some pretty caustic anti-Israel comments making it on the air in the form of viewer tweets. The question is, should CNN censor commentary that some might find offensive? Would doing so defeat the entire purpose of allowing the audience to have its largely unrestricted say, and therefore the entire point of Sanchez's show?

The answer, respectively, is no and yes.

I actually applaud CNN for having the balls to allow its show, its audience and the social networking platform that connects the two a little leeway; I have to assume that there's someone or something acting as a gatekeeper to ensure that nothing obscene, threatening or personal gets on the air, but providing a forum for strong points of view -- even highly controversial ones -- is what new media is all about. Once again, it's the unfiltered transparency that gives the internet its authority -- an authority that's thoroughly compromised the minute anyone attempts to place arbitrary restrictions on it. At some point during the past couple of years, somebody at CNN got a clue and learned the lesson that David Bohrman seemed to once scoff at -- namely that to truly thrive during the new media revolution, you have to learn to adapt and let go not simply of the old way of doing things technologically, but of your need to tightly control the way your audience perceives, interacts with, and, yes, alters your programming (often in real-time).

Sure, it's going to be uncomfortable, ugly and even embarrassing at times -- but that's the price of freedom, and the cost of survival in today's media climate.