CNN is probably the most popular news agency in the United States and is seen throughout the world. When I travel outside the US, the single most prevalent news agency I see, after the local news sources, is CNN. CNN has developed an ireport portion of their website designed to enable every day people to contribute to the news around you - in kind of a blog format. Sounds like a great idea, huh? Let people do the reporting - except people, in general, have no journalistic training or sense of journalistic integrity. By sponsoring such a s site, CNN lends credence to these reports as true and factual but with zero oversight or accountability. A bad place to be for journalism.
Journalism is the 4th Estate that has the primary responsibility of reporting the news in an accurate and unbiased fashion. That, of course, is always difficult because when people (journalists, editors etc.) are involved, human tendencies, viewpoints, and biases creep into the stories - both in terms of what is said and not said, but also in terms of what is deemed important enough to show or not. But there is an implicit trust on the part of the people that, on average, the media does this correctly and above board. CNN is trusted that most of what you read and see is correct or that it will be corrected if a mistake is made. Indeed, it is the specter of responsibility and accountability that makes the journalists respected and admired.
The blog-o-sphere does not have this same level of commitment or integrity. Anyone can write an online blog (case in point - you are reading one), and anyone can espouse their opinions, and anyone can make their opinions look as if they reflect reality with an unbiased analysis of the facts. That is what makes the freedom of the internet so important - and potentially so dangerous. Propaganda works by only displaying the facts (or falsehoods) that support your aims.
Is CNN a propaganda machine? No, I don't believe so, but I do believe that CNN (and many news agencies) are more worried about ratings than their responsibilities as the 4th estate. Many news agencies believe that they need to maintain ratings in order maintain reporting. They see a cause and effect of good ratings leading to staying in business; I maintain that, in the long run, good reporting yields good ratings. The newspapers that still exist today do so because they provide good reporting not because they put ratings first.
While CNN appeared, in the 80s and 90s, to have a US-progressive agenda, they are much more balanced now - some may disagree with that, but overall, I think this is true. But CNN has reached a point of putting ratings first. When the Malaysian airliner went down, during the same time period of the Crimean and Ukrainian crises, CNN spent the majority of their time reporting on the airliner while most other news agencies were focusing on the crisis in Europe. Ratings ... Ratings ... Ratings.
One might argue, "well that is what the people want to hear about." Maybe, but that is not the charge of the journalistic agencies. The agencies have a responsibility to report truth and inform the people of what is happening in the world. And, I would further argue that the people will listen/watch/read a news agency regardless of what they broadcast because they go to the news agencies to hear what is important. The journalists help the people decide what is important and what is needed to be done. The media creates cause-and-effect, whether they like it or not and whether they admit to it or not.
Returning to CNN's ireport; CNN, a well-known and respected news agency, is supporting a blog site that reads like a journalistic news site and that is just plain irresponsible and potentially dangerous. It does not matter that CNN claims no responsibility because the articles have not been vetted or fact checked. In fact, that is part of problem. Anyone can post nearly anything and CNN claims no responsibility - a "not our problem or responsibility" attitude. That is akin to me, a professional astronomer, going to my community and friends and stating that the world will end in two weeks from an asteroid collision with the Earth (see below). Most people will certainly believe me because I am reputable and they will not check the facts for truth or accuracy. The same is true for CNN, and in fact, CNN has Community Rules for posting which make it appear that stories are indeed true or they would not appear on the site.
On CNN ireport right now has a story about a potential asteroid collision with the Earth in 2040.1 The story is ludicrous, but that does not mean it is not given credence by readers because it is associated with a reputable news agency. This is just one story; how many more articles like this are there; how many more articles with much more serious overtones and consequences are on ireport? Somewhat apropos to my point, there was a blog on CNN's ireport explaining just this concern.
If people want to blog (information or misinformation) with little oversight, there are plenty of ways to do that (again, you are reading one of those). But CNN has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of their content and the quality of the reports to which they supply access. In science, the publishing journals do their best to maintain the reputation of the science that is published. In journalism, the same standard needs to be true, especially, given that decisions based upon what we learn from the media can (and often does) affect millions of people.
CNN should get out of the business of ratings and get back to the business of journalism.
1. This report is no longer available. CNN has removed it, but only after the story became viral and only after NASA released a statement that the story was false.