What CNN and MSNBC Can Learn From the New York Times - Consumers may trust them more to deliver entertainment than news.

[Ubiquitous]

Large U.S. news outlets that defined themselves by their opposition to Donald
Trump are now attracting smaller audiences in the era of Joe Biden. Rather
than trying to convince the consumer that they will now offer objective
journalism, perhaps they should focus on developing other products.

Variety’s Brian Steinberg reports on CNN’s effort to navigate the new market
terrain:

“CNN seems to be moving back more toward straight news and away from
some of the blatant opinion-mongering by its anchors that characterized
its past few years,” says Mark Feldstein, chairman of the broadcast
journalism department at University of Maryland, and a former CNN
correspondent.

We’ll see. What’s clear is that both CNN and MSNBC are struggling to attract
viewers. Mr. Steinberg adds:

In the second quarter, CNN’s primetime viewership among people between
25 and 54 — the audience most coveted by advertisers in news programs —
was off by 31%, compared with 40% for MSNBC and just 2% for Fox News
Channel.

Benjamin Mullin of the New York Times paints a similarly bleak picture for
left-leaning networks:

Projections from S&P Global Market Intelligence say CNN’s profitability
is on a pace to decline to $956.8 million this year. That would mark
the first time since 2016 that the network had dipped below $1 billion
in profit, according to three people familiar with its operations...

Ratings are down from their Trump-era heights across cable news, but
declines at CNN are particularly pronounced. The network has drawn an
average of 639,000 people in prime time this quarter, according to data
from Nielsen, a 27 percent decrease from a year ago. It trails MSNBC,
which is down 23 percent in prime time during the same period, and Fox
News, where viewership is up about 1 percent.

In the world of print media, the New York Times also embraced more strident
and politicized coverage. As if readers hadn’t noticed, a New York Times
report in 2020 admitted that its standards were changing:

The paper is in the midst of an evolution from the stodgy paper of
record into a juicy collection of great narratives, on the web and
streaming services.

It’s all been highly entertaining for leftists, but of course leftists aren’t
the only people who like to have fun. Perhaps mindful that non-leftist news
consumers may no longer view its flagship product as a reasonable option, the
New York Times Co. has lately made a number of investments in products that
are more about fun, from puzzles to sports. Maybe it’s working. This week
Rick Edmonds writes at Poynter:

Despite a relatively slow news cycle and a changing mix of products,
The New York Times Co. reported Wednesday that it added a net of
180,000 digital-only subscribers in the second quarter...

For years, the Times financial reports have emphasized digital
subscriber growth and broken the gains down between news and vertical
products like games and cooking. That stopped with the current quarter.
Asked directly in a conference call with analysts how much of the
180,000 gain was from news, CEO Meredith Kopit Levien would not say.

Instead she reiterated several times in the call that the current
marketing emphasis is on an all-access subscription bundle that gives
a reader access to news, games, cooking, The Athletic and the product
recommendation site Wirecutter.

This column visited Wirecutter and found it to be charmingly unlike the
Times. One piece this week carries the intriguing headline, “The Best
Smokeless Fire Pits.” Kit Dillon reports :

Few things are as pleasurable as a toasty fire in the backyard on a
chilly evening.

Fact check: True. Mr. Dillon helpfully continues:

But if you find that the accompanying smoke dampens the pleasure, or
if your neighbors live close by and prefer to keep their bedroom windows
open to catch the cool air, you might consider using a so-called
smokeless fire pit, which eliminates some (but not all) of your fire’s
smoke and most of the ash. We spent three months testing six fire pits
in Hawaii and California. In the end we chose two as our top picks: the
Solo Stove Bonfire 2.0 for most people and small backyards, and the
Tiki Fire Pit for people with larger yards or those who enjoy the more
patio-inspired looks of the Tiki model.

Although we did choose two favorites, note that in our testing nearly
all the smokeless-pit designs worked more or less the same... What
distinguishes fire pits from one another is largely their looks, how
easy they are to clean, and, to some extent, the available accessories.
As a result, finding the right fire pit for you is a matter of personal
choice, depending on your needs.

The delightfully customer-focused reportage does not even shame the reader
for wanting to have a pleasant evening at which some carbon dioxide emissions
can occur.

In another refreshing departure from Times custom, the piece does not
bludgeon the consumer into accepting the political doctrines of alleged
experts but humbly requests consideration:

Why you should trust me

I have worked for Wirecutter for six years in various capacities,
writing about everything from backpacks to luggage to road-trip gear
to car-camping tents. I currently live on the North Shore of Oahu,
Hawaii, and spend a large amount of time at the beach working on our
beach gear guide and our guide to camp cooking gear. Years ago, I
tested a half ton of charcoal for a Wirecutter guide, comparing burn
rates and cooking temperatures. I have been playing with fire at
Wirecutter for a long time.

We may finally have found an expert we really can’t do without. To top it
off, the kind author did not even feel the need to craft an asinine claim
that patio hospitality is somehow linked with racism and sexism.

This column will go out on a limb and predict broad consumer acceptance of
such coverage.

Perhaps the future of journalism at the New York Times Co. is not at the New
York Times. CNN and MSNBC, take note.

--
Let's go Brandon!