Rush Limbaugh to CNN?

Derided by conservatives as the “Clinton News Network,” and even more pejoratively as the “Communist News Network,” CNN has seen its viewership stagnate as the upstart Fox News Channel takes more and more of its primetime audience. As a result, new CNN Chairman and former Time Magazine editor, Walter Isaacson, is in the process of transforming the cable channel’s stale programming and what some regard as biased reporting.

In recent weeks Isaacson has met with congressional Republicans and, according to insider accounts, is in negotiations with conservative icon Rush Limbaugh to authenticate CNN’s transformation. As expected, many liberal groups have condemned CNN for even considering such a departure: “CNN shouldn’t have to sink to the level of Fox News Channel to win viewers,” argues National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy.

Liberals love to lambaste conservatives and their sympathizers in the media as Cro-Magnon men with primitive sensibilities that are unfit for serious discussion. Hence the notion that by injecting some viewpoint diversity, CNN would be “sinking” to the level of the FOX News Channel.

But something is surely amiss. Aren’t liberals the ones who regularly campaign for greater diversity in programming and news coverage? And don’t they routinely complain that the corporate domination of news leads to stale and compliant coverage? Why is it that when CNN attempts to diversify its coverage, liberals squawk that it is “sinking” from its current high-minded format?

The reason is simple: It is because this diversity is compelled by market pressures and declining advertising revenue, not government mandate. This innovation in programming is driven by the genuine diversity of viewpoints held by the American people, not the state-sanctioned diversity liberals wish to impose on what they view as a wayward public.

A cornerstone of contemporary liberalism is that “free market oligopoly can never produce anything but an unfree culture.” Evidence to suggest that corporations’ news coverage is flexible and responsive to individual tastes directly contradicts this assertion and undermines arguments for government intervention.

Huge multinational corporations dominate today’s news coverage: The prime competitors in the round-the-clock news market are $201 billion AOL Time Warner (CNN), $37 billion News Corp. (FOX News), $409 billion General Electric and $333 billion Microsoft (co-owners of MSNBC). But that is nothing to fret about. Free market competition and consolidation in this news medium have produced greater diversity and given consumers more options.

Through plural ownership, media conglomerates can diversify their overall risk and experiment with new programming to cater to unique tastes. When a diverse show, or channel, succeeds in attracting an identifiable group of potential consumers, advertisers flock and revenues grow. Media consolidation allows television programmers to appeal to different audiences, and, more importantly, attract more advertising revenue through different channels. In this way, the profit motive encourages, rather than stifles, diversity.

Few analysts believed that three full-time news channels – five when you include CNBC and CNN Headline News – could garner high enough ratings to survive. If they are to stay in business in today’s struggling economy and tough ad market, these channels must innovate and constantly revaluate their content. And that’s precisely what CNN is doing by meeting with Republican officeholders and courting Rush Limbaugh.

FOX News took a big risk when it decided to air unknown attack dog Bill O’Reilly in the eight o’clock time slot, but the move has paid off. Similarly, CBS News (owned by $90 billion Viacom) took a risk by airing only ONE segment on the disappearance of Chandra Levy while all of its competitors were fully immersed in Condit-mania. As a result, CBS has seen its ratings rise in comparison to NBC and ABC (owned by $57 billion Walt Disney Company) and has started a broader trend towards “hard news” to capture viewers turned off by the sensationalism of other stations.

Today’s news oligopoly may give liberals heartburn, but it is a perfect example of how free markets service consumer demand and deliver real diversity to satisfy identifiable subsets of consumers. No matter how big, media firms must figure out ways to connect with viewers if their channels are to stay financially viable. AOL Time Warner’s courting of Rush Limbaugh is just the latest example of this dynamic.