From a devoted fan of CNN

Dear CNN,

I greatly appreciate your efforts to recognize and engage your viewers. Your iReports allow everyday people to contribute and tell stories that would otherwise not get coverage (though usually for good reasons). The new CNN website is rather streamlined and easy on the eyes (though not very different from the old one except for moving things around). And your balanced coverage of everything from politics to perverse commercials certainly appeals to a wide audience (both intelligent and otherwise).

However, I would like to let you know that while I am an avid fan and viewer of your programming, I have been bothered of late by your anchors' use of social media, such as twitter and Facebook. Sure, some people may have particularly interesting responses or commentary on the latest news. Perhaps I get to hear a different perspective on the subject (in 140 characters or less) or else hear my voice expressed through another's opinions. And yes, from a strategic communications standpoint, giving people an opportunity to respond and partake in your reports builds a stronger base of support, which is no doubt important, particularly when there are several competing news networks and the ever-threatening Internet nipping at your televised heels.

But let's be serious. Seriously. You guys are supposed to be our reliable and professional source of information. "America's Most Trusted News Source." "The Best Political News Team on Television." I turn to you for expert opinion, for accuracy and precision, for facts and details I can't get elsewhere, and for thoughtful and informed analysis of important issues. If I want to know what my friends and neighbors think, I'll ask. If I want to see the latest Facebook feed, I'll go online (which is what you want me to do anyway, right? visit your Facebook page?). And if I want meaningless, nonsensical and unfounded commentary, I can flip over to the Fox News Channel.

The point is that I turn to you for credible and detailed information about critical issues affecting me, our country, and our world. (Canadian breast cancer ads called "Save the Boobs" are interesting and fun to watch, but not quite as "critical" as terrorism, nuclear disarmament, health care, education, climate change, energy policy, and what kind of dog the presidential family plans to adopt.) Surely your time is better spent providing reliable information on a story rather than the feedback of someone who is at home during the day responding to your social media feeds. (No doubt those people are upstanding, hard-working individuals with respectable careers that happen to have enough time, effort and interest to post on Facebook at three-thirty in the afternoon in response to a Rick Sanchez piece on whether or not Hollywood is sending viewers subliminal messages.) I like to believe that your staff have the talent, expertise and resources to produce enough interesting and high-quality news to fill your airtime without deferring to the thoughts and opinions of average Americans with little to no expertise in the topics at hand.

If you want to present expert commentary and analysis (and why shouldn't you?), defer to your own team of expert commentators and analysts. I'm a big fan of Gloria Borger, David Gergen, and Candy Crowley, all of whom provide excellent, informed, informative, and unbiased perspectives. (What happened to Bill Schneider, a great political reporter whose character and delivery seemed to capture the spirit of the everyman but whose questions and insights demonstrated his expertise and intelligence?) While I appreciate your efforts to be unbiased by featuring "both sides of the aisle" in all discussions, these partisan PR people only spew the party line, and don't offer anything new or interesting to the discussion. I appreciate Paul Begala and James Carville for their entertainment value, but they are hard-nosed Democrats to the end (which is why I love them). And can someone please please please force these "on message" partisans to answer a question when asked, rather than deflecting a question about how Bush may have had a hand in the current economic situation by talking about how Obama's approval ratings are dropping? Such dithering from partisans doesn't inform and engage the viewer. It does the opposite: forces us to change the channel.

Speaking of non-partisan opinions, I would like to clarify that the word "unbiased" is not necessarily the same as "independent" if "independent" means "grumpy, old, white men who complain about both sides" - as it seems to be for the independents in your programming. "Mr. Independent" himself is the worst of this kind: rather than serving as an independent in the sense of not aligning with either party platform, instead Lou Dobbs serves as independent in the sense of hating everyone and complaining about everything. And I'm sure Jack Cafferty is a nice guy, and I wouldn't mind having a beer with him sometime, but does his segment add anything to the program? He's another grumpy, old, white man - but at least he takes feedback from the viewers. Unfortunately, he shares that feedback with me, as though I yearn to hear average (read: uninformed and opinionated) Americans repeating "the party line" for both parties. Again, letting both sides air their opinions does not make your reporting unbiased, and independent should be more than evenhanded complaining of both sides.

If you want to engage your viewers, and if you want to be more entertaining, take a note from Jon Stewart. Jon manages to be informative, highlighting the important (and ridiculous) news of the day, provide commentary and opinions that enrich our understanding of the situation, and he is independent in his presentation, equally mocking and complimenting both sides. Granted, his show is not a real news show, but imagine what CNN could do if it adopted that idea, applying your panel of unbiased experts to really analyze the facts and the hype, the good and bad, the absurd and realistic. The Daily Show succeeds because it is engaging, and it is engaging because it provides an honest commentary on top news. CNN can adopt this kind of approach, infusing its fact-based information with honest, down-to-earth analysis from unbiased experts, rather than relying on partisan (and whiny) talking heads that spew partisan (and whiny) bullet points.

Want to engage viewers, CNN? Create engaging programming. That doesn't mean trying to appeal to everyone by finding the lowest common denominator. Just the opposite: raise the bar higher, provide more in-depth and expert analysis, call people out, give honest opinions, and cut the shenanigans. If I want to watch grumpy, old, white men debate the issues with partisan slander, I'll turn to CSPAN.

I say all this as a loyal fan of your network, who turns to you and you alone for the best news on television, election-year or no. I not only want you to live up to your own tag lines, but I want you to also live up to "America's Best Unbiased and Informative News Source."

So thanks for your time and consideration, and I wish you the best of luck in the Internet Age.

Yours,
Eric

P.S. I will post all of this on twitter and Facebook so you can include it in your broadcasts.