Maybe in today's "free" market news outlets have become equal parts propaganda outlets?

Nahhh, owners of the media would never degrade themselves to such practices.

I've believed for a long time that the owners and managers of the big media, as well as their advertisers, have political agenda. It's not just viewership. They'll take a chance with a vicious extremist rightwing loser like Beck, but they'd never hire a broadcaster from the left side of the aisle even if they were more popular, less offensive, and generally better.

I even wonder whether hiring Keith Olbermann wasn't a mistake. I don't think that he was politically outspoken before he was hired.

CNN thought they were appealing to the "real America" you know, the ultra conservative one that repubicans insist are the majority.

CNN just couldn't believe their own lying eyes.

HLN not safe with Nancy Grace. Is she on 8x a day?

I am not giving Glenn Beck any credit at all, but I question a comparison of CNN's ratings from Jan 08 to Jan 09 (or even Dec 08 to Jan 09).

These numbers are unreliable because I suspect that more people than ever were tuning in as Jan. 20th approached and in the weeks after. I think even had Glenn Beck stayed, the numbers would still have been good for Jan. 09.

That being said, good riddance.

Total viewers under Beck dropped but sales of "male enhancement products" tend to peak.

Beck was always one of the lowest-rated people in his category (talk news?) -- at times, the lowest-rated (I think). He never showed any ratings strength at all.

The conclusion that emerges -- if we assume that TV network people can't really be clueless -- is that a propaganda function has long since become more important than ratings.
That is, CNN is not so much a business as a deliverer of right wing propaganda. In this way, they are losing audience, and they are losing money, but they are also, unfortunately for us, keeping the airwaves out of the hands of those who might use it for more substantive, and more appealing, fare.
The networks have been holding up the right-wing meme for a long time, and continue to try to do so. In fact, they have doubled down on their
right wing slant on coverage of Obama's stimulous bill. One major network I saw unashamedly showed a clip of Obama, and three criticisms from three different Republicans-- no Democrat, no supporter of the plan. I, of course, turned the network off immediately, shaking my head, and that was that. I haven't been back to try it again.
They propped up Bush for a long time, they worked hard at keeping the Republicans competitive in the election, with some success. Without the networks, the whole Republican schtick would have collapsed a long time ago.

Exactly, Sandra.

someone should send this info to the NY Times before they hire a replacement for bill kristol.

Steve Benen wrote: "CNN, for reasons that have never been clear ..."

The reasons are entirely "clear" except perhaps to sensible liberal bloggers who are for some reason unwilling to confront the plain and simple truth about the corporate media.

"The media" in the USA consists of a handful of giant corporations that own and control virtually all of the mass media from which most Americans get most of their information. That includes both the so-called "mainstream" mass media which targets a general audience (e.g. CNN) as well as the openly partisan Republican so-called "conservative" media (e.g. Fox News) which targets the right-wing Republican dittohead base.

The job of the corporate-owned, so-called "mainstream" media is to work in close coordination with the corporate-owned, so-called "conservative" media to propagandize the American people in furtherance of the ruthless, rapacious class warfare of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. against everyone else.

CNN put Glenn Beck on their network for that reason. His role was to legitimize the fake, phony, scripted, trumped-up, focus-group-tested, corporate-sponsored "conservative" propaganda that pervades Fox News for the more "mainstream" audience that watches CNN.

It's true that CNN is a for-profit corporation and their goal is to make money, which means to get the ratings. But their central purpose is to pump out the corporate propaganda, and if it costs them in the ratings, so be it.

What's really funny about this is that Jane Velez-Mitchell is as dumb as a box of rocks & she's still beating Beck.

I guess I'll defend Beck a smidgen (which is far more than he deserves or would ever extend to an ideological foe): he was pretty much a square peg in a round hole at HLN. Their other programs, besides repeating the news most of the day and night, are the aforementioned Nancy Grace (whose show is far more disturbing than Beck's given her proclivity for focusing lynch mob energies on obscure private citizens who often turn out to be totally innocent), and Showbiz Tonight. Velez-Mitchell's show, which combines elements of Grace's and the Showbiz type shows, is a much better fit for the lineup.

Beck is a total tool, but in that lineup, the people who stumbled on to his show were probably more bewildered than outraged.

You're all wrong, somewhat on the "propaganda" nature.

It's simple business. It's easier to sell to conservative advertisers if you have a conservative message.

Regardless of whether Beck "fit in" at HNN or not, it is true that the corporate masters will give conservatives an aeon and a half to succeed or fail before pulling the plug.

Liberals get about a minute and a half.

Remember when MTV used to show music videos? Then they switched to awful "reality" TV and other pop-culture nonsense. It became completely unwatchable.

Remember when HN used to show half-hour news blocks? They they switched to punditry and other right-wing nonsense. It became completely unwatchable.