CNN Cuts Entire Environment, Science and Technology News Staff
The most obvious assumption would be that CNN is hurting financially and cutting staff to reduce its operating costs, but the network says that isn’t the case.
According to a network source quoted in a report by the Columbia Journalism Review, “the move is a strategic and structural business decision to cut staff, unrelated to the current economic downturn.” The source told CJR that financially, “CNN is doing very, very well.”
If so, CNN is one of the few news organizations currently able to make that claim.
CNN quickly tried to reassure viewers that the layoffs would not result in less science, technology and environmental news coverage.
“We want to integrate environmental, science and technology reporting into the general editorial structure rather than have a stand alone unit,” said CNN spokesperson Barbara Levin. “Now that the bulk of our environmental coverage is being offered through the Planet in Peril franchise, which is produced by the Anderson Cooper 360 program, there is no need for a separate unit.”
Perhaps so, but the cuts come at a time when environmental news is making headlines daily, when U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to grow a green economy, and when people worldwide are looking to science and technology to solve many of the energy and environmental problems we face as a global community.
Frankly, it’s hard to understand how CNN expects to maintain, let alone improve, its science, technology and environmental reporting by handing its most experienced and knowledgeable staffers their walking papers. All of these topics involve complex issues and specialized knowledge. Covering them well requires expertise that is neither quickly nor easily acquired.
As CJR stated in its analysis, “the decision to eliminate the positions seems particularly misguided at a time when world events would seem to warrant expanding science and environmental staff.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Also read:
Comments
thanks for information
cnn a big company and they are so lucky.
i dont think that which will be positive
and, i should say that; its not rigth.
If so, CNN is one of the few news organizations currently able to make that claim.
ah no, a big wrong.
Cnn an interesting company.
network says that isn’t the case.
it say that: “If so, CNN is one of the few news organizations currently able to make that claim”
so why? do you any think? why CNN?