Most of your stories about CNN cast a pretty negative light on the future of the network, its current leadership, and lack of speed articulating a concrete plan forward—even its plans for a weather app. Much of this is deserved. That said, is there a bull case for the network? Are there any small glimmers of hope based on your reporting (e.g., perhaps the bigger streaming portfolio with potentially new, more interesting content)? As you well know, I have written a lot of stories about CNN during my time at Puck—from the latter days of the Zucker empire through the Zaslav takeover and Chris Licht trauma, and now, of course, the Mark Thompson–era ennui, which has only been exacerbated by WBD’s impending split. While current and former network executives may raise an eyebrow, my preoccupation with the network’s fate is inspired by a genuine admiration for the concept of a trusted, authoritative, and robust global television news network with broad market appeal. CNN has had that distinction throughout much of its 45-year history. But by virtue of the macroeconomic pressures and leadership failures that I have so often chronicled, that hallowed reputation has faded irreversibly. I appreciate the question here, I really do, but it may be a reflection of one of the blind spots of media people, who tend to believe in the triumph of content over business models and technological transformations. CNN was birthed into the culture at the dawn of the cable industry—perhaps the greatest business model ever, which printed money for its participants regardless of whether viewers tuned in or not. This industrial context allowed CNN to become massive—to transform, indeed, into that trusted global brand. Alas, virtually all legacy media brands are shrinking these days as the monoculture fades and the largest platforms steer viewers and readers and listeners to devise their own editorial mixes of right-sized brands. This isn’t CNN’s fault: Zucker used CNN+ as a cudgel to make the brand bigger. It was an ill-fated decision, in retrospect, and followed by a lot of boneheaded moves that will make the inevitable winnowing exponentially more public and excruciating. Sure, CNN remains a very powerful global brand and continues to drive meaningful profits. But the decline of its core linear business has accelerated rapidly since Zaz acquired the asset, and his decision to pass it off to Gunnar Wiedenfels is a death knell for whatever digital strategy Mark and his deputy, Alex MacCallum, have been hashing out for the past two years. (There must be something more to it than newsletters and a weather app, right?) I’ve previously surmised that Mark will have bid adieu to the whole failed effort by this time next year, but I’m already hearing rumblings that he may exit sooner. In his place, Gunnar is likely to find a less ambitious programmer who can simply ensure that the trains run on time. And over time, as I’ve noted, CNN will begin to look more like HLN: smaller salaries and smaller budgets, yes, but also less-ambitious programming. Is there any possibility of WBD selling CNN to Jeff Zucker and/or RedBird IMI? And if CNN were to become available, would Jeff even be interested at this point, given how much the business has changed? Also, this begs the question: Why did Mark Thompson even take the job if WBD’s goal was simply to extract value out of the network? If WBD wanted to sell CNN, it would have already. As it stands now, however, the network is going to be a key negotiating chip with distributors in GunnarCo and likely more monetizable sitting within the remaining cable company than what a sale could generate. Would Zucker want it? On one level, absolutely. He’s a generational television programmer who relished his eight years running a news network and was then abruptly defenestrated amid a corporate merger and forced to sit on the sidelines as not only CNN but the entire TV news industry (ex-Fox) suffered through one inept leader after another. I’d hazard a guess there isn’t a day of his life that he doesn’t look at what’s happening out here and know he could do it better. (Of course, the same might be said for many former network executives.) On the other hand, he might not see much appeal in trying to resuscitate a diminished business that has lost years of potential innovation and growth. Also, recall that Jeff has raised hundreds of millions of dollars from capital partners, in the form of RedBird IMI, to invest in media ventures. I doubt his partners would want him to get wrapped up in a CNN revenge fantasy. Anyway, I doubt it’ll happen, but I understand why it’s an evergreen fever dream. That brings us to your second question: Why did Mark, who led The New York Times Company through its own historic and successful digital transformation, take this job if he wasn’t going to take big swings? Mark is a bit of a philosopher C.E.O., and he was obviously intrigued by the challenge of trying to save an even larger media asset. (The money probably wasn’t a deterrent, either.) Once he got under the hood, he figured out that it was going to be far more difficult to pivot a nearly a half-century-old mass market television business than it had been to modernize a newspaper that caters to educated liberals. Anyway, he always seemed quite comfortable with the idea that it only might succeed, even as that seemed like an existential crisis for his employees. And Mark’s a smart guy… I think he probably recognized David’s plans early on. What type of feedback does Erin Burnett get around the halls of CNN? Always my favorite anchor, so I’m wondering if she’ll go away amid cost-cutting measures as cord-cutting continues. Generally speaking, she’s well respected and well regarded by her peers, though I learned a long time ago that no one is universally beloved at any TV network. I’m sure Erin’s earned some detractors along the way, as all anchors have. You’re right to focus on Erin’s fate in CNN’s Gunnar era. As I’ve written, Gunnar is likely to look at expensive talents like Anderson Cooper, who makes in the vicinity of $17 million or $18 million a year, as an obvious target for cost savings. Jake Tapper, the second-highest-paid talent, is locked into a long-term contract and is very much the face of the network’s political coverage. But what happens to those like Erin, who make in the mid to high seven figures and aren’t necessarily the network’s M.V.P.s? In time, CNN won’t pay those salaries, and eventually the highest-paid talents will make a few million at best. But there will be a transitional period where CNN will hold on to a few bold-faced names through their contracts. My guess is Erin falls into that camp.

When do you think TNT, TBS, TruTV, and other outlets will shut down, or will they find a different home? Legacy media operators optimize for cashflow and managed decline. While it might be tempting to want to just shutter a business, it never works that way. Indeed, this transitory era has been painful, in part, because so many once-great media assets appear to be lumbering along on I.V. drips, shadows of their former selves. So, no, the networks won’t shut down, though some may be consolidated. As I wrote the other day, the GunnarCo bundle will likely be merged one day with either Versant or other orphaned cable assets, perhaps after they are lopped off from Paramount or Disney, or a company like Tegna. This is going to be a long and drawn-out saga. Which parent company will get Robert Gibbs in the WBD divorce? Great question! I put it to Robert, who was evasive. When pressed, he responded with the 🤔 emoji (très Zaz). What constitutes success for ESPN’s new direct-to-consumer app? As I’ve noted, ESPN’s streaming venture will never match the cashflow that the brand once extracted from distributors during the apex of the cable era. The core subscription and advertising revenue will be meaningful, but true success will depend on establishing the ESPN streamer as the home for sports fans regardless of the live rights in Jimmy Pitaro’s portfolio—effectively a modern-day SportsCenter. Zooming out further, the success of ESPN, the app, will be judged by how it eventually supports Disney+. Disney currently has too many SKUs within its streaming business—D+, Hulu and its various iterations, eventually Fubo, and ESPN. The next race in the media business, as my partner Julia Alexander recently pointed out, is to become a veritable destination homepage in the streaming space. YouTube and Amazon are attempting to achieve this by using their scale to offer “channels” of subscale streamers alongside their own content. Netflix’s recent deal with the French broadcaster TF1 hinted at its own promiscuous, broadcast-on-streaming path. If Disney wants to be in this conversation, it needs to centralize its various cinematic universes—starting with ESPN. At Fox, are the siblings opposing Lachlan Murdoch really intent on dismantling these media entities and turning them into something entirely different, or is that reporting overblown and fearmongering? What’s your best understanding of their plans once Rupert dies? I don’t think it’s overblown at all. But I also believe that the siblings recognize the power of Fox News’s political influence and the financial rewards that come from owning the asset. I don’t anticipate a full-scale dismantling, but rather a delicate and carefully managed pivot toward a different kind of conservative programming that maintains its influence without being so blatantly Pravda-esque. How do you pronounce Versant? Like “conversant.” I’ve been doing it wrong for months, putting the emphasis on the final consonants, as in, “croissant.” Frankly… I like my snobby, pseudo-French version more.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news. You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with . To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10006