Ukraine proves cable can still do news, but does it really want to?

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought something cable viewers too-rarely see: Real journalists covering a real story, free of frantic hyperbole and driven by facts on the ground.

Reporting on the war could be an inflection point. It offers cable news — especially CNN — a chance to rethink their programming focus and move away from obsessive political coverage. But two hurdles block the path forward: television news economics and the addictive nature of polarization. 

Watching CNN’s accomplished coverage throughout this crisis, viewers can almost hear the gears of hard-core journalism slip back into place. Reporters are objective, real-time observers of events, sometimes putting themselves in the crossfire to give audiences the information and images they need.

Discovery CEO David Zaslav, who will take over CNN once a merger with Warner Media is completed, called Ukraine coverage “a proud moment” for the network. “This is where,” he said, “you see the difference between a real news service that has real, meaningful resources globally.” 

Viewers don’t get to see that difference often enough. 

Absent a big international story like the Russian invasion, all three main cable networks have similar underpinnings: They live inside a high-stakes hermetically-sealed Washington biosphere where every angle is urgently political. It’s a world dominated by opinion hosts and analysts who offer endless takes on the one or two stories each day that might move the ratings needle.

Economics drives a lot of this. For starters, news coverage is an expensive way to try to make a profit. Networks need to position their troops around the nation and the world, establish base camps for technical operations, and hire local operatives for security and guidance. Breaking news can really eat into profit projections.

The other main bottom-line threat is the polar opposite: the lack of news. Most days there isn’t a huge overarching event that captures widespread public attention. Ratings — which typically soar during a crisis like Ukraine — plummet when the biggest breaking story around is a winter storm in Minnesota.

For years, cable news struggled to deal with this reality — nowhere more than CNN, which debuted in 1980 as the home of hard news delivered straight. Now, on a typical news day, consumers can easily get caught up by scrolling through headlines on a smartphone app. So how does a network keep costs down and viewership up all year long in dependable numbers?

The answer: opinion-driven coverage of politics.

It’s more economically efficient to limit your reporting muscle to the inside of a Washington studio, featuring brash talking heads. This also allows television to do what it does best — focus on personalities. Viewers don’t tune in to see the news, they tune in to watch Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow. They watch in much the same way they might absorb a daytime talk show, as entertainment mixed in with a bit of information.

And the often-divisive “information” delivered by these programs creates a bond with viewers based on something close to tribal instinct — our group versus the other group. Research shows this kind of polarizing programming becomes almost addictive. Some viewers grow to need that burst of anger; they construct their entire worldview based on the perception that everything is divided into “us” versus “them.” This creates brand loyalty and delivers to news channels a dependable viewership night after night, even on the slowest news day. 

Good for the bottom line, but the damage polarization continues to produce is no secret. And, despite the opportunity this moment in the news cycle may present, that outrage will be a hard habit to break — just like any addiction. It requires the cable channels to reconsider what they mean by “news.” It calls on viewers to wean themselves off the blood rush delivered by hosts who function only to heighten emotions and stoke distrust.

And for parent companies, it means investing what it takes to move their organizations outside the studio and back into the real world of real journalism.

Reports this weekend that Discovery has tapped Chris Licht to be the new CNN president could bolster that. Licht now runs “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” but before that, he launched “CBS This Morning” and MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” (Full disclosure: I know Licht well from our years working at CBS.) Each time, he was able to plot a strong direction, energize his staff, and convince corporate brass they needed to invest if they wanted success.

That formula could work for CNN, especially at this opportune moment.

Discovery CEO Zaslav last week dismissed those CNN competitors who simply offer their audience people “sitting behind desks and giving their opinion about what’s going on.” CNN, he said, was a news network “with journalists in bulletproof vests and helmets doing what journalists do best, which is fight to tell the truth in dangerous places… so that we can all assess what’s going on in the world.”

If everything goes according to plan, in just a few months Zaslav will have a chance to show viewers — and those journalists — that he means it.

Joe Ferullo is an award-winning media executive, producer and journalist and former executive vice president of programming for CBS Television Distribution. He was a news executive for NBC, a writer-producer for “Dateline NBC” and worked for ABC News. Follow him on Twitter @ironworker1.