The Mainstream Media’s Eternal Kathleen Parker Dilemma

by John Hawkins | February 28, 2011 6:15 am

CNN’s Parker-Spitzer is now just “Spitzer,” I guess, after Kathleen Parker unceremoniously exited stage left. John Ziegler[1] cuts to the heart of the matter in explaining why the show was doomed from the start:

But the primary reason why the program couldn’t work is also the very reason Parker got the gig in the first place. She was clearly hired because she was perceived as a “conservative” who was willing to vigorously attack Palin, while not holding any particularly strong conservative opinions which might offend the largely liberal CNN audience. It is hardly a secret that the best (and perhaps only) way for an unknown or career-challenged conservative to achieve mainstream media acceptance is to be a sellout to their supposed cause (just ask Arianna Huffington, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, David Frum, Michael Smerconish, or Joe Scarborough, to name only a few).

…However, there is apparently a downside side to getting a show this way. Much like a guy who spends all his cash to get the girl and has nothing left to keep her, Parker had no capital with which to make the show a ratings success. Conservatives, most of whom don’t trust CNN to begin with, had no reason to tune in, and she was such a soft and colorless “conservative” that she didn’t even make for a fun punching bag for the liberal audience, or her overrated co-host (based on my experience Spitzer is actually quite dumb). The sad reality of cable news television today is that you must be polarizing to “succeed.” Moderation or wimpiness simply won’t work, especially when such a temperament is clearly contrived, and not backed up with any real talent.

With no spark, no friction, no talent, and no audience base, Parker brought nothing to the table, and the show was clearly doomed. In the end, she got the fate that she clearly deserved, only probably better.

There you go.

The mainstream media only LOVES “conservatives” who spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing other conservatives. No matter how little talent or fan base you may have, if you’re willing to say things liberals want to hear about conservatives, you’ll move to the head of the line, ahead of legions of righties who could conceivably draw eyeballs.

On some level, CNN must realize this. That’s why they’ve hired people like Erick Erickson[2] and Dana Loesch[3]. Of course, they still give the primo slot to someone like Kathleen Parker, who anyone with half a brain knew was never going to help draw in a conservative audience. That tells you a lot about why the MSM is slowly bleeding audience share.

  1. John Ziegler:
  2. Erick Erickson:
  3. Dana Loesch:

Source URL: