Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CNN NewsStand


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sufficient sourcing has been found, however this does not preclude a merger if folks feel editorially it should be covered within History_of_CNN_(1980%E2%80%932003) Star   Mississippi  01:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

CNN NewsStand

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Seems to be an abstract branding that CNN has thrown around for various items, none of which are notable on their own. Sources already in the article barely mention it at all. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep so far; if not, Merge to History of CNN (1980–2003). To clarify some things: The subject isn't the NewsStand name itself &mdash; the recent reuse of the name for an airport shop, and the removal of the other names from the lede, makes it confusing. The actual subject of the article is single mandated project &mdash; a forced corporate synergy combination of Time Inc.'s various magazines and Warner's CNN &mdash; that was mostly rejected repeatedly by the audience, and finally killed off in 2001. There was a CNN & Time, a CNN & Fortune, and a CNN & Entertainment Weekly. (I should mention that I created the article in 2007 and I don't know why I only used one source, which only covers the "Valley of Death" debacle, not the overall project, which starts to look like I was engaging in WP:OR; I must not have been that experienced at that point.) This already seemed at the time (and still seems to me now) to be a major and expensive failure for CNN, like a years-long CNN+. I'm saying "weak keep" because I'm pretty sure sources on this, and the corporate insistence on rebranding it and pushing it after repeated failures, can be found with the right search terms. Maybe there would be coverage either by CNN's own media reporters (such as ) or Columbia Journalism Review? Some right off the bat that I found tonight that at least hint at the problems: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1998 (turn JavaScript off to see the text):
 * 1998: American Journalism Review published 5 articles in its September 1998 issue, mostly about the "Valley of Death" debacle, but a couple of the articles touch on the "synergy" thing as a factor:
 * 1999, and maybe more towards TPB's disposition than mine:
 * 2000, during a similar AOL Time Warner merger:
 * --Closeapple (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * --Closeapple (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book has an entry about CNN Newstand. The book notes of the broadcast history: CNN, 60 minutes, produced 1998–2001, and premiered June 7, 1998. The book notes that the regulars are Jeff Greenfield, Bernard Shaw, Judd Rose, Willow Bay, Stephen Frazier, and Perri Peltz. The book notes: "In a veritable fit of corporate "synergy" Time-Warner Communications, which owned both CNN and a vast publishing empire, introduced this multi-part series built around three of its leading newsmagazines. Originally airing four nights a week, installments were introduced from trendy, high-tech newsstands in various cities. CNN Newsstand: Time focused on hard news stories similar to those featured in Time; CNN Newsstand: Entertainment Weekly covered the hype-filled world of entertainment; and CNN Newsstand: Fortune dealt with the world of business and finance. All of them adopted the tabloid tone so popular on TV newsmagazines in the '90s (Millionaire NBA Deadbeat DADS!" "Spin Doctors at Work!" "Luxury CEO Jets!"). The tendency toward sensationalism got the series into trouble during its first week, as CNN Newsstand: Time aired a story (also published in Time) alleging that the U.S. military had used nerve gas on its own troops behind enemy lines in Vietnam in "Operation Tailwind." When serious doubt was cast on the story, three producers resigned or were fired, correspondent Peter Arnett was suspended (and eventually left the network), and mighty Time-Warner apologized to all concerned. Interspersed with the regular Newsstand telecasts were People magazine celebrity biographies, called People Profiles and billed as "a special presentation of CNN Newsstand."   The article is in a "Cable TV reviews" section of the magazine. The review notes, "The news standards for CNN's "NewsStands" seem to fluctuate, the Tailwind episode aside (or perhaps not aside, if you want to find about it). In the network's Thursday night compact with Time Warner corporate symbiont Entertainment Weekly, the fluctuations can be wild. One piece is a bright, one-over-easy look at Imagine, the greatly successful boutique production house run by Ron Howard and Brian Grazer. But interviewer/co-anchor Willow Bay, while pleasant enough, asks little of substance outside of, gee, you really get along together. They agree that they do."   The article is in a "Cable TV reviews" section of the magazine. The review notes, "As our print- and tele-magazines love to troll the same celebrity pool, "NewsStand" and its symbiotic sister print weekly People have come up with a 10-Tuesday series of "People Profiles." It begins with an "in-depth profile" of Harrison Ford. It's a comfy hour of his life and times (from exec producer Susan Lester, senior producer Kathy Sulkes and producer Vicki Sufian), even elevated from the usual People drool like its cover of Ford as "The Sexiest Man Alive." ... For these hours, "NewsStand" has picked 10 of its 25 personalities from its "Legends" spread in People's recent 25th anniversary issue. It doesn't say why the other 15 were determined as also-rans."   The article notes: "CNN is expected to announce this weekend that it will drop its high-profile newsmagazine series based on Time Inc. titles and fold its stories into a new 10p.m. newscast that will carry the "CNN NewsStand" name. ... Although the original "CNN NewsStand" brought the production values of broadcast network news division programs to CNN, it never caught on with viewers, averaging 300,000-400,000 homes on weeknights at 8 p.m. Several veteran news producers said the primetime schedule was already saturated with newsmagazines and CNN was simply too late to the party." </li> <li> The article notes: "CNN Newsstand, the new prime-time cable series, opened on a controversial note last week with allegations that the United States used nerve gas against American defectors during the Vietnam War. The network's chief military analyst, Maj. Gen. Perry Smith, retired, resigned in protest (sleazy journalism he called it) but the report prompted Defense Secretary William S. Cohen to order a fresh inquiry. CNN Newsstand is the overall title for three hourlong weekly collaborations between the cable network and magazines in the Time-Warner empire. On Sundays, Time magazine, which carried the nerve-gas charges, is the partner from print; on Wednesdays, it's Fortune magazine and the beat is business; on Thursdays, it's Entertainment Weekly, and the beat is show business." </li> <li> The article notes: "The decision to terminate Mr. Arnett's contract ends the career at CNN of one of the best-known of television correspondents. The move comes nine months after Mr. Arnett played a prominent role in what became an embarrassing debacle for the network, when a much-publicized investigative report for the inaugural edition of CNN's prime-time news magazine CNN Newsstand, blew up in the network's face. The report, entitled Tailwind, charged that a United States military operation in the Vietnam War included the use of the lethal nerve gas sarin. ... In the wake of the retraction, CNN dismissed both producers who put the report together, Jack Smith and April Oliver. Pam Hill, the senior executive producer in charge of Newsstand, resigned." </li> <li> The article notes: "CNN’s “NewsStand,” a collaboration between the Time Warner-owned cable news outlet and three of Time Warner’s print publications--Time, Fortune and Entertainment Weekly--premieres Sunday with promises of meaty journalism that matches the tone, standards and prestige of its three traditional magazine counterparts. ... “I guess to me the question is, does the audience need more examples of good journalism?” said Jeff Greenfield, the former ABC analyst turned CNN star who will co-anchor with Bernard Shaw the Time editions of “NewsStand.”" </li> <li> The article notes: "Under the umbrella title "CNN NewsStand," three programs are being launched by that cable network, each with the name and format of a well-known publication (and each running at 10 p.m.) On Sundays and Mondays, Bernard Shaw and Jeff Greenfield are teamed for "CNN and Time," a revised version of "Impact," the program that previously combined the resources of those two journalistic entities. On Wednesdays, Willow Bay and Stephen Frazier present financial stories on "CNN and Fortune." Then on Thursdays, Bay joins Judd Rose for "CNN and Entertainment Weekly, " combining showbiz features, reviews and investigations." </li> <li> The article notes: "Beginning Sunday, CNN launches a new series of magazine shows with some familiar names attached. Under the umbrella title of CNN NewsStand, it will present CNN and Time at 10 p.m. Sundays and Mondays, CNN and Fortune at 10 p.m. Wednesdays and CNN and Entertainment Weekly at 10 p.m. Thursdays." </li> <li> The article notes: "The Operaton Tailwind story, which was carried on the June 7 premiere of CNN's newsmagazine and the June 15 edition of Time, said American troops used deadly sarin gas against defectors in Laos. Other heads did roll at CNN. NewsStand senior executive producer Pam Hill resigned, saying "I now believe we were wrong to air the report as we did."" </li> <li> The article notes: "The partnership of cable news channel CNN and Time magazine hit its first snag Monday when the news weekly announced that it will further check the veracity of a CNN NewsStand story on the use of nerve gas by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War." </li> <li> The article notes: "On the eighth day, CNN's "NewsStand" rested. And CNN may need a day off as it moves forward with plans to extend its proposed "NewsStand" newsmagazine franchise to seven nights a week.  "NewsStand," the long-expected marriage of Time Warner's CNN and magazine titles from Time Inc.'s vast publication rack, will spawn its first three nightly newsmagazines beginning next week. ... "NewsStand: CNN & Time" and "CNN & Fortune" will typically run three stories per episode; "CNN & Entertainment Weekly" will use a combination of stories, entertainment reviews and editor round tables." </li> <li> The article notes: "Through a joint venture with the Time Inc-owned magazines Time, Fortune and Entertainment Weekly, CNN is launching its CNN NewsStand franchise beginning Sunday (June 7). CNN U.S. President Rick Kaplan describes the series as an outgrowth of Impact, CNN's Sunday-night news magazine alliance with Time." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow CNN NewsStand to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.