The Washington Post came out with a piece on CNN and its leader Jeff Zucker. The story was titled “The new CNN is more opinionated and emotional. Can it still be ‘the most trusted name in news’?”

Okay….let’s answer the second part of that headline first.

No.

Now, onto the rest of the story, which says that Zucker thinks the folks at CNN needed to be more real. “One of the things that I’ve tried to encourage is authenticity and being real,” Zucker said. “If we pretend not to be human, it’s not real.”

That explains why we see CNN hosts crying, or offering up their opinion on something.

No matter what Zucker thinks, this is not news.

A Journalist should report what happened, tell the story from all sides, and let the viewer make up their own mind.

At CNN (and other cable news outlets) they tell you what they thought happened, what they think about it, and the viewer then has decided if it even happened at all?

The tone of the Post’s story is that Zucker’s CNN is better TV than the old, straight-laced version, facts matter CNN of the past.

I would argue that this is completely not the case.

In fact, the Washington Post story by Jeremy Barr, made me wonder if Barr isn’t angling to join the Zucker version of CNN.

Otherwise, why such a glowing story?