Gen Z is poised to massively expand its influence in the 2024 election. But its impact may be more complex than typically assumed.

As many as 7 million to 9 million more members of the racially and culturally diverse Gen Z could cast ballots in 2024 than did in 2020, while the number of the predominantly white Baby Boomers and older generations voting may decline by a corresponding amount, according to nonpartisan forecasts. As a result, for the first time, Gen Z and Millennials combined could account for as many votes next year as the Baby Boomers and their elders—the groups that have made up a majority of voters for decades.

That generational transition represents a clear opportunity for Democrats, who have consistently amassed solid, sometimes overwhelming, margins among both Millennials and Gen Z voters. But an analysis of previously unpublished election data from Catalist, a Democratic targeting firm, by Michael Podhorzer, the former political director for the AFL-CIO, shows that even the emergence of these new voters may not break the larger political stalemate that has partitioned the country into seemingly immovable blocks of red and blue states.

Podhorzer’s analysis of the Catalist data, shared exclusively with The Atlantic, found that over the past four elections, Gen Z voters have broken heavily for Democrats in blue states, and provided the party solid margins in closely contested swing states. But in red states, with a few prominent exceptions, Podhorzer surprisingly found that even Gen Z voters are mostly supporting Republicans.

The generation’s strong Democratic lean in blue and purple states may create growing challenges for Republicans trying to amass the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House. But the Republican tilt of younger voters in red states could frustrate Democrats trying to loosen the GOP’s hold on those places. That seemingly unbreakable Republican grip has made it difficult for Democrats to win majorities in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and has allowed the GOP to impose a sweepingly conservative social agenda across nearly half of the country.

Republicans remain dubious that young voters will show up in large numbers anywhere next year for President Joe Biden, the oldest U.S. president, who did not run well among them in the 2020 Democratic primaries and whose approval ratings with them remain anemic. As Kristen Soltis Anderson, a GOP pollster who has extensively studied younger voters, told me, “I don’t think there is a lot of focus in Republican world” about the potential risk to the party of a big surge of new Generation Z voters in 2024, “in part because a lot of Republicans believe that there is just no way young voters will turn out for Joe Biden.”

But other analysts point out that despite their equivocal feelings about Biden, young people voted in very large numbers in 2020 and maintained relatively high turnout in 2022. A lack of enthusiasm about Biden personally “didn’t really dissuade the generation from coming out and voting for Democrats” in either of the past two elections, says John Della Volpe, the director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, which conducts a twice-yearly national survey of youth attitudes. “They knew the stakes in the election. They knew what life was like under more Republican control versus more Democratic control.”

Whatever they think about Biden, the influence of Gen Z, generally defined as young people born from 1997 to 2012, is certain to rise next year simply because so many of them will age into the electorate. William Frey, a demographer at Brookings Metro, estimates that about 15.4 million eligible young people will have turned 18 between the 2020 election and Election Day next year.

In 2016, the first presidential election when any members of the generation were old enough to participate, Gen Z accounted for just 2 percent of voters, according to an analysis of census data by Frey for the nonpartisan States of Change project. In 2020, Gen Z rose to 7.5 percent of all voters, Frey calculates. Frey projects that the generation will increase its share of the electorate to 13 percent in 2024. Depending on turnout, that could mean about 8 million more Gen Z voters next year, increasing the total to about 20 million in all.

Millennials, generally described as younger adults born from 1981 to 1996, have also increased their share of the electorate. In Frey’s analysis of census data, they rose from about one in seven voters in 2008 to just under one in four in 2020. Frey predicts that in 2024, the two generations combined will make up about 37 percent of the electorate.

That could mark a historic tipping point. Frey projects that in 2024, the Baby Boomers and their elders—the last members of the Greatest and Silent Generations still voting—will also constitute 37 percent of voters. If that forecast holds up, it will end decades during which those Republican-leaning older cohorts were the biggest generations in the electorate. Meanwhile, Generation X, defined as those born from 1965 to 1980, will remain stable over this period at about one-fourth of the electorate.

Another fundamental shift in American politics over the past half century is magnifying the impact of this generational evolution: Voters now divide between the parties more along lines of cultural identity than class interest. And on every important cultural and demographic dividing line between the two parties, the younger generations exhibit characteristics that predict support for Democrats.

More than 70 percent of Baby Boomers are white. But just 55 percent of Millennials are white and only slightly more than half of Gen Z are. Millennials and Gen Z are far less likely than older generations to identify with any organized religion and far more likely (especially in Gen Z) to identify as LGBTQ. Younger generations are also more likely than older ones to hold a college degree.

“What sets Gen Z apart is … they are growing up in a much more racially and ethnically diverse cohort, which really is driving them to more progressive positions,” Melissa Deckman, the chief executive officer of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute and the author of a forthcoming book on the generation, told me.

Overall, these new voters are behaving almost exactly as those attributes would predict. Before 2004, as I’ve written, exit polls and other sources found little difference between the voting preferences of younger and older voters. But since Millennials and then Gen Z entered the electorate in large numbers, Democrats have established a durable advantage among the young. Catalist’s data, for instance, show that Democrats have carried almost exactly 60 percent of the two-party vote among Millennials and Gen Z in each of the past three presidential elections and in three of the past four congressional elections; the one exception came when the party’s vote among them hit 66 percent in the 2018 congressional races. (One New York Times analyst, citing unpublished polling data, recently claimed that Millennials, though still supporting Democrats, are moving to the right as they age, a view also held by some Republican pollsters. But skeptics quickly noted that other data sources, such as results from the large-sample Cooperative Election Survey, do not show such a shift.)

The key insight that Podhorzer’s analysis adds is that even this strong overall Democratic advantage remains subject to substantial geographic variation that tends to reinforce, rather than reconfigure, the nation’s electoral divisions.

Using Catalist data, he found that Democrats in the four elections from 2016 through 2022 have consistently amassed imposing margins of 20 to as much as 40 percentage points among Gen Z voters in the 18 states he identifies as already leaning reliably Democratic, such as California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, and the Eastern Seaboard states from Maryland to Maine.

Gen Z voters over those four elections have also provided Democrats solid margins of roughly 15 to 25 percentage points in the eight purple states: Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Nevada across the Sun Belt, and Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire in the Rust Belt.

But the story in the remaining two dozen Republican-leaning states is more complex. Podhorzer found that Democrats performed better in the red states among Gen Z than they did among older generations—but not well enough to actually win those youngest voters. Republicans still carried a majority of Gen Z voters in most of the red states. Even in red states where Democrats have won most Gen Z voters in recent elections—including Texas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, and Montana—the party’s margins among them are typically slim. That means Democrats in red states are not generating nearly enough advantage from younger generations to overcome the lopsided GOP edge among older cohorts.

Podhorzer told me this regional variation is “only surprising to the extent you believe that age explains almost everything about voters’ partisanship. But if you understand that the neighborhood you grew up in, the parents you have, the schools you went to, and the general politics that you are introduced into is a big factor, it shouldn’t be surprising at all. Because if you grow up in Brooklyn, no matter how old you are, you are swimming in blue water … and the same goes for those growing up in red America.”

For Democrats, the most important of the trends Podhorzer cataloged may be their persistent strength among Gen Z voters in the battleground swing states that decide who wins the White House. In all, Podhorzer calculates that Gen Z voters in the swing states who cast their first ballot in the 2018 election or after have preferred Democrats by nearly 20 percentage points. (Democrats also hold a strong 15-point edge among Millennials in those states who voted for the first time in 2018 or after.) To Podhorzer, the clear lesson of these trends is that Democrats are more likely to win the battleground states by investing in turning out these new voters than by trying to lure back the mostly blue-collar whites who have abandoned the party to support Donald Trump.

Podhorzer says the Democratic advantage among younger voters in the purple and blue states has been driven largely by an unusual dynamic. Typically, he points out, young voters gravitate toward a party because of a positive association with the president in office as they entered the electorate: John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama. But in this case, Podhorzer argues, the most powerful force moving Gen Z toward Democrats is not so much excitement about the party (or Biden), but negative views of Trump. “They are coming of age at a time when everybody around them, as well as the popular culture, loathe and ridicule” Trump, he told me. “Especially in the blue states, where MAGA candidates have hijacked the nominating process, there is no exemplar of a reasonable Republican anywhere to be seen.”

Some GOP strategists aren’t particularly concerned about the party’s poor performance with young voters, Anderson, the GOP pollster, says, because inside the GOP coalition, Trump is strongest among the youngest generations. “So if you are hanging out in Republican land only, you can easily convince yourself that Donald Trump is actually very popular with young voters, because he is irreverent and edgy or whatever your rationale would be,” she told me. The problem is that too many in the GOP don’t realize “that the young people in the past who might have liked Mitt Romney aren’t in our rooms anymore” and that instead we “have boiled the youth of the party down to this very Trumpist core.”

In many red states, Republicans appear to be taking no chances with the unfolding generational transition: Several GOP-controlled states, such as Texas, Georgia, and Arizona, where the ascending younger generations are much more racially diverse than older voters, have imposed the toughest restrictions on voting.

In every state, influence in the coming years will flow from those mostly white older generations to more diverse younger ones. By 2028, Frey projects, the Boomers and their elders will fall to slightly below a third of voters nationwide, while Millennials and Gen Z will soar well past two-fifths. By 2032, when all of Gen Z is eligible, Americans born after 1980 will cast almost exactly half of all votes.

Deckman said she expects Gen Z to continue to lean left over this period—in part because, more than any previous generation, these young people are consuming media that they themselves create, on TikTok and similar platforms. “Their news is generated by themselves, and because they are more progressive, I think many Gen Zers are consuming information that reinforces those viewpoints,” she told me.

As Podhorzer’s analysis shows, this transition isn’t yet threatening Republicans in most red states. And in the swing states, Republicans can probably offset the growing presence of Gen Z and Millennials in 2024 by running better with older voters, many of whom are unhappy with Biden’s performance.

But the Democratic advantage with Gen Z is like an investment whose value compounds over time—in this case, as their share of the electorate expands. If Republicans can’t regain at least some ground with younger voters, especially in the battleground states, the party will need to squeeze bigger margins out of shrinking groups. In any given election, as Trump demonstrated in 2016, Republicans might meet that test. But making that math add up will only get tougher for the GOP as the generational transition inexorably rolls on.

The Atlantic’s Tim Alberta spent long stretches of the past year talking to CNN’s then-CEO Chris Licht about his grand experiment to reset the cable giant as a venue more welcoming to Republicans. In a major profile of Licht, Alberta documented the many disasters along the way, culminating in Licht’s ouster from the network this week.

In this episode of Radio Atlantic, host Hanna Rosin talks to Alberta about the rise and fall of Licht, and what it means for the media.

“This is a guy who had been working 80-hour weeks since he took the job and had been really pouring himself into trying to remake CNN into something different and something new,” Alberta recalled of the period leading up to a disastrous CNN town hall with Donald Trump that Licht oversaw. He had, “with the world watching, failed,” Alberta said. “And that was crushing for him.”

In this episode of Radio Atlantic, I talk with Tim Alberta, who watched the implosion at CNN up close in real time. And I ask him: Did Licht’s mission to redefine journalism fail because of Licht or because it is a fundamentally misguided mission?

Listen to the conversation here:

Subscribe here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Google Podcasts | Pocket Casts

The following is a transcript of the episode:

Tim Alberta: It was apparent to me immediately when I saw Chris after the town hall ended that he knew this wasn’t good.

Hanna Rosin: “Chris” is Chris Licht, the former CEO of CNN, who was ousted this week. And that’s my colleague Tim Alberta, who’s been reporting on Licht for the past year.

Alberta: This is a guy who I’ve gotten to know decently well over the past year or so, a guy who’s just got a bottomless supply of self-confidence.

And, in that moment, when the town hall ended and I met him in the lobby, he was pale. His shoulders were sort of slumped. He looked distressed. Thoroughly distressed.

Rosin: I’m Hanna Rosin, and this is Radio Atlantic. You may have read about the Trump Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire that CNN aired last month. Maybe you even watched it. The event was part of Licht’s broader mission to signal that Republicans and even Trump supporters were welcome at CNN again.

Which was connected to an even bigger mission, one that Licht defined as getting back to real journalism: truths, facts, and less spin. Instead, CNN lost control of the town hall. Trump used it as a forum to double down on lies about the 2020 election. Among other unsavory things. It was pretty much universally considered a disaster and backstage, right after the event, Licht knew it.

Alberta: It was a deeply human moment where I, I think a guy who, you know, agree with his decisions, disagree with his decisions, whatever.

This is a guy who had been working, like, 80 hour weeks since he took the job and had been really pouring himself into trying to remake CNN into something different and something new, and had in this moment with the world watching failed. And that was, it was, it was, um, it was crushing for him. You could just see it in, in that, in that moment

Rosin: In this episode, we talked to Tim Alberta, who watched the implosion at CNN up close in real time.

Alberta: So I first met Chris last summer. We had dinner. I had been pitching his team on doing this story. Ultimately after pushing and pushing, pushing, there was a meeting set up over dinner in New York.

Rosin: Can I ask, why did you want to meet him so badly? What was interesting to you about this story?

Alberta: Well, I think, a couple of things. First, CNN had really been the poster child for Republican attacks on the media during the Trump years. I’d spent as much time covering Republican voters and Republican campaigns as anybody over the past five or six years.

And I’d seen firsthand time and time and time again. How at rallies or smaller candidate events how CNN had sort of become the face of the hysterical liberal media that was out to get Trump and leading a witch hunt on his impeachment and on January 6th and on everything else.

And so what was interesting to me was that Licht came in, and, and quite overtly made it known, from the beginning, that his mission was to change that perception of CNN, was not to coddle the extreme right wing, so to speak, but to win back the sort of respectable rank and file Republican voter who had become so distrustful of CNN during those previous five or six years.

And that struck me as an incredibly ambitious objective for somebody taking over, one of the world’s biggest news organizations. You know, CNN has 4,000, some employees spread all across the world, and, you’re, you’re, you’re coming in at a really sensitive time, taking over this incredibly difficult job, and in some sense you’re making it harder on yourself by staking out that sort of very ambitious goal.

Rosin: You watched Chris Licht come in as a newbie at CNN. How did he fit in in the beginning?

Alberta: Well, awkwardly, I think is the, is the fair way to say it, because you have to keep in mind that he was following Jeff Zucker, who had been there for, I guess at that point, about a decade, and was beloved. He was sort of a larger than life figure who had real personal rapport with just about everybody.

Not only the on-air talent, but the producers behind the scenes, the camera crews, uh, this guy just sort of made everybody feel like part of a family. And he was affectionate, had nicknames, knew everybody’s kids. I mean, and, and so obviously when Zucker was forced out as president of CNN at the beginning of 2022 and, and then Licht came in shortly thereafter, he inherited a newsroom that was reeling from the departure of sort of their, their fearless leader, Jeff Zucker, who had, you know, keep in mind really sort of steered CNN through an unprecedented period of, of almost warfare with the White House during the Trump years where there were threats called into CNN, reporters being singled out as the enemy of the people, you know, they were really under fire in, in ways that we’d never seen a news organization under fire from a White House before. And so there was this, this incredibly tense dynamic already there. And then Zucker is forced out and Licht walks into that.

Meanwhile, there’s incredible financial turmoil. There’s been a change in ownership with a new parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery, taking over CNN and their financials are pretty wobbly, and so there’s massive cost cutting.

And Licht, sort of stepping into that position, I think really went out of his way from the outset to be everything that Zucker wasn’t.

So if Zucker was warm and affectionate and intimate with everyone, Licht was, sort of, cold and detached, almost aloof, purposely inaccessible.

In fact, one of the first things he did after taking the job was turn Zucker’s office on the 17th floor, which was right outside some of the main studios right in the heart of the newsroom, and turned it into a conference room as sort of a symbolic move. And then he himself picked an office up on the 22nd floor in a space most employees at CNN, including longtime veteran reporters, they didn’t even know how to find that office. and that, that one move, although it seems small, I think really in many ways came to define Licht’s relationship with his journalists.

Rosin: And so why do you think he thought this mission was important? Was it just about saving CNN or was it about something broader?

Alberta: So it became clear to me from the earliest conversations that I began having with people, well before Licht even agreed to participate in this piece, that to Chris Licht. This was about more than CNN. This was about the journalism industry itself. He had made it known that he didn’t blame a lot of these folks for their souring on the mainstream media.

That he saw some of the, the, the big news organizations getting over their skis on certain stories or perhaps giving too much attention to the stylistic stuff at, at the expense of the more substantive, uh, stories that they could have been covering. In other words, Licht was sort of making it known that he felt that all of media had gotten played by President Trump. And he believed that if something was not done to fix that, that if there weren’t dramatic measures taken to restore and rehabilitate the media’s image in the eyes of much of the country, that it posed a, a real threat to democracy itself. I mean, that’s not an overstatement.

Rosin: Wow. So it was not just a business decision to save CNN. It was not just about saving cable news. It was not even just about journalism and media. It was an even bigger project. It sounds like.

Alberta: I think what’s clear is two things. Number one, to the people at the top at Warner Brothers Discovery from the Board of Directors to the CEO, David Zaslav, they were very much invested in CNN as a, you know, profit center.

A place that was, you know, accustomed to making over a billion dollars annually and a prestigious brand that could generate a lot of revenue. And I think Licht viewed it somewhat differently. Licht was trained as a journalist. He calls journalism his first love. He practiced being Walter Cronkite in his basement as a kid putting on fake newscasts.

I mean, this is a guy who really loves the news and, and, and so I think, whether one agrees with him or completely disagrees with him or is somewhere in between, it’s, I think it’s worth recognizing just at a, at a sort of ground level that this is someone who really does consider himself a journalist, first and foremost, and really believed that the institution of journalism in America was under assault.

And that some of its trouble was self-inflicted. And he believed that if he could introduce a new model at CNN that was built around toning down the commentary, dialing back the outrage, and leading with facts, and, and, and just really being very careful with tone and orienting everything toward,sort of fact forward journalism.

That if they could restore trust in the CNN brand by doing that then it would create a model that the entire industry might try to replicate. And, and that was really his vision from the outset.

Rosin:. So he starts off on this incredibly ambitious, serious mission almost to turn back time on journalism. Was there a moment you could pinpoint when this mission started to go wrong?

Alberta: Well, I would say two things. First, you could argue that it was almost doomed from the beginning because, you know, cable news has been in sort of long decline, predating Trump, postdating Trump, even though Trump sort of breathed some artificial life into ratings and revenues for a few years there, it’s been clear for a long time because of cord cutting, because of these silly little things we carry around in our pockets all day and stare at too much.

Um, for a whole host of reasons that cable news has been in trouble. I also think that there’s not any compelling evidence to suggest that Americans, or at least any critical mass of Americans, want to get their news without fear or favor, that, that, that there’s any critical mass of Americans who just want the facts and then wanna make up their own mind. I mean, there’s quite a bit of evidence to suggest in fact that Americans want to get their news from sources that will, sort of, reaffirm their existing worldviews and, and tell them what they want to hear and not necessarily challenge them where their idols lie.

And that’s, I think, the thing Chris Licht tried to challenge from the outset and really, really sold people around him hard on the idea that, for the sake of American democracy, we needed to do something about that. And I think in that sense, he was probably fighting a doomed mission from the very beginning.

Rosin: So he was fighting a doomed mission. It was difficult from the outset. He decided to do it anyway. So what actually happened? I mean, he must have known it was gonna be difficult.

Alberta: Yes. Well, a–and as the great philosopher Mike Tyson once said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. And that’s sort of what happened at CNN. Chris Licht had a plan, and then he came in and he got punched in the mouth a bunch of times. Um, you know, the recurring theme that I heard from a lot of the top talent at CNN was that in a lot of ways, they actually agreed in theory with the mission that Chris Licht had laid out as far as toning down some of the outrage, trying to be more selective with when they really wanted it dialed up to 11, as he would say, and, and, and go strong on, on certain stories.

But the execution of that mission was really what started to become shaky and, and really, I think the first glimpse into that that I got was watching behind the scenes as CNN prepared last fall to launch its new morning show. Now, Licht had made a decision to take Don Lemon, who was probably the most polarizing personality at CNN and make Lemon the face of this new morning show called CNN This Morning. And, and so in some ways Licht had tied his fate to Don Lemon’s fate, and as of the springtime when Lemon had committed, sort of, a series of blunders and had made some enemies internally, and obviously the most notable incident was when he said that Nikki Haley, the presidential candidate who’s 51 years old, was past her prime and that a woman’s only in her prime if she’s in her twenties or thirties or forties. And it caused so much turmoil, at the network, and it was a mess. And it was clear at that point that the one thing that he had really been counting on as a win, this morning show, was looking more and more like loss every day.

Rosin: In addition to this morning show drama he was wading through...not everyone at CNN was on board with his mission right? He may have defined it as truth and journalism, but lots of other people pointed out many many problems with what he was actually trying to do, in practice.

Alberta: Yeah. Because beyond just giving that sort of broad definition that I think a lot of us would agree to around what good journalism should be, you know, leading with the facts and telling the truth without fear or favor, um, the specifics became a bit troubling.

And, you know, specifically the question of, you know, what do you do with Republicans who systematically attempted to deconstruct our democratic institutions a couple of years ago and, uh, prevent a peaceful transition of power. I mean, what do you do with those folks? Do you treat them as rational actors who need to be given a platform to reach the viewing masses?

Do you have to have some rules in place around how you cover those people? And, you know, Licht would fall back repeatedly on this analogy of some people like rain, some people don’t like rain, and we will have anybody on this network whether they like rain or don’t like rain, but we will not have people on this network who say that it’s not raining outside when it really is. Now, it’s an interesting metaphor but I think the problem for Licht is that the application of it was a little bit uneven. Even going back to the very beginning of his tenure, one of the first programming decisions he made after taking over as the new boss at CNN was to tell his producers to downplay the first hearing of the January 6th committee in Congress.

Remember, it was shown in primetime, this was sort of a, ’get your popcorn ready’ primetime special event that MSNBC went wall to wall with its coverage and earned monster ratings. But because of Licht’s edict to the staff, CNN covered it very casually, didn’t give it the sort of attention that it would have given something like that in previous years, and it got slaughtered in the ratings by MSNBC.

So, there were a lot of examples along the way that gave cause to some of Licht’s own journalists to question, okay, well he says the mission is this thing, but is our execution really in keeping with that, and ultimately it was the town hall with Donald Trump that really broke the camel’s back.

Rosin: Okay. Tell me how that whole event came about

Alberta: Licht and his team had been working for some time to reach an agreement with the former president Donald Trump to bring him on CNN for some sort of big interview.

What they ultimately agreed on was a town hall in New Hampshire, the first in the nation primary state and Licht knew that he was going to get a lot of pushback from his own employees on this. Uh, a lot of people who felt that Trump should not be platformed, that he’d, uh, caused sufficient distress to the country with his lies and his assaults on the ballot box.

And his, um, disruption of the transition of power that CNN should not be platforming him at all, much less in a town hall format. And, and you know, I, I would just flashback quickly to the very first conversation I ever had with Chris where we talked about how the media covered Trump in the past and how it needs to cover him in the future. And I was really slack jawed, just shocked, frankly, when Chris said to me, well, I think the media has learned its lesson.

This is not something that I lose sleep over. This idea, this question of how do we cover Trump? I, you know, and, and I said, whaaaat really? Like, you, you, you think you’ve, you think you’ve got the answer? And he said, yeah, we cover him the same way as anybody, right? We, we, we hold him accountable with the facts and we don’t let him play us.

And, uh, we don’t, dial it up to 11 every time so that we lose the trust of the audience. You know, this is, this is pretty simple stuff. That’s what he said to me. And…

Rosin: I’ve heard other editors say that, by the way, but go ahead.

Alberta: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, and so he did two things. First, he picked Kaitlan Collins, the Rising Star reporter at CNN, who everybody there has a ton of respect for, picked her to host this town hall event with Trump.

And second, he made a really forceful case to his senior staff and told them, look, If not CNN, then who? We alone have the experience putting these events on. We have the journalistic chops, we’ve got Kaitlan, we can fact check in real time. We can hold him accountable in front of a live international audience in ways that nobody else can.

So why shouldn’t we do it? And he really made a strong case to his team and he won over people who, who had been resistant to it. He really got a lot of buy-in. But in the process of doing that, he made it very clear that all the chips were now in the center of the table. That this was it.

That this was the big bet that Licht was willing to make, that he needed this win badly. That he needed this sort of signature moment to validate his approach, not only his approach to courting Republican viewers, but also his approach to dealing with his own staff, people who were really, sort of, resistant to some of what he was prescribing and, and how he was going about executing this mission.

So, so really this was setting up to be the make or break moment for Chris Licht at CNN, and he knew it going into Manchester.

Rosin: And it sounds like it was also part of his bigger mission of we can have a different kind of conversation that involves truth and involves airing things more honestly, like it was part of that conversation as well

Alberta: Yes, that’s exactly right.

Rosin: Now you were there, you were close to them as this was all going, not just present at the town hall, but talking to Licht as this was happening, what was, what was he like during the event?

Alberta: So I only talked to him briefly before the program, and then we spoke after the program. So he pulled me into a hallway that was kind of on the sidelines of the main auditorium where the event had just emptied out. And we talked for a few minutes there, and I asked him, you know, did this advance the mission, the journalistic mission of CNN that you’ve spent so much time describing to me?

And, you know, he couldn’t say, no, it didn’t. But he also, in that moment, to his credit, I don’t think he was even capable of lying to me and putting on a brave face and saying, yeah, of course it did. and so he just looked at me and he said, that’s too early to say.

Rosin: Hmm. So what did people say? Like how did people respond to that town hall?

Alberta: Not well, it was immediately and widely panned across the ideological spectrum of left and right, the partisan spectrum of blue and red, the, you know, journalistic spectrum. I mean, it was just, it was hard to find anybody defending it. And in fact, you know, Licht’s own employee, the media writer Oliver Darcy, published his newsletter, “Reliable Sources.” A couple of hours after the town hall concluded and Oliver’s opening line in the newsletter was: “It’s hard to see how America was served by the spectacle of lies that aired on CNN [Wednesday evening].”

Rosin: So it sounds like if Licht’s original mission was to model a different kind of conversation with a new kind of open tone, it accomplished exactly the opposite.

Alberta: I think that’s right. and again, there’s a difference between theory and execution. In theory, the town hall was defensible, but the execution of the town hall was not.

Rosin: After the break, an inside look at Licht’s final days. And what happens at CNN after.

Rosin: So how did things unfold in the weeks following the town hall that led to the news this week of him being pushed out?

Alberta: So the week following the town hall, I was in New York and I had a pre-arranged, hard-won pre-arranged meeting with David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Brothers Discovery, the parent company of CNN. And, at the very last minute, the office of Zaslav informed me that he was no longer willing to speak on the record with me for this story, even though that had been the agreement.

And as I said, it was sort of a hard-won agreement over some time of negotiations. So that was another red flag that just told me that obviously if the boss, the big boss, if he’s unwilling to put himself out there on the record in support of his embattled leader at CNN, that’s not a good sign for him.

And in fact, I even told Zaslav’s office, I told him very plainly, do you know how this is gonna look? You do recognize I’m giving you a chance here to defend your guy and to defend Zaslav himself, and you’re passing on it. You’re hiding from me, changing the rules of our agreement to do this interview. And they decided to do that. And so that was another moment where it was very clear to me that he was in trouble.

So the next day after the canceled meeting, I sat down with Licht for our final interview. And I could sense having, again, gotten to know him fairly well over some period of time, that there was something a little bit different in his body language. That there was some self-doubt. There was maybe even a bit of sadness that things had gone so wrong. There was, I think, an acceptance at that point of just how bad things were for him internally.

You know, when I was asking about his employees being so upset with him, when I was poking and prodding on specific things that they were upset with him about, he didn’t make any effort to push back on it or to dispute the premise or to try to, you know, kind of talk his way out. He just seemed in that moment almost resigned to the realities of how badly things had gone awry inside of his organization.

And, that in and of itself was, was just, almost stunning to me because this was a guy who, in all of our interactions, he was just so predictably confident and self-assured and always had this kind of look in his eye like he knew something you didn’t know..

Rosin: Yeah, I mean, I think I know the answer to this, but your Atlantic story was published on June 2nd. He was out on June 7th. When I read your story, I thought, Ooh, it would be very hard for this person to keep their job. And I did wonder, were you surprised by the news this week?

Alberta: [sigh] I can’t say that I was surprised if only because in the days after the piece was published, I was just inundated with text messages and emails and phone calls from people at CNN telling me the situation there was untenable, that there was no way he could survive this. And, that was all unsolicited.

I was not reaching out, trying to follow up on the situation. I, I was not looking to try to break the news of him, you know, being ousted or anything like that. It was just organically obvious that the situation there just wasn’t sustainable. Um, he had lost the trust of too many people. And frankly, I think it’s worth saying that he’d lost the trust of a lot of these folks before the story had come out.

And I think when the story came out, what I heard time and time and time again from journalists was that there was no coming back from it. That the relationships there could not be rebuilt after some of the things he had said in the piece. And so in that sense, no, I was not surprised.

Rosin: You know, it’s, it’s weird to be a reporter in a position of having a story come out and then someone gets fired. In your case, it sounds like you see yourself as just a chronicler of something that was already unfolding, not like a causer of events, but just you wrote this story, this happened. It was already on its way.

Alberta: Well, yes, I, I, let me say it this way, I’ve had a number of CNN reporters reach out. People who are friends of mine, people who I’ve known and worked with and respected for a long time, who all were saying basically the same thing to me, independent of one another, which is that, Hey, don’t feel bad about this. Because I think because they think I’m a nice guy—I hope because they think I’m a nice guy.

Rosin: So, is your conclusion that Licht’s experiment, his mission, did fail. There was no reset with Republican voters viewing CNN, like it didn’t work.

Alberta: It’s hard to draw any other conclusion just based on the ratings. I mean, Chris’s biggest problem was, as I think I said earlier, that he just didn’t have a win that he could point to.

Rosin: Mhmm.

Alberta: And if your goal is to reclaim some significant chunk of lost voters who have written off your news network, that’s going to take time. And I think everybody understood that it was going to take time.

And one year in the grand scheme of things is not a ton of time, but in that one year, there was just no measurable improvement. And in fact, all of the measurables actually showed that things were getting worse. And so just in judging the execution of the journalistic vision that Licht had laid out for me and laid out for his staff upfront I don’t know how you could view it as anything other than a failure because the metrics by which you would judge it do not look good.

Rosin: Now you’ve said a few times this is a matter of execution. But I have to say, his failure does leave me wondering if anyone could have succeeded. Like my immediate thought after hearing that he was out at CNN, was in our political climate is it even possible to do a reset like he was trying to do?

Alberta: I think that’s the $64,000 question here, to be honest. And let’s be clear, like, I think that there’s been a pile on because of social media and the way that our news environment works, there’s been a pile on and a lot of people taking shots at Chris Licht, some of which I think are probably unfair.

You know, this is, this is a talented guy and a guy who’d been pretty successful everywhere he’d been. And I do think that he was dealt an exceptionally difficult hand, but I also think he made it even harder on himself than it had to be. And to your specific question, I don’t know if anybody at this point is capable of doing what Chris set out to do, which is sort of re-imagining the mainstream media’s relationship with a Republican base that has been, sort of, systematically manipulated into not trusting the mainstream media for decades.

I think it’s really healthy to have at least some piece of the market offering what Licht was envisioning and trying to win back disaffected, distrusting Republican viewers with more of a straight news, just the facts ma’am, approach. I think that that’s very much worth trying. It’s just, in some ways, it strikes me as an utterly impossible task. And I think if he could do it all over again, even if his goals were the same, I’m pretty sure that Chris Licht would go about emphasizing them and articulating them a little bit differently because he, in a lot of ways, sort of set himself up for failure.

Rosin: All right. Well, Tim, thank you so much for coming on the show. We are very glad that you were following this story so closely.

Alberta: You’re welcome Hanna. Thank you for having me.

Tim Alberta: It was apparent to me immediately when I saw Chris after the town hall ended that he knew this wasn’t good.

Hanna Rosin: “Chris” is Chris Licht, the former CEO of CNN, who was ousted this week. And that’s my colleague Tim Alberta, who’s been reporting on Licht for the past year.

Alberta: This is a guy who I’ve gotten to know decently well over the past year or so, a guy who’s just got a bottomless supply of self-confidence.

And in that moment, when the town hall ended and I met him in the lobby, he was pale. His shoulders were sort of slumped. He looked distressed. Thoroughly distressed.

Rosin: I’m Hanna Rosin, and this is Radio Atlantic. You may have read about the Trump Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire that CNN aired last month. Maybe you even watched it. The event was part of Licht’s broader mission to signal that Republicans and even Trump supporters were welcome at CNN again.

Which was connected to an even bigger mission, one that Licht defined as getting back to real journalism: truths, facts, and less spin. Instead, CNN lost control of the town hall. Trump used it as a forum to double down on lies about the 2020 election. Among other unsavory things. It was pretty much universally considered a disaster and backstage, right after the event, Licht knew it.

Alberta: It was a deeply human moment where I, I think a guy who, you know, agree with his decisions, disagree with his decisions, whatever.

This is a guy who had been working, like, 80 hour weeks since he took the job and had been really pouring himself into trying to remake CNN into something different and something new, and had in this moment with the world watching failed. And that was, it was, it was, um, it was crushing for him. You could just see it in, in that, in that moment

Rosin: In this episode, we talked to Tim Alberta, who watched the implosion at CNN up close in real time.

Tim: So I first met Chris last summer. We had dinner. I had been pitching his team on doing this story. Ultimately after pushing and pushing, pushing, there was a meeting set up over dinner in New York.

Rosin: Can I ask, why did you want to meet him so badly? What was interesting to you about this story?

Alberta: Well, I think, a couple of things. First, CNN had really been the poster child for Republican attacks on the media during the Trump years. I’d spent as much time covering Republican voters and Republican campaigns as anybody over the past five or six years.

And I’d seen firsthand time and time and time again. How at rallies or smaller candidate events how CNN had sort of become the face of the hysterical liberal media that was out to get Trump and leading a witch hunt on his impeachment and on January 6th and on everything else.

And so what was interesting to me was that Licht came in, and, and quite overtly made it known, from the beginning, that his mission was to change that perception of CNN, was not to coddle the extreme right wing, so to speak, but to win back the sort of respectable rank and file Republican voter who had become so distrustful of CNN during those previous five or six years.

And that struck me as an incredibly ambitious objective for somebody taking over, one of the world’s biggest news organizations. You know, CNN has 4,000, some employees spread all across the world, and, you’re, you’re, you’re coming in at a really sensitive time, taking over this incredibly difficult job, and in some sense you’re making it harder on yourself by staking out that sort of very ambitious goal.

Rosin: You watched Chris Licht come in as a newbie at CNN. How did he fit in in the beginning?

Alberta: Well, awkwardly, I think is the, is the fair way to say it, because you have to keep in mind that he was following Jeff Zucker, who had been there for, I guess at that point, about a decade, and was beloved. He was sort of a larger than life figure who had real personal rapport with just about everybody.

Not only the on-air talent, but the producers behind the scenes, the camera crews, uh, this guy just sort of made everybody feel like part of a family. And he was affectionate, had nicknames, knew everybody’s kids. I mean, and, and so obviously when Zucker was forced out as president of CNN at the beginning of 2022 and, and then Licht came in shortly thereafter, he inherited a newsroom that was reeling from the departure of sort of their, their fearless leader, Jeff Zucker, who had, you know, keep in mind really sort of steered CNN through an unprecedented period of, of almost warfare with the White House during the Trump years where there were threats called into CNN, reporters being singled out as the enemy of the people, you know, they were really under fire in, in ways that we’d never seen a news organization under fire from a White House before. And so there was this, this incredibly tense dynamic already there. And then Zucker is forced out and Licht walks into that.

Meanwhile, there’s incredible financial turmoil. There’s been a change in ownership with a new parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery, taking over CNN and their financials are pretty wobbly, and so there’s massive cost cutting.

And Licht, sort of stepping into that position, I think really went out of his way from the outset to be everything that Zucker wasn’t.

So if Zucker was warm and affectionate and intimate with everyone, Licht was, sort of, cold and detached, almost aloof, purposely inaccessible.

In fact, one of the first things he did after taking the job was turn Zucker’s office on the 17th floor, which was right outside some of the main studios right in the heart of the newsroom, and turned it into a conference room as sort of a symbolic move. And then he himself picked an office up on the 22nd floor in a space most employees at CNN, including longtime veteran reporters, they didn’t even know how to find that office. and that, that one move, although it seems small, I think really in many ways came to define Licht’s relationship with his journalists.

Rosin: And so why do you think he thought this mission was important? Was it just about saving CNN or was it about something broader?

Alberta: So it became clear to me from the earliest conversations that I began having with people, well before Licht even agreed to participate in this piece, that to Chris Licht. This was about more than CNN. This was about the journalism industry itself. He had made it known that he didn’t blame a lot of these folks for their souring on the mainstream media.

That he saw some of the, the, the big news organizations getting over their skis on certain stories or perhaps giving too much attention to the stylistic stuff at, at the expense of the more substantive, uh, stories that they could have been covering. In other words, Licht was sort of making it known that he felt that all of media had been broken in some sense, or at the very least, had gotten played by President Trump. And he believed that if something was not done to fix that, that if there weren’t dramatic measures taken to restore and rehabilitate the media’s image in the eyes of much of the country, that it posed a, a real threat to democracy itself. I mean, that’s not an overstatement.

Rosin: Wow. So it was not just a business decision to save CNN. It was not just about saving cable news. It was not even just about journalism and media. It was an even bigger project. It sounds like.

Alberta: I think what’s clear is two things. Number one, to the people at the top at Warner Brothers Discovery from the Board of Directors to the CEO, David Zaslav, they were very much invested in CNN as a, you know, profit center.

A place that was, you know, accustomed to making over a billion dollars annually and a prestigious brand that could generate a lot of revenue. And I think Licht viewed it somewhat differently. Licht was trained as a journalist. He calls journalism his first love. He practiced being Walter Cronkite in his basement as a kid putting on fake newscasts.

I mean, this is a guy who really loves the news and, and, and so I think, whether one agrees with him or completely disagrees with him or is somewhere in between, it’s, I think it’s worth recognizing just at a, at a sort of ground level that this is someone who really does consider himself a journalist, first and foremost, and really believed that the institution of journalism in America was under assault.

And that some of its trouble was self-inflicted. And he believed that if he could introduce a new model at CNN that was built around toning down the commentary, dialing back the outrage, and leading with facts, and, and, and just really being very careful with tone and orienting everything toward,sort of fact forward journalism.

That if they could restore trust in the CNN brand by doing that then it would create a model that the entire industry might try to replicate. And, and that was really his vision from the outset.

Rosin:. So he starts off on this incredibly ambitious, serious mission almost to turn back time on journalism. Was there a moment you could pinpoint when this mission started to go wrong?

Alberta: Well, I would say two things. First, you could argue that it was almost doomed from the beginning because, you know, cable news has been in sort of long decline, predating Trump, postdating Trump, even though Trump sort of breathed some artificial life into ratings and revenues for a few years there, it’s been clear for a long time because of cord cutting, because of these silly little things we carry around in our pockets all day and stare at too much.

Um, for a whole host of reasons that cable news has been in trouble. I also think that there’s not any compelling evidence to suggest that Americans, or at least any critical mass of Americans, want to get their news without fear or favor, that, that, that there’s any critical mass of Americans who just want the facts and then wanna make up their own mind. I mean, there’s quite a bit of evidence to suggest in fact that Americans want to get their news from sources that will, sort of, reaffirm their existing worldviews and, and tell them what they want to hear and not necessarily challenge them where their idols lie.

And that’s, I think, the thing Chris Licht tried to challenge from the outset and really, really sold people around him hard on the idea that, for the sake of American democracy, we needed to do something about that. And I think in that sense, he was probably fighting a doomed mission from the very beginning.

Rosin: So he was fighting a doomed mission. It was difficult from the outset. He decided to do it anyway. So what actually happened? I mean, he must have known it was gonna be difficult.

Alberta: Yes. Well, a–and as the great philosopher Mike Tyson once said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. And that’s sort of what happened at CNN. Chris Licht had a plan, and then he came in and he got punched in the mouth a bunch of times. Um, you know, the recurring theme that I heard from a lot of the top talent at CNN was that in a lot of ways, they actually agreed in theory with the mission that Chris Licht had laid out as far as toning down some of the outrage, trying to be more selective with when they really wanted it dialed up to 11, as he would say, and, and, and go strong on, on certain stories.

But the execution of that mission was really what started to become shaky and, and really, I think the first glimpse into that that I got was watching behind the scenes as CNN prepared last fall to launch its new morning show. Now, Licht had made a decision to take Don Lemon, who was probably the most polarizing personality at CNN and make Lemon the face of this new morning show called CNN This Morning. And, and so in some ways Licht had tied his fate to Don Lemon’s fate, and as of the springtime when Lemon had committed, sort of, a series of blunders and had made some enemies internally, and obviously the most notable incident was when he said that Nikki Haley, the presidential candidate who’s 51 years old, was past her prime and that a woman’s only in her prime if she’s in her twenties or thirties or forties. And it caused so much turmoil, at the network, and it was a mess. And it was clear at that point that the one thing that he had really been counting on as a win, this morning show, was looking more and more like loss every day.

Rosin: In addition to this morning show drama he was wading through...not everyone at CNN was on board with his mission right? He may have defined it as truth and journalism, but lots of other people pointed out many many problems with what he was actually trying to do, in practice.

Alberta: Yeah. Because beyond just giving that sort of broad definition that I think a lot of us would agree to around what good journalism should be, you know, leading with the facts and telling the truth without fear or favor, um, the specifics became a bit troubling.

And, you know, specifically the question of, you know, what do you do with Republicans who systematically attempted to deconstruct our democratic institutions a couple of years ago and, uh, prevent a peaceful transition of power. I mean, what do you do with those folks? Do you treat them as rational actors who need to be given a platform to reach the viewing masses?

Do you have to have some rules in place around how you cover those people? And, you know, Licht would fall back repeatedly on this analogy of some people like rain, some people don’t like rain, and we will have anybody on this network whether they like rain or don’t like rain, but we will not have people on this network who say that it’s not raining outside when it really is. Now, it’s an interesting metaphor but I think the problem for Licht is that the application of it was a little bit uneven. Even going back to the very beginning of his tenure, one of the first programming decisions he made after taking over as the new boss at CNN was to tell his producers to downplay the first hearing of the January 6th committee in Congress.

Remember, it was shown in primetime, this was sort of a, ’get your popcorn ready’ primetime special event that MSNBC went wall to wall with its coverage and earned monster ratings. But because of Licht’s edict to the staff, CNN covered it very casually, didn’t give it the sort of attention that it would have given something like that in previous years, and it got slaughtered in the ratings by MSNBC.

So, there were a lot of examples along the way that gave cause to some of Licht’s own journalists to question, okay, well he says the mission is this thing, but is our execution really in keeping with that, and ultimately it was the town hall with Donald Trump that really broke the camel’s back.

Rosin: Okay. Tell me how that whole event came about

Alberta: Licht and his team had been working for some time to reach an agreement with the former president Donald Trump to bring him on CNN for some sort of big interview.

What they ultimately agreed on was a town hall in New Hampshire, the first in the nation primary state and Licht knew that he was going to get a lot of pushback from his own employees on this. Uh, a lot of people who felt that Trump should not be platformed, that he’d, uh, caused sufficient distress to the country with his lies and his assaults on the ballot box.

And his, um, disruption of the transition of power that CNN should not be platforming him at all, much less in a town hall format. And, and you know, I, I would just flashback quickly to the very first conversation I ever had with Chris where we talked about how the media covered Trump in the past and how it needs to cover him in the future. And I was really slack jawed, just shocked, frankly, when Chris said to me, well, I think the media has learned its lesson.

This is not something that I lose sleep over. This idea, this question of how do we cover Trump? I, you know, and, and I said, whaaaat really? Like, you, you, you think you’ve, you think you’ve got the answer? And he said, yeah, we cover him the same way as anybody, right? We, we, we hold him accountable with the facts and we don’t let him play us.

And, uh, we don’t, dial it up to 11 every time so that we lose the trust of the audience. You know, this is, this is pretty simple stuff. That’s what he said to me. And…

Rosin: I’ve heard other editors say that, by the way, but go ahead.

Alberta: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, and so he did two things. First, he picked Kaitlan Collins, the Rising Star reporter at CNN, who everybody there has a ton of respect for, picked her to host this town hall event with Trump.

And second, he made a really forceful case to his senior staff and told them, look, If not CNN, then who? We alone have the experience putting these events on. We have the journalistic chops, we’ve got Kaitlan, we can fact check in real time. We can hold him accountable in front of a live international audience in ways that nobody else can.

So why shouldn’t we do it? And he really made a strong case to his team and he won over people who, who had been resistant to it. He really got a lot of buy-in. But in the process of doing that, he made it very clear that all the chips were now in the center of the table. That this was it.

That this was the big bet that Licht was willing to make, that he needed this win badly. That he needed this sort of signature moment to validate his approach, not only his approach to courting Republican viewers, but also his approach to dealing with his own staff, people who were really, sort of, resistant to some of what he was prescribing and, and how he was going about executing this mission.

So, so really this was setting up to be the make or break moment for Chris Licht at CNN, and he knew it going into Manchester.

Rosin: And it sounds like it was also part of his bigger mission of we can have a different kind of conversation that involves truth and involves airing things more honestly, like it was part of that conversation as well

Alberta: Yes, that’s exactly right.

Rosin: Now you were there, you were close to them as this was all going, not just present at the town hall, but talking to Licht as this was happening, what was, what was he like during the event?

Alberta: So I only talked to him briefly before the program, and then we spoke after the program. So he pulled me into a hallway that was kind of on the sidelines of the main auditorium where the event had just emptied out. And we talked for a few minutes there, and I asked him, you know, did this advance the mission, the journalistic mission of CNN that you’ve spent so much time describing to me?

And, you know, he couldn’t say, no, it didn’t. But he also, in that moment, to his credit, I don’t think he was even capable of lying to me and putting on a brave face and saying, yeah, of course it did. and so he just looked at me and he said, that’s too early to say.

Rosin: Hmm. So what did people say? Like how did people respond to that town hall?

Alberta: Not well, it was immediately and widely panned across the ideological spectrum of left and right, the partisan spectrum of blue and red, the, you know, journalistic spectrum. I mean, it was just, it was hard to find anybody defending it. And in fact, you know, Licht’s own employee, the media writer Oliver Darcy, published his newsletter, Reliable Sources. a couple of hours after the town hall concluded and Oliver’s opening line in the newsletter was, it’s hard to see how America was served by the spectacle of lies that aired on CNN tonight, or something just like that.

Rosin: So it sounds like if, if Licht’s original mission was to model a different kind of conversation with a new kind of open tone, it accomplished exactly the opposite.

Alberta: I think that’s right. and again, there’s a difference between theory and execution. In theory, the town hall was defensible, but the execution of the town hall was not.

Rosin: After the break, an inside look at Licht’s final days. And what happens at CNN after.

Rosin: So how did things unfold in the weeks following the town hall that led to the news this week of him being pushed out?

Alberta: So the week following the town hall, I was in New York and I had a pre-arranged, hard-won pre-arranged, meeting with David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Brothers Discovery, the parent company of CNN. And, at the very last minute, the office of Zaslav informed me that he was no longer willing to speak on the record with me for this story, even though that had been the agreement.

And as I said, it was sort of a hard-won agreement over some time of negotiations. So that was another red flag that just told me that obviously if the boss, the big boss, if he’s unwilling to put himself out there on the record in support of his embattled leader at CNN, that’s not a good sign for him.

And in fact, I even told Zaslav’s office, I told him very plainly, do you know how this is gonna look? You do recognize I’m giving you a chance here to defend your guy and to defend Zaslav himself, and you’re passing on it. You’re hiding from me, changing the rules of our agreement to do this interview. And they decided to do that. And so that was another moment where it was very clear to me that he was in trouble.

So the next day after, after the canceled meeting, I sat down with Licht for our final interview. And I could sense having, again, gotten to know him fairly well over some period of time, that there was something a little bit different in his body language. That there was some self-doubt. There was maybe even a bit of sadness that things had gone so wrong. There was, I think, an acceptance at that point of just how bad things were for him internally.

You know, when I was asking about his employees being so upset with him, when I was poking and prodding on specific things that they were upset with him about, he didn’t make any effort to push back on it or to dispute the premise or to try to, you know, kind of talk his way out. He just, he, he seemed in that moment almost resigned to the realities of how badly things had gone awry inside of his organization.

And, that in and of itself was, was just, almost stunning to me because this was a guy who, in all of our interactions, he was just so predictably confident and self-assured and, always had this kind of look in his eye like he knew something you didn’t know..

Rosin: Yeah, I mean, I think I know the answer to this, but your Atlantic story was published on June 2nd. He was out on June 7th. When I read your story, I thought, Ooh, it would be very hard for this person to keep their job. And I did wonder, were you surprised by the news this week?

Alberta: [sigh] I can’t say that I was surprised if only because in the days after the piece was published, I was just inundated with text messages and emails and phone calls from people at CNN telling me the situation there was untenable, that there was no way he could survive this. And, that was all unsolicited.

I was not reaching out, trying to follow up on the situation. I, I was not looking to try to break the news of him, you know, being ousted or anything like that. It was just organically obvious that the situation there just wasn’t sustainable. Um, he had lost the trust of too many people. And frankly, I think it’s worth saying that he’d lost the trust of a lot of these folks before the story had come out.

And I think when the story came out, what I heard time and time and time again from journalists there was that there was no coming back from it. That the relationships there could not be rebuilt, after some of the things he had said in the piece. And so in that sense, no, I was not surprised.

Rosin: You know, it’s, it’s weird to be a reporter in a position of having a story come out and then someone gets fired. In your case, it sounds like you see yourself as just a chronicler of something that was already unfolding, not like a causer of events, but just you wrote this story, this happened. It was already on its way.

Alberta: Well, yes, I, I, let me say it this way, I’ve had a number of CNN reporters reach out to me today. People who are friends of mine, people who I’ve known and worked with and respected for a long time, who all were saying basically the same thing to me, independent of one another, which is that, Hey, don’t feel bad about this.

Because, I think because they think I’m a nice guy, I hope because they think I’m a nice guy, don’t feel bad about this because this was coming sooner or later.

Rosin: So, is your conclusion that Licht’s experiment, his mission, did fail. There was no reset with Republican voters viewing CNN, like it didn’t work.

Alberta: It’s hard to draw any other conclusion just based on the ratings. I mean, Chris’s biggest problem was, as I think I said earlier, that he just didn’t have a win that he could point to.

Rosin: Mhmm.

Alberta: And if your goal is to reclaim some significant chunk of lost voters who have written off your news network, that’s going to take time. And I think everybody understood that it was going to take time.

And one year in the grand scheme of things is not a ton of time, but in that one year, there was just no measurable improvement. And in fact, all of the measurables actually showed that things were getting worse. And so just in judging the execution of the journalistic vision that Licht had laid out for me and laid out for his staff upfront I don’t know how you could view it as anything other than a failure because the metrics by which you would judge it do not look good.

Rosin: Now you’ve said a few times this is a matter of execution. But I have to say, his failure does leave me wondering if anyone could have succeeded. Like my immediate thought after hearing that he, he was out at CNN, was in our political climate is it even possible to do a reset like he was trying to do?

Alberta: I think that’s the $64,000 question here, to be honest. And let’s be clear, like, I think that there’s been a pile on because of social media and the way that our news environment works, there’s been a pile on and a lot of people taking shots at Chris Licht, some of which I think are probably unfair.

You know, this is, this is a talented guy and a guy who’d been pretty successful everywhere he’d been. And I do think that he was dealt an exceptionally difficult hand, but I also think he made it even harder on himself than it had to be. And to your specific question, I don’t know if anybody at this point is capable of doing what Chris set out to do, which is sort of re-imagining the mainstream media’s relationship with a Republican base that has been, sort of, systematically manipulated into not trusting the mainstream media for decades.

I think it’s really healthy to have at least some piece of the market offering what Licht was envisioning and trying to win back disaffected, distrusting Republican viewers with more of a straight news, just the facts ma’am, approach. I think that that’s very much worth trying it’s just, in some ways, it strikes me as an utterly impossible task. And I think if he could do it all over again, even if his goals were the same, I’m pretty sure that Chris Licht would go about emphasizing them and articulating them a little bit differently because he, in a lot of ways, sort of set himself up for failure.

Rosin: All right. Well, Tim, thank you so much for coming on the show. We are very glad that you were following this story so closely.

Alberta: You’re welcome Hanna. Thank you for having me.