CNN coverage of Iran is a reminder of its power and what could be lost in the wrong hands

poynter.org · Mar 2, 2026 · Collected from GDELT

Full Article

This is The Poynter Report, your daily guide to the news about news. Subscribe to get it in your inbox every weekday. At some point overnight Friday into Saturday, while battling insomnia, I was catching up on some programs I had recently recorded. When I was done and about to head to bed, I went back to cable and came across a startling overnight breaking news alert: The United States and Israel had launched coordinated attacks on Iran. As I do in any breaking news story, I immediately turned to CNN. Every major TV news organization — including ABC, CBS, NBC, MS NOW and Fox News — has dedicated all of its resources to covering this huge story. And all of them have done an admirable job, calling out their top reporters and anchors and having special programming to pass along vital information. Yet, it is moments like these when CNN especially shines. I found myself, time and time again, locking in on CNN’s coverage. On Saturday, as often happens when there is major breaking news, there is something reassuring about turning over to CNN and hearing Wolf Blitzer anchoring the coverage. In addition, reporters such as CNN’s Clarissa Ward offer information like few others. Over the weekend, Ward said on air, “The entire region is now on a knife’s edge with no off-ramp in sight and many more questions than there are answers. At this stage, we don’t have a good picture of who is now in charge in Iran. What will Iran’s next move be? Is there any possibility to now de-escalate this situation?” Much of Ward’s information was based on actual reporting — talking to sources, being familiar with the area, and having the experience of past conflict coverage. Throughout the weekend, CNN’s coverage was mesmerizing. And important. As someone who writes about the media and has a special interest in it, I couldn’t help but wonder what CNN will look and sound like when, eventually, it will come under the control of Paramount, with CEO David Ellison, and, perhaps, CBS News, with editor-in-chief Bari Weiss? The stunning news late last week that Paramount has swooped in to likely take control of Warner Bros. Discovery, including CNN, has many at the news network wondering: What is next? CNN media reporter Brian Stelter wrote Friday, “Paramount executives have privately expressed admiration for CNN’s newsgathering machine and global reach. They have also talked about the prospect of combining CBS News with CNN, though that’s a lot easier said than done, and is not imminent.” But there’s the relationship between Ellison and President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly criticized CNN and said back in December, “It’s imperative that CNN be sold.” In fact, back in December, The Wall Street Journal wrote, “During a visit to Washington in recent days, David Ellison offered assurances to Trump administration officials that if he bought Warner, he’d make sweeping changes to CNN, a common target of President Trump’s ire, people familiar with the matter said. Trump has told people close to him that he wants new ownership of CNN as well as changes to CNN programming.” Partly for that reason, Stelter wrote, “So CNN employees and viewers have serious concerns about whether Ellison will uphold the news network’s editorial independence amid severe political turbulence.” In his Status media newsletter, Oliver Darcy, a former CNN staffer, wrote right after Thursday’s Warner Bros. Discovery news broke, “Inside CNN, alarm bells went off as staffers began to panic over the suddenly very real prospect that they could be working for Bari Weiss before the end of the year. Within minutes of the news crossing the wire, my phone lit up with messages from anxious employees fretting about the future.” One insider told Darcy, “The panic at CNN right now is off the charts.” Understandably so. NBC News’ Chloe Melas and Allie Canal wrote that one CNN journalist told them they believed some staffers would leave CNN if faced with the prospect of working for David Ellison or Weiss. That person told them, “No one wants to work for the Ellisons. And if Bari is going to be running CNN, expect people to leave.” Viewers should be concerned, too. Despite many criticisms, CNN continues to be a leader in national and international news and, with all due respect to the other networks, no network is better and more equipped to cover huge stories like Iran. I’ll get back to the Warner Bros. Discovery sale in a moment, but first, the big news story of the moment … The big story CBS News aired a special Saturday night called “War with Iran.” (Courtesy: CBS News) The news now is dominated by the attacks on Iran, which has since retaliated. As I mentioned earlier, each of the major TV news organizations has provided superb coverage. The networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — all have broken into regular programming when needed, added special prime-time coverage and brought in their top anchors. NBC’s Tom Llamas anchored a special hour on NBC and NBC News NOW on Saturday night. ABC’s David Muir anchored a special edition of “World News Tonight” on Saturday following a special report earlier on the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. CBS’s Tony Dokoupil anchored a one-hour prime-time special, “War with Iran,” Saturday night, which aired on CBS and streamed on Paramount+. In addition, on Sunday evening, CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired a new report, “Iran — Growing Up Behind Walls.” Correspondent Scott Pelley interviewed Reza Pahlavi, a leader of the Iranian opposition to the Islamic Republic and the son of the late deposed shah of Iran. Pelley also looked into the future of Iran, including whether or not a regime change is coming, what that could look like and what might happen to Iran’s nuclear weapons. Those were just a few examples among the special reports by those networks. Fox News and MS NOW also had extra live news programming around the events. Fox News’ excellent reporter, Trey Yingst, always seems to be near the danger. He had some close calls while reporting from Tel Aviv, as you can see in this video, this video and this video. Check out this story from Mediaite’s Sean James: “‘We Got To Move’: Fox’s Trey Yingst Scrambles for Safety as ‘Massive’ Iranian Missile Strike Rocks Tel Aviv Live on Air.” However, covering this situation is not easy. As Status’ Natalie Korach explained, “In a nation largely closed to Western media and with broadly limited internet access, the conflict is unfolding as something of an information black box, forcing news organizations to cover one of the most consequential military escalations in years largely from the outside.” Korach wrote, “Major news outlets contacted by Status would not address whether they intended to send journalists into Iran, citing obvious safety concerns. And for the moment, what appears to be the defining conflict of Trump’s presidency thus far is unfolding largely outside the sight of Western journalists.” What is this called? Is the United States currently in a war with Iran? Yes, according to The Associated Press. The AP wrote about its decision on what to call this: “How the AP decided to describe joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran, and Iran’s retaliation, as a war.” First, the AP referenced the Merriam-Webster definition of war, which the AP admitted is quite broad: “A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,” or “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.” The AP wrote, “Even though none of the countries have officially declared war, the attacks by the United States and Israel, combined with Iran’s retaliation, meet those criteria. The decision by the Trump administration and Israeli leaders to attack and the subsequent destruction and casualties are enough to call the actions, and Iran’s response, a war. Trump himself has used the word war to describe the conflict.” There’s much more to the AP’s explanation, so I encourage you to read it. More notable journalism on the Iran story Speaking of Reza Pahlavi, he wrote a piece in The Washington Post: “Thanks to President Trump, the hour of Iran’s freedom is at hand.” For The New York Times, Christina Goldbaum and Kiana Hayeri with “‘It’s Surreal’: Iranians in Disbelief After Supreme Leader Is Killed.” The New York Times editorial board with “A Tyrant Falls. Dangerous Uncertainty Begins.” The board wrote, “There exists no Iranian opposition group of any stature, which creates deep uncertainty about what comes next. Ayatollah Khamenei had a succession plan that favored clerics, but U.S. intelligence officials have assessed that the power vacuum could result in hard-line factions of the Revolutionary Guards seizing control. The risks of civil war, internal slaughter and regional instability are profound.” The board also raised this alarming point: “The bigger risks may lie in the future. The president of the United States has just helped assassinate a foreign leader without the approval of Congress, the support of most allies or a plan for the future. History suggests that unilateral American involvement along these lines often has consequences that are not immediately apparent.” And here’s what The Washington Post editorial board wrote: “Trump’s Iran gamble.” The board wrote, “It’s jarring to hear a clear call for democracy in Iran from an American president who campaigned on preventing open-ended conflicts in the Middle East. Success will likely require more than a bombing campaign.” It added, “It’s hard to see how ‘freedom for the people’ can be accomplished in any meaningful sense without some U.S. boots on the ground, at least for a time. Yet Trump appears to lack any appetite for doing so. That might give pause to civilians trying to decide whether to risk their lives by rising up. Whether Trump has made the right call will hinge on factors now beyond his control. No president has ever intended to get drawn into a quagmire.” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board with “It’s Too Soon for Iran ‘Off-Ramps.’” The board wrote, “The