I picked a few paragraphs from the article below.
http://www.economist.com/node/21563298
CNN is good at reporting hard news, because it has lots of good reporters. It has 45 bureaus around the world—more than Fox News and MSNBC combined—and about 4,000 employees. Its ratings soar whenever there is a terrorist attack, flood or war. When American embassies were recently stormed in Libya, Yemen and Egypt, for example, CNN got a lift.
When the news is about words rather than action, however, CNN struggles. Conservative viewers like to hear Fox’s Bill O’Reilly fume about “far-left loons”. Liberals like to hear MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow condescend to conservatives. Gasbags in a studio are cheaper than camera crews in the Middle East, which may be why CNN’s profit margins (around 37%) are less than MSNBC’s (46%) and Fox’s (55%).
If the next boss chooses to differentiate CNN further from its rivals, by commissioning more global reporting and less hot air, it will cost a packet. But Mr Whitaker is bullish: “If it got our ratings up substantially, it would be worth it,” he says.
This is irrelevant to the articles posted. Again, please point out the bias and inaccuracies in the articles.
Again, they are known for hot air.
If anything that article quote was implying the opposite.