Rem Rieder: Can CNN and Jeff Zucker revive Facts?

• At CNN, Zucker will take on Fox and MSNBC
• Plans to preserve the cable network's 'independent voice'
• Flagging brand is in need of revitalization

Back in April, Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke, horrified by the avalanche of partisan distortions on the campaign trail, wrote an obituary for Facts. The headline: "Facts, 360 B.C.-A.D. 2012."

The witty piece was widely circulated on the Internet and recently was selected by Time magazine as one of the top 10 opinion pieces of the year.

After the election, American Journalism Review interviewed Huppke to see if the rest of the campaign had given him any hope of a resurrection for poor old Facts. Not surprisingly, the answer was no. But Huppke hadn't given up hope.

"People are too smart to live in a fairy-tale world, and I believe we'll have some sort of correction over time where people will return to Facts, and it will make everything better," he said.

Which brings us to Jeff Zucker and CNN.

In January, Zucker, a longtime TV producer and former president and CEO of NBC Universal, will become president of CNN Worldwide, where his major challenge will be to revitalize its flagship channel, CNN. Once a major innovator as the pioneering all-news outlet on cable, CNN has fallen into third place during primetime and in the morning, and is widely seen as a tired, flagging brand.

Zucker's mission is to compete much more powerfully with CNN's two partisan rivals, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. In today's hyperpartisan political climate, it's a lot easier to attract eyeballs — and buzz — by preaching to the converted. And cable is hardly alone here: The Internet and talk radio have no shortage of venues with distinct political hues.

To his credit, Zucker says he plans to preserve CNN as an "independent voice." So the key question is whether it's possible to prevail in such a polarized era and in such a polarized arena by simply following the facts wherever they lead.

While it's true that journalism in the early days of the republic was quite partisan, way back in the 20th century the avowed goal in the U.S. was to try to play things straight down the middle. There were exceptions, of course, and there were so many skeptics on the right that the term "liberal media" became a cliché. But for the most part, a great many outlets did try to cover the news without choosing sides. And many still do.

But Fox, founded by Rupert Murdoch in 1996, changed the cable game dramatically. With former Republican operative Roger Ailes at the helm, there was little doubt about where its sympathies lay. And there clearly was an audience, a large audience, thirsting for news with a rightward tilt. Fox reigns as the dominant player in cable news.

MSNBC, which made its debut the same year as Fox, was a longtime laggard in the cable news ratings, a channel with no clear identity. Its fortunes changed when, with the mercurial Keith Olbermann leading the charge, it, too, opted for the partisan approach, only from the left.

Meanwhile, the advent of the blogosphere gave rise to a wide array of websites with points of view. Now we are in a world in which it is possible, and even popular, for a news consumer to feast only on news that fits comfortably into his or her political prism. On the right, Limbaugh, Drudge and Fox. On the left, Huffington Post, MSNBC and the Daily Kos.

The media polarization mirrors the sharp divisions on Capitol Hill, where Republicans and Democrats talk past each other (see: fiscal cliff) and rarely socialize with each other.

But for a democracy to flourish, it's important that, while they may have wildly different opinions, voters at least share the same facts. That's why a vibrant, revitalized CNN is so crucial. That's particularly so in a climate where cable, in conjunction with digital news outlets and blogs, has so much impact on steering the conversation.

The word "vanilla" is often used to describe straightforward news in general and CNN in particular. But that's hardly the only flavor available. With interest high in politics, with so many important issues at play, it certainly should be possible to put together a primetime lineup featuring smart, sophisticated takes on the issues of the day.

Being independent doesn't have to mean being bland. It doesn't have to equate to mind-numbing on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand colloquies. What it means is tough reporting and analysis that reaches conclusions. It means making the call based on the facts. It's just that the call sometimes will make one side happy, sometimes the other side happy, sometimes neither one. That very unpredictability could well be a strength.

And it might help to spend a little less time breathlessly spotlighting the flap or gaffe of the moment, which is of much more interest to insiders than ordinary Americans, and shedding more light on the underlying issues.

CNN's prime-time woes can hardly be blamed solely on the evil objectivity. Head-scratching personnel decisions, such as putting disgraced pol Eliot Spitzer on the air, with or without a partner, hardly helped the cause.

Zucker has a reputation as a polarizing figure, and he had his share of setbacks when running NBC Universal. Remember the Conan O'Brien fiasco?

But the man knows television programming: He was just 26 when he was named executive producer of NBC's Today show. With his background and instincts, not to mention his outsize ego, it sounds as though he has a good shot at righting the CNN ship. And Zucker is hardly heading to a basket case. Thanks in part to lucrative CNN International, the company is quite a money-maker, on track to net $600 million in operating profit his year.

So here's hoping Zucker can pull it off, and that there is a substantial audience to embrace news without spin.

Rieder is editor and senior vice president of American Journalism Review.