Inside Politics with Dana Bash on CNN is virtually unlike anything else in cable news in its timeslot.
There are plenty of news-focused shows in the midday Eastern timeslot. That’s not to say that the Bash-led show doesn’t fit that bill. But it isn’t a general news show. It’s solely focused on “Inside the Beltway” politics, which highlights Bash’s strengths.
But on Thursday, an atypical news day unfolded. It literally isn’t every day that the world’s richest man talks about the beef he has with the President of the United States of America.
That’s virtually as inside the beltway as politics can get, truly. So this story and day was right up Dana Bash’s alley.
The story evolved in real-time during the Noon ET program. Inside Politics spent a large portion of the middle of the show dedicated to the breaking news that Trump and Musk had essentially broken up. Included in the show was a live hit with correspondent Alayna Treene from the White House’s lawn, as well as live looks at Musk’s X feed on social media to see what he was saying about the President as it came in.
I actually liked that strategy. While it might not be the most visually appealing product, it is insanely interesting and generates intrigue. I had the advantage of hindsight while watching this Thursday episode of Inside Politics with Dana Bash, it watching the program still had me on the edge of my seat to see what Musk was going to tweet next, knowing that full-fledged nuclear bomb was still incoming later in the afternoon, well after the CNN show ended.
Knowing what that feud would turn into, I found it illuminating that Bash almost knew exactly where the feud between Trump and Musk was headed, essentially arguing that a complete breakdown of the relationship between the two was imminent. And at that time, it was only due to Trump arguing that he Musk was misguided in his criticism of the “big beautiful bill”, as the message basically claiming the President could be incriminated by the Epstein Files was yet to come.
I think that speaks to the knowledge level Dana Bash features. She knew, instinctively, that we were watching the dissolution of this partnership in real-time. Others might have attempted to argue that it was a mere squabble between two passionate forces. But anyone with half a brain knew that the relationship between two egomaniacs was never going to last. And Dana Bash shared an opinion that this was going to blow up before it really blew up. Again, watching it with the ability of hindsight, but I came away impressed.
At times, though, I thought the show was weakened by a trope that, in my view, CNN relies upon too frequently: a damn panel. Turn on CNN at what seems like any time of day, and you’ll see a host surrounded by four relatively unknown figures dishing on the top stories of the day.
Great. Cool. Interesting? Not especially. The panel format works in two instances: either the audience is intricately familiar with the cast you’ve regularly assembled or you’ve put together a panel with a group that features folks with strong name recognition. That’s basically it.
Does that stink? Absolutely. But we just live in a world where the audience has to know immediately why they should care about what the person speaking has to say. Credibility matters, but it’s often earned by the credibility of others on the set. So while Dana Bash herself is credible, and her credibility can be lent to others, it isn’t enough to keep a viewer’s attention with the insinuation that “If she values what they’re going to say, then so do I.” It just doesn’t really work like that anymore.
If the Inside Politics panel was filled with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, I don’t think even the most ardent CNN hater could argue that they should be using a panel format in that instance.
But that wasn’t who was joining Dana Bash at the desk. It was four people (CNN’s Kristen Holmes and Kylie Atwood, Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal, and Zolan Kanno-Youngs of The New York Times), and — frankly — I had never heard of. It felt as if the introductions of the four-person panel was somewhat rushed, which I wholly understand. You’re in breaking news mode, but it felt like an important time to slow down and really hit home why the audience should care about what these people have to say. They’re White House correspondents and insiders. While I thought their content, opinion, and analysis were interesting and compelling, they were perceived as unknowns. And perception is reality.
Like almost all cable news shows, I saw good and bad with Inside Politics with Dana Bash. Ultimately, I thought the good outweighed the bad, especially because it’s unlike many other cable news shows in its timeslot. But it wasn’t dissimilar enough from other shows from CNN to make me think that it was something that I would need to watch every single day to feel as if I still had my finger on the pulse of what was happening in Washington.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
Garrett Searight is Barrett Media’s News Editor, which includes writing bi-weekly industry features and a weekly column. He has previously served as Program Director and Afternoon Co-Host on 93.1 The Fan in Lima, OH, and is the radio play-by-play voice of Northern Michigan University hockey. Reach out to him at Garrett@BarrettMedia.com.
