COSMO MACERO WRITES IN THE BOSTON HERALD that CNN has handed Fox a huge leg up in the ratings wars — and that it deserves the problems it will face as a result of its Iraq coverage:

The explosive growth in broadcast, cable and Internet news sources since the first Gulf War has proven that consumers have a refined taste for information. They recognize quality in news brands in the way they recognize quality in consumer products.

So any event that inflicts damage to the brand is bound to have a lasting impact.

This is why Jordan’s admission, while commendable for its honesty, may be the start of a new credibility crisis for CNN, rather than just the end of his personal nightmare of bottled-up guilt.

“Years after consumers have forgotten the facts of the case, they may still look at your brand . . . and feel that something is distasteful there,” wrote David D’Alessandro, John Hancock Financial Services Inc.’s chief executive, in his 2001 marketing book “Brand Warfare.”

“It can take 100 years to build a good brand and 30 days of bad publicity to destroy it,” he wrote.

The risk for CNN: that too many viewers, with plenty of alternatives to choose from, will make rash but understandable judgments such as: “Those guys bury stories they don’t want to tell,” or, “CNN stands for Careful News Network – as in, `Be careful not to anger any dictators.’ ”

After all, Eason Jordan is top-tier management at CNN. His decisions can’t be dismissed as the errors of one renegade staffer. They are, quite to the contrary, bedrock company policy.

The fallout is already perceptible: on the letters page of the Times; among the growing legion of media watchers on the Internet; and even, to some degree, on CNN’s own telecasts.

Sounds fair to me. (The Herald is a paid link, but Macero sent me the column. Why in God’s name is The Herald limiting its web content to subscribers?)