Election night coverage was insane. First of all, Fox News was uncomfortably the most entertaining cable station on television (Brit Hume’s sarcastic deadpan humor is amazing).* ABC News, CNN, and even Comedy Central’s Indecision 2008 special sucked. They were simply boring: the anchors spent a lifetime analyzing meaningless exit polls, only to reassure us that the polls mean nothing until they receive more results; they interviewed randomly unknown people with no credentials; and they treated viewers like kindergartners. (“Hey kids, look at this big, big television we got! Let’s draw pictures on the map!”)
Easily the most uncomforting moment of last night’s election coverage occurred on CNN, as Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper interviewed two individuals via a hologram image—yes, just like in Star Wars. I caught the middle of an interview between Cooper (who I used to regard as a classy journalist) and
an Obama supporter, and it initially looked as if he was talking to the Emperor. It creeped me out—we’re now living in a Sci-Fi movie!
According to David Bohrman, CNN Senior Vice President, “Virtual elements in a real set look so much better than a real person in a virtual set.” Why must everything be ‘virtual?’ What’s wrong with reality? Too good for you? ''It's so complicated,” he says. “The
crew is basically shooting someone who isn’t there.” So CGI ruins movies—it’s now ruining cable news channels.
Easily the most uncomforting moment of last night’s election coverage occurred on CNN, as Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper interviewed two individuals via a hologram image—yes, just like in Star Wars. I caught the middle of an interview between Cooper (who I used to regard as a classy journalist) and
an Obama supporter, and it initially looked as if he was talking to the Emperor. It creeped me out—we’re now living in a Sci-Fi movie!According to David Bohrman, CNN Senior Vice President, “Virtual elements in a real set look so much better than a real person in a virtual set.” Why must everything be ‘virtual?’ What’s wrong with reality? Too good for you? ''It's so complicated,” he says. “The
crew is basically shooting someone who isn’t there.” So CGI ruins movies—it’s now ruining cable news channels. The Salt Lake Tribune described the technology as “very complicated.” “CNN will have 44 cameras and 20 computers in each remote location to capture 360-degree imaging data of the person being interviewed. Images are processed and projected by computers and cameras in New York. There will also be plasma TVs in Chicago and Phoenix that will let the people being interviewed see Blitzer and other CNN correspondents. Bohrman says the network can project two different views from each city so Blitzer can appear to be in the studio with two holograms.”
This setup is preposterously more complex than setting up a camera on a tripod and mic’ing the on-air talent, and it didn’t even look good! Blitzer approved this new technology, for he thought it brought a more intimate studio setting to the interview. I’ve always thought that “on-the-scene” interviews/reporting purposefully don't bring a more intimate setting, because they DON’T TAKE PLACE in the studio. As a viewer I want to know what’s happening in those locations—on the scene--with the crowd. Don’t block out the ambient sound or the interviewer’s surroundings! That's the whole point!
There is no need for this kind of technology. It scares me. Next election we’ll no doubt have Terminators as news anchors; in 2016 we’ll have Tom Cruise’s character from Minority Report reveal the results before they actually happen; and in 2020, Election Night will be delivered to your home via HAL (it’ll only be 19 years too late).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deoOTqT-SMI
* They were entertaining until 11 PM anyways--their lack of enthusiasm was soon tragic. At 11 PM, the magic hour, MSNBC rightfully stuck to shots of the passionate crowd at Grant Park—I watched wishing I could’ve made a one-day trip to the windy city.
The night ended well!
