CNN'S Iowa Coverage - May Cause Nausea

CNN's Iowa Caucus coverage was so visually hyper, so jammed with conflicting graphics and people that the only thing missing was a flashing disclaimer that 'sustained viewing may cause discomfort and nausea.' The whole evening looked self-consciously high-tech as if the producers believe that content alone will not sustain viewer interest throughout the night.

The highlight of their ADHD converge was the tilting, gyrating, floating graphic that Anderson Cooper had to handle that actually blocked the first layer of experts on the set. And when that wasn't happening, the second layer of experts was seen over the shoulders of the first panel - sometimes paying attention but always pulling focus from the first panel. Poor Anderson Cooper. He's not having a good week. On New Years Eve, his stolid demeanor paired with put-down comic Kathy Griffiths was excruciatingly uncomfortable to watch. It's as if the show writers were on strike because nobody could do banalities for that long if they had actual writers available.

But back to CNN's Iowa coverage. Wolf Blitzer, the ring-master of this twenty-ring circus, got a nice aerobic work-out as producers had him moving along their always changing multi-screen set. One segment had Soledad O'Brien and Bill Schneider standing awkwardly next to each other, struggling with papers and looking desperately like they wanted a desk between them.

The on-screen graphics looked like image salad, crowded with conflicting and confusing focal points with graphics in the background moving one way while the bottom graphic crawled the other way. While viewers were trying to figure out where to look, all the numbers were in blue letters against a dishwater grey background which violates the first rule of TV graphics - make it pop out. What are these producers thinking? Here's a possible explanation. TV producers assume that mere physical movement creates excitement. The way to attract the much sought-after young, multi-tasking, fickle viewers is to give them as much visual stimulation possible in the belief they wont click away. That's why local TV news reporters like to walk-and-talk for their on-air pieces. That's why movie trailers are an assault of frantic quick-cut scenes.

But is this a correct assumption? Do younger viewers really need all that action to be able to follow a news story or a discussion? Do they really need the endlessly repeated B-Roll because producers think talking-head commentators are boring? Isn't it about hiring compelling talking heads in the first place? TV News programmers often say they're only giving viewers what they want. That's right up to a point. Broadcast news has always been a balance between delivering a service and a product. Life-style news, celebrity news, helpful stories that people want, and the personalities that deliver it all are necessary products that allow news organization to financially survive. But news is also an imperative service. It's about delivering stories that viewers don't even know they want, stories they NEED to know. It's about stories that are often unpleasant but necessary that separates news from being just another advertising platform. One of the mantras of journalists is that news should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. But afflicting the comfortable does not mean visually assaulting viewers who are probably trying to relax, eat and watch news while trying to unwind after a busy day.

Comments

[wm1066]

They showed a pie graph of how the Republican vote went and they had about 20% greyed out without a name next to it and they didn't have Ron Pauls name anywhere on the graph. Putting 2 and 2 together showed they were boycotting Ron Paul, and they hated to even say his name. The Republicans are in turmoil.
Now that was entertainment!

[Maxbyte]

And it probably won't get any better in New Hampshire, even if the writers' strike ends [that seems unlikely].

The various anchors covering Iowa were all going in different directions, no one was in charge, and I would have preferred Cooper or John King in the top spot; Blitzer contributes nothing but confusion and distraction.

Woof is one of the most overrated anchors in the business.

[jeanruss]

it is now the 8th month of ignoring CNN AND their advertisers-I make it a point not to purchase anything from their advertisers as well-the media blackout of Edwards nauseates me and I am responding by not watching and not buying their crap they are trying to sell.

[ranchobob]

100% right on target.
CNN & MSNBC have become so obnoxious, so full of themselves, so monotonous- they are unwatchable.
I will turn on the TV around 8 pm pacific time the night of the primary and see what happened.
Until then, how many different commentators can they drag forth to say the same thing over and over with various blips and flashes darting across the screen like a digital rash?
I don't blame them for having undue influence in the campaign, I blame people for giving or ceding them undue influence.
MSNBC has consostently and not so subtly undermined Senator Clinton for months - especia;;y the overbearing lout Chris Mathews

[parrotslave]

Her name is Kathy Griffin, not Griffiths.

[WIDESTANCE]

blitzer's bloviating blather was, as usual, revolting and meaningless in the extreme - i watched BBC which had far more intelligent and relevant election coverage than anything Big Brother was broadcasting

[keir]

I watched C-Span...I found it very enlightening to see how the Democratic caucus is done.. Obama's speech was electrifying...I heard one person refer to it as Bobby Kennedy like.

keir

[lynchcheney]

There was one moment when Anderson (I think it was him) struggled to complete a phrase and in the distant background Carl Bernstein could be viewed sarcastically chuckling to the guy next to him, as if to mimic Anderson Cooper's tongue-tied sentence. He probably had no idea he was on camera.

[RnR]

Well, Chris Matthews proclamation last night that John Edwards' message (I'm paraphrasing because CM makes me ill) of corporate takeover of our government vs the little guy wasn't anything anyone would listen to is proof positive that some people will do/say absolutely anything for a dollar.

I watched Law and Order :)

[StopCensoringMe]

I actually tuned into :::shudder::: Faux Noose after CNN turned to that paragon of virtue and objective pundit, Mr. Gambling Ethicist Himself, William Bennett, who took the opportunity with the first words out of his mouth to say "Barack Hussein Obama." Un-freakin­g-believab­le. It's true...they really are no better than Faux. We're screwed unless ownership rules are overturned.

[StopCensoringMe]

I actually tuned into :::shudder::: Faux Noose after CNN turned to that paragon of virtue and objective pundit, Mr. Gambling Ethicist Himself, William Bennett, who took the opportunity with the first words out of his mouth to say "Barack Hussein Obama." Un-freakin­g-believab­le. It's true...they really are no better than Faux. We're screwed unless ownership rules are overturned.

[mediamarv]

Visual garbage... spam for the eyes. And I agree, based all on the assumption that viewers will tune out at the first hint of a static image.
Problem lies with insecure, poorly paid and MTV trained young producers. I see no good happening in the near future, tv viewing wise.
Expect more and more commercials inserted into program content this year... the trend starts in sports, espcially during playoffs, so there is plenty of time to notice what I am talking about, and eventually goes into the most serious drama. Fox is the main culprit.. nothing is too sacred to not insert a window promo for an upcoming program. Last nite;s Orange bowl was agreat example of a quick flash of a promo for Jumpers during nearly every replay.
Sad and infuriating at the same time.