For this blog I chose to compare the election results by watching the election results presented on CNN and NBC. Although both television stations were presenting the same information, each presented the information differently.
In my opinion, CNN did a better job of presenting the 2008 election results because the results were easily found on TV graphics at any time and above these graphics, CNN kept switching between reporters and live footage of people’s reactions around the country. The positioning of the graphics on CNN made finding the graphics easy and the way they were made has made it easy for the CNN audience to understand what information the graphics were conveying: the senate’s choice, the number of votes for both the Democratic and Republican candidates and the states that needed to still get their votes counted. Above the graphics is a split screen between various CNN reporters and live footage of the presidential race. I prefer the actual content that the CNN reporters are covering rather than the reporters of NBC because the CNN reporters are reporting the election results but are also talking about American history while waiting for new results.
NBC took a more graphical approach to presenting the election results information. Rather than show live footage and graphics on the same screen, NBC chose to have a full graphic screen of information or a full live footage screen. Hearing the reporters talk when there was only a graphic screen made it hard to understand both the information the reporters were reporting and the information on the graphics. I also think the graphics on NBC, when NBC does use a split screen of live footage and graphics, the graphics take away from the footage because they are too flashy and hard to read and they are spaced weirdly. I prefer the content of the CNN reporters over NBC because NBC is using local reporters and CNN is using national; the local reporters are talking about topics that would more likely affect the local county rather than the country.
Overall, I think CNN did a much better job of presenting the information to the public. I think their graphics were more easily read and positioned better. I also think that the live footage was more national rather than local. The actual content that the CNN reporters reported was also more appealing to me because it was on a national level rather than local.
3 comments:
I understand that CNN made extensive use of graphics in order to make the election returns look interesting, and to make them more comprehensible. Overall their graphics were very effective, although they went a little too far with the “holograms.” Graphical aids should not draw more attention to themselves than to the information they are supposed to convey, and the holograms definitely crossed that line. Aside from that, their presentations were of high quality- which is to be expected.
I would like to speak to the matter of local coverage versus national coverage, however. While this year there was definitely One Big Thing that everyone was dying to know about, it’s important to remember that a lot of other issues get decided on Election Day. The local issues have just as much or even greater impact on daily life. Earlier in the evening I was watching NBC (Channel 4 out of Columbus) to see if the bond levies for Ohio school districts that my family members work for, or attend school at, had passed. I appreciated CNN’s orientation toward the “historic national moment” later on in the evening, however.
I am not sure about the reason for NBC switching between full-screen graphics or full-screen live action. However, my parents have a television screen that is just over a foot wide; it’s probably a concession to people with older or more modest television sets.
I had to watch the election coverage pretty early Tuesday night, so I was not able to see CNN or NBC when you were blogging about them. Judging by your responses of both stations, I would have to agree with you that CNN did a better job covering the election through the graphics and through switching between reporters and live footage of the public’s reactions. When I was watching early in the night, I watched MSNBC where I found that the positioning of the graphics was way too busy and crammed together that it made it very hard to figure out what they were explaining. I would have loved that CNN did the split screen of reporters and of live footage of the presidential race. CBS, when I watched it, did not just focus on covering the election but also American history, such as past presidents and past elections—just like you said CNN did. I really enjoyed that as well! I feel like MSNBC and NBC (judging from your reaction to watching) were the same because like I mentioned before, MSNBC was so cluttered with information and did a bad job at presenting the information. It not only made it very difficult to understand, but it also made it very frustrating to watch and try to understand.
I like what you said about how you liked CNN's coverage better, due in part to their graphics with the touch screen. Someone else wrote about how NPR was using interviews as their filler between state results. It made me think that CNN used its graphics as a filler. Since all stations were presenting the same facts, what it came down to was who had the best commentary/filler. I think that CNN had the upperhand here, and based on the number of people in class who watched CNN, it may have worked. Having the split screen was also an advantage, since everything you needed was on the screen at once and you didn't have to switch around to find something.
If I could change something about NBC's coverage (I watched MSNBC which I'm guessing had a lot of the same stuff), I would say that their live camera shots had room for improvement. They were not visually pleasing, and often had bad timing. I agree that it hurt their watchability/readability.
Post a Comment