Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology. Comment policy: say what you want, but back it up with an email address. I don't like anonymous trolls.
...they would have talked through the whole thing and nobody would have ever actually seen it. From Jesse Taylor (italics mine):
CNN's been talking since Obama was officially nominated about how Obama is the first black major-party candidate, yadda yadda yadda.So, the highest ranking African American elected official in the country steps on stage...and CNN cuts away.
Then they come back to cover a seven-minute musical number by Melissa Etheridge replete with shots of teary-eyed delegates.
I don't think it even occurs to them that people would want to watch the convention and not their idiotic bloviating.
These guys suck at their jobs.
Politics
Comments
Commentators don't feel they're earning their pay unless they, you know, commentate.
My own pet bug-bear is for televised sports, where they will insist on cutting to crowd shots rather than staying focused on the action. Frankly I don't care about the freak in row J with the silly hat: show me the damn game!
Posted by: SimonG | August 28, 2008 11:54 AM
It's the new theory of news reporting. The reporters, being the only people on Earth who know everything, must explain to the mortals who watch not only what happened, but, even more important, what it means. The ordinary viewer is not capable of understanding what he just saw, so don't even bother showing it; just explain what it meant. And, if you think I'm joking, I'm not. They actually say this and brag about how they do it.
Posted by: Mark P | August 28, 2008 12:33 PM
I can understand it in radio and print, but with TV it's just a waste of the medium. The most powerful reporting I've seen on TV has concentrated on just showing what's going on at the time. Sure: have a bunch of talking heads analyse it later but that "on-the-spot" feel is what makes TV news different.
Posted by: SimonG | August 28, 2008 12:58 PM
That is what is nice about C-SPAN, very few talking heads. The ones they do have seem to be very conscious of inserting their views into the conversation.
Posted by: ericjuve | August 28, 2008 2:04 PM
When what you're explaining "is happening" is at odds with the reality of what is actually happening (ie., most USA political coverage nowadays) you had better cut away before your viewers get a view of the reality.
Posted by: QrazyQat | August 28, 2008 4:17 PM
Keith Olbermann actually read a few pages from Obama's speech BEFORE the speech was given. When did this become acceptable for the press to do?
Can you imagine Eric Sevareid reading MLK's speech in a drone prior to the actual speech? Horrible.
We retreated to C-SPAN to watch unfiltered coverage.
Posted by: DoryO | August 29, 2008 5:25 PM
Yanno, I'm IN the media (albeit print and electronic, not broadcast) and am utterly embarrassed by their unprofessional election coverage. I swear, the MSNBC guys are going to start throwing punches next just to boost ratings. Because for some reason, they think it's all about them. :)
I recall a discussion a couple of years ago with a prominent journalist from the MSM who was, typically, bemoaning the rise of blogs and their impact on traditional media. He actually said something along the lines of, "But who will be the gatekeepers of information?" I politely pointed out that perhaps we neither wanted, nor needed, our information to be filtered for us. Maybe the demise of critical thinking in this country is at least partly due to the fact that we expect to be spoon-fed everything and told what to think by the "commentators." Especially since those "analysts" come from the very same corrupt administrations and campaign staffs they're supposed to be "reporting" on.
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | August 31, 2008 12:48 PM
As someone who actually used to watch and listen to Eric Sevareid, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, (they brought the space program and the war in Viet Nam right into my parent's living room!) and who has been a news junkie ever since, I am also disappointed in the way that news "reportage" had begun to look a lot like "entertainment."
I readily admit being totally biased because I have always considered most Tee Vee entertainment to be either mind numbing or mindless and therefore have watched but very little. I always have and still do prefer to be informed when watching the tube. News programs, of course, and documentaries; programs about science, history, exploration, that sort of thing. In all, the tube has been a huge font of useful information for me for a long time.
There is no doubt that Tee Vee news has cratered its own credibility. I used to think that the networks realized the need to foster trust in me, the viewer. I trusted Uncle Walt. But these days I wonder. How, exactly, do flashes of leg and cleavage foster credibility and trust? And what is with all the exaggerated head motions? Isn't the English language sufficient?
One is almost tempted to think that glamor is at least as important as objectivity! Oh, but surely not . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 31, 2008 4:29 PM