I watched CNN’s election coverage for many hours last night. I was lured in by their superior use of technology, but after a while I just couldn’t take any more. The commentary jumped around a great deal and there were too many visuals and inputs for me to keep track of. The manic bursts of opinion from experts, the graphics and analysis, the jumpy poor quality video feeds from around the world, and the big map were just too much after a while.
Why did they need two full panels of experts? The commentary from the panels seated each in front of the other made it feel very competitive, and everyone was speaking so quickly and forcefully to get their points across. There were times when you couldn’t understand a word because they were speaking over one another.
And how many touch screens are needed? There was one with poll data, the master electoral map display, and the map analysis board. Each facilitated discussions to some degree, but they could have consolidated some of this information.The electoral map and commentary by Wolf Blitzer was very repetitive, and a loud buzzer kept sounding over his voice with a hard to discern difference on the map. Often times the noise was completely ignored without any commentary. I began to think that the buzzer was there just to stop me from jumping channels. It was as if the whole thing was a sporting event, with frantic personalities striving to get the most attention.
I retreated to NBC’s coverage late in the evening, and the calm voice and demeanor of Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw pulled me back from CNN’s overly caffeinated coverage. Their calm thoughtful words of commentary delved far deeper into the public’s perceptions of the political race.
This was a case where quality trumped quantity. And the amount of technology toys doesn’t always equate to better coverage.
