Too many special effects

Jeff Walker
Published: November 11, 2008

I am not addicted to television news — not the local channels, not the 24-hour cable news outlets and not even the tongue-in-cheek news that blends headlines with witty comments.

So, Jon Stewart does nothing for me; and neither does Katie Couric. (OK, maybe Katie does a little for me.)

So, as someone who is not a big fan of one or another of the network or cable news outlets, it is usually a “big event” that I decide to watch on the television. I believe this Election Day could be considered such an event.

Like all good American males, I grabbed the remote and I surfed around to see how the various networks covered the presidential election night.

Let me start by saying that things have changed a lot.

If you are “of a certain age,” you may remember the David Brinkley or Walter Cronkite days of anchormen reporting the results while sitting at a desk, with a few graphics thrown in.

They would sometimes even take us to different on-the-scene reporters out in the field.

For the most part, the classic election night coverage is there, but, as the old saying goes, something new has been added. Would you believe the news got a George Lucas makeover?

When does it go from being news to “infotainment?”

How about when the producers at CNN decided to have Wolf Blitzer chat with correspondent Jennifer Yellen? Yellen, stationed at Obama’s Chicago camp, brought on-the-scene reporting to a new level of cheesiness, as she appeared to Blitzer as a hologram.

I’m pretty sure Wolf had to bite his tongue more than once while asking Yellen probing questions about why she looked three feet tall and was R2-D2 going to become Secretary of Transportation.

I can’t wait for a holographic John Madden on Sunday Night Football to appear on the 50-yard line or the next installment of “Where in the World is the Hologram of Matt Lauer?” on the Today show.

But, I digress.

Who else, perhaps, went too far with the special effects on election night?

NBC News put Anne Curry in a fancy, ever-shifting virtual environment that popped up statistics and poll results that made it look as if she were going to lose a limb.

Anchorman Brian Williams kept telling the control room to turn off the special effects so the folks at home wouldn’t worry about Curry’s safety.

Brian anchored NBC’s coverage from a traditional news desk, while veteran newsman (and Brian’s predecessor) Tom Brokaw simply sat at the desk and gave his commentary. (Tom might have been heard to say “you try to put me in that green room and I’m taking my marbles to Fox News”.)

I’m pretty sure about this next statement: For many of America’s older citizens, these newscasts were among the most high-tech images they had ever seen.

I am referring to the population who still tunes in Lawrence Welk on PBS, and probably has a blinking VCR attached to their basic cable setup. (In other words, my mom, and many like her.)

My guess is that many of the older, less tech-friendly television watchers were just confused by all the flying graphics and multiple versions of the good, old red and blue map of the United States.

I wasn’t confused.

I was just a little unimpressed by the graphics-heavy, super-animated fluff they added to the election night coverage.

I just don’t think we’ve all gone so special effects happy that we need computer-generated imagery to deliver our news.

If people were watching election night coverage, I’m pretty sure they just wanted the results, and a few visuals help make the outcome more tangible.

Looking into the future, I predict that more whiz-bang technology will be on display.

I just hope by 2012, I won’t need to pick up a pair of Wolf Blitzer News-o-vision goggles to watch the election results.

Jeff Walker is a community columnist who lives in Culpeper. He appears Wednesdays in the Star-Exponent. E-mail