Too Much Information InfoGraphics - This is getting entirely out of hand. The folks at Pressflex agree. Referring the the day of the attacks: "It wasn't just our technological bandwidth that was overwhelmed. The Niagara Falls of information constantly blasted apart whatever vessels anyone held up to channel it. For news organizations, there was neither the time nor the strength for fancy graphics, editorial debates about explanatory boxes, pullquotes, or special logos. The presentation we got was as close to being 'unmediated' as media can get [...] Nine days after those horrible events, the online media is back "on." Our news is once again finely sliced, polished and wedged into ornate jewel boxes. The news is too often obscured by this craftsmanship."
I'd not choose the word "craftsmanship." I'd say the news has become obscured by heavy handed attempts at graphic branding that generates more clutter and confusion with poorly placed content. Take an anchor. Put him in a little box taking up a quarter of the screen. Make sure to add a tab saying "Live," insulting viewers who realize network anchors are always live. Put another talking head next to them in another box (or, today, an image of mostly green blobby noise from Kabul). Mix at least two network logos in, one large and one small in case they miss the big one. Add a large red white and blue branding graphic, saying something pithy like "America Fights Back," then add an animated waving flag behind it. For good measure, add another animated waving flag graphic underneath text, to make it harder to read. Put the Dow and NASDAQ numbers on the right of the screen. Make sure you throw up "Exclusive" graphics on most every interview or film clip. Then, the piece de resistance, add a scrolling headline banner at the bottom that moves fast enough and has few enough words in each headline to be totally useless at anything other than creating more confusion.
Now, take in this cacophony of sights, text, and sounds, and try and figure out what the hell is going on in the news. I'm beginning to wonder if networks like CNN and Fox are in the business of dispensing news, or creating whiz-bang graphic confusion that only incidentally contains news.
And somebody, please tell Aaron Brown at CNN that he spends more time apologizing for interrupting than he does interrupting. His folksy fuzzy style is terribly ill suited for today's events. Groom him as a replacement for Larry King, get me someone who doesn't talk through his nose, and has a sense of organization and clarity Mr. Brown clearly lacks in this role.
^ posted @ 14:10:06 - 10.08.01
Peanut Gallery: 5 comments
Mel said....
Ouch dude. Of course you're right, but it's interesting to note on the day of and days following the attacks, PBS aired almost identical coverage to the networks, (only without the flags and graphics) yet their numbers barely registered. Granted, PBS isn't the first place viewers turn for news, but it was an available alternative.
I truly did think of you as I was typing this, and wondered what you thought about the presentation of the coverage. I'm certainly no expert, I'm just reacting as a viewer. But I'm surpised there haven't been complaints from epileptics, as surely some of it must be seizure inducing. When you throw in a scrolling stock ticker, it gives a whole new meaning to the phrase Fog of War.
Well, I'm no fan of visual clutter, but I've made my share of tickers and IODs (information on demand) banners, usually with my hand held to the fire. It's considered an unfortunate fact of tv news that viewers prefer visual clutter. In tests after tests, they perceive more as better. Because tv is a passive medium, this is just one way the web has changed it for the worse. In recent years, there has been a misguided attempt to try and make television seem "active". And if you the viewer should choose to differ, good luck. None of the major news outlets make it easy to complain. I had to resort to snail mail for my most recent Headline News tirade. Finally, part of what we're seeing now is a unseemly push for viewership. Ratings have been so low, for so long that this most recent surge has both the adrenaline and the pixels flowing in newsrooms everywhere. I'm hoping both will soon settle. If not, implementing metadata should eventually help clear out some of the crap.
I agree with you on all points Melanie (except I don't know how to implement metadata ... I must have skipped class that day). It's typical that when some "new thing" comes along (the web), the "old thing" (TV) tries to imitate it, rather than emphasize its differentiation and strengths. But it was most refreshing last night to turn on ABC news, and there was a man at a desk, with one discrete logo in the bottom right corner.
I was spellbound.
Given the studies you mention, I guess I'm abnormal. What a surprise.
And I know what you mena about trying to complain to sites about their "behavior." They clearly don't want to hear it, as difficult as they make it. My most recent complaint? Go the the AJC Sports page, look at the main navigation, and see if you can tell there's a pro football team in town. We've got Ga, Ga. Tech, the Braves, and High schools. But no Falcons. Look down the right nav column; they even list the Hawks and Thrashers ... no Falcons.
Good heavens you're right, there isn't a dirty bird in sight. And about the metadata, I've been meaning to blog about it. I'm no expert, but I have sat through several interesting seminars lately. Now, if I can only find those notes.
Too Much 