One of you has emailed to say CNN’s hologram was the best feature ever to be used on TV election coverage. Well, fans of the BBC’s swing-o-meter may care to disagree, but it was brilliant and, by the look of this clip, CNN’s Anderson Cooper couldn’t quite believe what he was doing. Plans are already afoot to get you all appearing ‘via hologram’ on WHYS’ next TV outing. Or do you prefer your TV news without these kind of tricks?
06
Nov
08
RSS feed
“Plans are already afoot to get you all appearing ‘via hologram’ on WHYS’ next TV outing. Or do you prefer your TV news without these kind of tricks?”
Why not, dress up the news room for special occasions? You are competing for ratings after all. I loved the hologram from CNN, sorry BBC, but us “young folks” like technology. Could you beam me in please? I need a vacation after this election.
I don’t mind the tricks, I mind the silly conversations and banter between news casters (in the US): “What did you do this weekend? Oh, I went skying and fell. Didn’t Britney Spears stay there last year?” Who [--] cares, am I watching a soap opera for the news?! This is why I stop watching any news with multiple host.
It’s a gimmick and, in my opinion, it actually detracts from the content. For that matter let the poor presenters sit behind a desk instead of pacing around self concsiously–in real life, how often do we have a half-hour discussion standing up?
Oh, and the ex-TV engineer in me is pretty sure he knows how the CNN trickery worked…and it’s not actually a hologram.
Agree Bob–gimmicks and fancy tricks are lovely, but can’t make up for poor presentation or generate that all-important factor: trust. After the 2000 election debacle, all the networks—including almighty CNN—still have a deficit of trust on this end.
BBC World was a bit staid at times, but the work to make the election relevant to a worldwide audience and cover it responsibly was more appreciated on this end than CNN’s “hologram.”
Oh yeh the hologram was awesome. Watched the elections on CNN from the Netherlands. When they introduced the hologram I thought wow, the american way. Beep me up Scotty
. Loved the tv touch screens as well. All the info looked very clear and the tricks pinned me down to watch CNN instead of the BBC.
I agree with Jessica, “Why not, dress up the news room …” News can be boring as some news items can be. If I look at the newsflash in the Netherlands then its not really worth to watch it. Grey mass and lots of bla bla.
Ofcourse News can be sad, fun and interesting but the way how to bring it makes the difference.
God what an annoyance… I turned off CNN when they wouldn’t stop the holograms.
What good is reporting if you can’t see whats going on around the reporter who is live? A stupid, stupid gimick.
Technology can fail at times, as it did at least once with CNN’s new technology when talking about the Senate races. Not worth the embarrassment, I’d think, and it certainly doesn’t add anything to the news itself.
I did see that spiffy trick on CNN. I thought it was awesome but things like that take away from the purpose of the program-to provide news.
We couldn’t stand the hologram and had to switch off CNN. Too gimmicky for my taste. As someone with a journalism degree, part of the excitement of doing a live spot was never knowing who might be behind you and what they might be doing.
Wasn’t change appropriate seeing the election of Obama was all about change?
Still, if nothing else, CNNs experiment with holograms demonstrates how little we relish change.
Now I wonder… was this chance for change’s sake, or is it necessary evolutionary change?
I would have expected the holograms from Faux News or MSNBC or something, but CNN….I suppose I shouldn’t have held them in such high regard.
*sigh*
My bad.
I don’t mind “change,” really—but the primary job of the news network is to deliver the news. Perhaps the “litmus test,” if you will, should be: is this “spiffy” new trick enhancing and enriching our ability to communicate the news and issues to our audience, or is this simply fancy for fancy’s sake? The buzz seems to be the latter; clever, yes, but also distracting. CNN is a news broadcaster, not an A&E Popular Science program.
Ha ha.. I stand by my liking of hologram. It’s is a gimmick trick, but it fit the occasion. It was around the clock coverage of the SAME news item. It would not have worked if it was only a 30 minute news show. Remember, technology has made it possible to blog, skype, etc live. Was it really that far off when we would take it to the next level and hologram people on the news?
I couldn’t hear Anderson Cooper or any of the commentators since it screens were muted, it might have been annoying if I had heard the content. I was watching/glancing over for the number updates.
I’m a tad old fashioned. I still like the grainy live feeds of remote locations.
As for the holograms…I didn’t pay attention to them.
Hi WHYSers!
Well, let me say, again, in the Jamaican pop lingua – ‘di hologram sell off!!!!!’ (The hologram was absolutely awesome!!!!). I loved every minute of it!!!! It added such drama to the news! In fac, one of my colleagues here at work, who is not into news generally, told me yesterday that she was heading home to watch the news on CNN! This morning she chided me for not listening to any local news because I was so hooked on Obama on CNN!
So, BBC, you are next!!!! The hologram was mad cool (is that what the Americans are saying these days?). Well, even if it isn’t, ‘di hologram sell off!!!!!’ Trust me!!!!
@ Julie P,
I am all for being ‘old fashioned’, however, only to the extent that the integrity of the news product, itself, is not compromised! As in, with all of the flash, hype and drama, we are still told the news in all its accuracy and precision! Outside of that, I am good to go with all the creative visuals and related paraphrenalia! It was da bomb! Mad cool! LOL!
(I am told by a friend from India that, I don’t sound ‘Jamaican’ (enough?) – whatever that means! LOL! So, I trying. Bear with me! LOL!).
By all means push the technology-envelope! It will probably be the only way humans ever “beam-down” anywhere. It sure sounds better than dis-assembling a person’s DNA(like they do on Star Trek) and then re-assembling it! Especially if Windows has anything to do with the latter!
hey to all of you “nay-sayers”. i am an old man and LOVED the hologram. heck finally the world has caught up to 1960′s star trek. i just loved that translucent flickering blue around the bodies……
All joking aside, I thought the hologram added a special element of drama and ‘immediacy’ to the mounmental events of Tuesday night. It really was awesome! And, I am all for holograms on WHYS!
While, I am at it, let me just add the opportunity to speak to people across a global divide presented via this medium is truly appeciated and just goes to testify to the ways in which the concept of the printing press has been completely revolutionised in the modern world of news now! Great work, everybody!
Regardless of whether you liked them – understand THEY WERE NOT ACTUAL HOLOGRAMS.
If they were, there would have been a 3-D image in the studio that Anderson Cooper and the CNN crew could see… they couldn’t, only TV viewers could see them.
More details here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081106.wgthologram1106/BNStory/Technology/home
Clever: yes
Impressive: yes
Holograms: no
@ Steve in Canada,
Thanks for the clarification, such as it is. However, they were still pretty awesome. I especially liked the holographic representation of the Congress/ Senate (?), with the numbers of available seats for the various parties. Pretty impressive stuff! From what I can tell, the news can rival Hollywood any day in this regard…well, almost…ish! But, the point is, it does do something for the viewing audience at the level at which they consume information. So, I am agreed! Clever and Impressive? Aye!
@ Smackie & Jens,
It was cool to see the translucent flickering blue around the bodies. Besides, the “old” style of news is here to say, it was a fun hologram for a night of never ending news coverage of the same topic– I mean how many ways can you say “battle ground states” and “270″. Beam me up too. LOL
—
@ Bob
What’s wrong with trying something new? I don’t mind the sitting down the whole time, like in Meet the Press. However, the moving around sometimes helps convey a different message.
—
@ Steve in Canada– Sorry, you have to give me another word if you want me to stop calling it a hologram. It “thingy” was clever and fun!
—
@ Selena
Ha ha, I’d vote for that “change”, too.
oh no, are we all just kids impressed by a new toy?
news is news and this distinctly “american” flashiness didn’t add anything to the day…
in fact it was a bit embarassing and judging by the looks on the guys faces it was for them too.
please beeb, not for us…!
peace and love
@ Jess
What’s wrong with trying something new?
Well, to do that effect, the remote reporters would be removed from the story and standing in a special blue (or green) screen studio.
If they get to the stage of being able to do a quasi-3D image actually from someplace relevant to the story, then it could be interesting but I’m afraid this boring old git thinks the technology actually got in the way of effective reporting and was a gimmick for the gimmick’s sake alone.
I’m all for any technology that helps the media to cover and deliver the story better (I’m old enough to have gone through the change from film to video and the growth of portable satellite dishes) but this isn’t in that league. It was a flash special effect that actually required the reporters to divorce themselves from the actual events of the night.
A hologram that isn’t a hologram? In other words, a fake of a fake? Actually, it’s an appropriate symbol for the MSM.
I guess it will serve to distract viewers from the abysmal quality of the ‘news’ that comes tumbling off the conveyor belts of CNN’s propaganda factory.
steve,
so what it’s not a “real’ hologram. who cares, it was fun on a great night.
@ Jens
It wasn’t “fun”. I mean, come on, how much did that cost to do that little trick! It could have maybe paid for something useful instead! Like paying huge amounts of money for commercial spots so people will see all these grand commercials. Money that could have been better used elsewhere! But whatever, in the name of the fun new change ™!
jennifer,
you are a truely sore loser. funny how you republicans become all social advocates in defeat. suddently the spending of obama could have been used for better purposes, bla bla bla. all i need to say is 150,000 dollars to put lipstick on to a moose……
@ Jens November 7, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“funny how you republicans become all social advocates in defeat. suddently the spending of obama could have been used for better purposes, bla bla bla.”
Brilliant, I could not have said it better. Brovo!
“all i need to say is 150,000 dollars to put lipstick on to a moose…
ROTFLMHO twice!
@ jess,
sad but true.
@ Jens
Again, I’ll say that I haven’t lost anything! Are you expecting Obama to win me over? If so, you don’t know me very well!
I am hard to win over!
I enjoy discussing Obama and all of the hype surrounding him. It’s fun!
I find it odd that with our economy we are spending so much $$$ on frills when that money would have been much better spent on something useful. At least Sarah Palin’s clothes were tangible goods! haha And, yeah, she looked great! 
Some people have no regard for the cost of anything; especially when things are simply gave to them so the hologram was nifty and a nice trick! Maybe CNN can make it a permanent fixture on their news show; it’d keep the kids entertained.