TV is actually what we see

It was very difficult for me to arrive at a decision when trying to decide whether the perspective or Neil Postman or Carmine Paglia was closer to reality. I love to read and watch television so my allegiances over what is better at shaping reality could go either way and I would feel fine about it. However, I think I am going to give a slight edge to the majority in my mind that is pointing towards TV. Its a close race, more Bush/Kerry than Obama/McCain. I think that seeing actual reality on television take place barely edges out reading about a reality in a book and then having to decipher it for yourself.

I thought Paglia used many great analogies to describe how scanning through television channels is actually a representation of the way we go through life. She says that the way a quarterback quickly analyzes a defense at the line of scrimmage is comparable to how a TV viewer is quickly scanning images while surfing through the channels. This type of quick thinking takes places many times throughout a day. It can be evident when quickly looking through all the clothes in a closet to find something to wear, to quickly glancing left and right when trying to merge on a highway.

Paglia also brings up an excellent point in explaining how changes in a person's presence can be realized on television in such a way that is hard to convey with literature. She cites a great example from the Presidential campaign in 1988. Paglia writes that George H.W. Bush had a dynamic machismo about him after naming Dan Quayle his Vice-President that he never had serving under Ronald Reagan. Paglia says:
"He was this totally new person, a man no one had seen before. It was then I knew he was going to be president. I called people up and told them, but no one believed me. If you didn't know how to read TV or weren't watching, you missed it completely."

Literature requires an interpretation and analysis of the reality being presented to the reader. One can imagine the situation being described , but they can never truly see what actually happened during an event. There is always room for misinterpretation and its difficult to convey the atmosphere that an event takes place in. With television the viewer actually sees reality as its happening. There is no room for misunderstanding because what is taking place is being witnessed as its happening. The television viewer gets access to complete un-doctored reality as it is taking place.

One of Neil Postman's complaints about television is that news coverage of tragedies causes an unnatural emotional response due to the rapid switching from reports about the tragedy to humorous commercials and then back again. Paglia counters by saying:
"By moving from disaster to commercial TV creates the effect of Greek tragedy: emotion, then detachment; contemplation of loss, then philosophical perspective. At the end of Hamlet, there are four corpses strewn all over the stage."
She is saying that just because TV will jump around from one thing to the next, it does not take away from the final loss in a tragedy. It is similar to how in real life no person is focused on any one issue for twenty four hours a day. There will always be a distraction that takes attention away from an issue at hand.

It was close, but I just think the actuality of television wins out in the end and does a better job of capturing the essence of reality in a moment better than literature. The more we talk about the emergence of television in class, I can't help but think of U2's Achtung Baby and the Zoo TV tour that came with it. The explosion of television and images was the main theme of the album. Maybe everything you know is wrong.

NBC wins battle of hologram brinksmanship

Watching last night's election coverage was like an old episode of the A-Team. It was fast paced, exciting, and from the very beginning you knew who was going to win. Despite the best efforts of Brian Williams, Brit Hume and the rest of the anchors shepherding last night's broadcasts to delay the inevitable, the writing was on the wall for John McCain by 9PM when Pennsylvania fell to Barack Obama. By that point Jack Nicklaus, John Elway, and the 2004 Red Sox couldn't conjure up enough magic to make a comeback from such a large deficit. McCain put up a valiant effort but just could not overcome one of the most poisonous political climates for Republicans in the past fifty years. However, McCain's campaign was not perfect and for the last month and a half time has had a "Just happy to make it this far" vibe to it. McCain's campaign shortcomings aside, the night belonged to Barack Obama. I personally did not vote for him, but I believe that if he brings to the Presidency the results oriented, pragmatic atmosphere that he brought to the campaign, he will have a very successful Presidency. I believe he will create a cabinet and team of advisers who are the most capable in their fields, instead of party loyalists receiving a thank you gift. It is an exciting time for America, and the President-elect deserves our full support.

I thought last night's election coverage had its highs and lows. The majority of the coverage I watched was on NBC the network, not MSNBC its cable partner. I found Brian Williams to be a very engaging anchor who kept the mood jovial and positive. He had Tom Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell at his side for most of the night. Brokaw and Mitchell are two of the best of their craft on television. I was constantly informed and educated by their analysis. They were able to rise above partisanship and bring the best information possible to their viewers. NBC did a great job of letting the viewer soak up the atmosphere of the occasion.

The worst thing about last night's coverage was the contest between all of the stations to have the most over the top interactive hologram graphs, charts, and maps. CNN and NBC had full sized hologram rooms that looked like something from Star Trek the Next Generation. Poor Chuck Todd and John King seemed totally lost in the shuffle in the clouds of graphics flying over their heads that they had marginal control over. I understand that the networks are trying to be as futuristic as possible in their presentations, but sometimes the best ways of conveying information are also the simplest. I guarantee you that twenty years from now, people will remember the late great Tim Russert's whiteboard from 2000 with "Florida, Florida, Florida" written on it more than the Anne Curryitron 9000 from last night. The other minor glitch from last night was the uncanny ability of all 47 stations covering the election to go to commercial at the exact same time. I understand that the stations all schedule their commercials at similar times to discourage flipping around to keep the ratings consistent, but it can really be a pain in the neck for the viewer. Those two things aside, I found my experience to be a good one for the vast majority of last night's coverage.

Well, we all survived the two year campaign journey that began way back at the end of 2006. It will be strange going back to a news-cycle that just focuses on governing the country. I'm going to miss it all. From certifiably crazy candidates like Mike Gravel to the First Dude. From John Edwards' Two Americas to Joe the Plumber. From the Maverick to Nader. From Mitt Romney's great hair to the first African American to the highest office in the land, It has been a fun ride.

But don't worry. It will all start up again in 2010 when Governors Palin, Jindal, Romney and many more Republican hopefuls start crisscrossing the country from Iowa county fairs to coffee shops in New Hampshire, making their first baby steps in the primary. It will all be back soon.