Some might not have noticed a very big difference between the two broadcasts except that the 2008 one has more color, flash and movement going on and around the commentators. For me the biggest difference is the quality of the reporting. The 1990 cast spends over seven minutes on one topic and covers multiple facets of it with actual information. Whereas the 2008 cast is only three and half minutes long with the time being discussed by ‘expert’ contributors that supply their own opinions and not really reporting actual facts, all the while distracting the viewer with multiple videos jumping back and forth and a ticker scrolling along the bottom. Bolter and Grusin make an interesting point when they state:
“With reuse comes a necessary redefinition, but there may be no conscious interplay between media. The interplay happens, if at all, only for the reader or viewer who happens to know both versions and can compare them.”
People may notice the changes visually but may not notice the quality of the information has dwindled. The news casts of today have reused the traditional model of an anchor but not the integrity in reporting quality news. I remember watching the news when I was younger and it having a more serious tone and integrity whereas today it seems anyone can be a broadcaster and accuracy is not required. Today when you watch the news the stories are short and barely touch the surface, facts are not checked as rigorously and there is always something else on the screen to grab your attention, to cater to the short attention span of today.
Audra Mann | @WSUVcollegeMom