Tag Archives: #news

Discussion Post 4


When comparing and contrasting the two news broadcasts from 1980 and 2008, it’s easy to tell the major changes the news have made in the past 20-25 years. The most obvious remedy is the “real-time” news feed text that runs along the bottom of the screen; it appears that in this broadcast that the news is all relayed in the feed, while the anchors and analysts all focus on the same story. On the contrary, the abc news report from 1990 seems to cover all these stories orally and is more focused on the anchorman and the story’s video footage than analysts particular views on one subject as in the 2008 cast. Another difference is the false background shown behind the analysts in the 2008 news and multiple windows shown creating a virtual conference room that you don’t see in the other. The fake backgrounds such as the white house are supposed to give the viewer a sense of “immediacy”, which Bolter and Grusin describe as making something digital, “‘natural’ rather than arbitrary”. Bolter and Grusin also have guidelines for the definition of remediation being that it is “repurposing” and the fact that “the ‘content’ of any medium is always another medium”.These broadcasts show displays these in that the news in the first broadcast has changed in medium to a running text feed.


The way news is broadcasted on television has changed a lot since the early 90’s.  The 1990 ABC World news clip had a much more simple and straightforward manner to it, whereas the 2008 broadcast was busy and multifaceted.  On a visual level, the ABC video was toned down with a single view, the news anchor presents himself warmly so as to give the viewer a sense of personal connection.  In the second video, there are several camera views and those speaking are doing so in a way that feels detached.  The television screen is also covered in other information and or news.  The significant increase in activity and information gave me anxiety as it makes you feel like you need to hurry up and grab every bit of information you see.  Also, the dialog is more superficial in context and brief in delivery.


Bolter and Grusin noted “television news programs also show the influence of the graphical user interface when they divide the screen into tow or more frames and place text and numbers over and around the framed video images” (p.189).  I thought the example of what visually holds the viewers interest when looking at modern art was an interesting comparison.  While a work of art is compositionally created with the intent of keeping the eye interested, the news interface has the opposite effect on me.  It is too much information in my opinion and I find myself tuning it out completely.

News and Remediation

When I reviewed the news broadcast 1990 and the news broadcast 2008, I realized there are definitely some noticeable changes. For instant, in the news broadcast 1990, the screen was only for the reporter. After his talk, they could show the view the video or the current event scenes. “Its raw ingredients are images, sound, text, animation and video, which can be brought together in any combination”(Remediation 31). It was pretty straight and solid orientations for the news broadcast 1990; one single thing happened at the time. That way, they combined to become the news broadcast at that time.

In the news broadcast 2008, there could be many reporters at the same screen and they all could talk about one subject. More than that, they could be minimized and moved to the left or right of the screen for showing the related video while the reporters were talking. Besides, the reporter could move anywhere that makes the news more interesting. “These devices, characterized by multiple images, moving images, or sometimes moving observers, seem to have operated under both these logics at the same time, as they incorporated transparent immediacy within hypermediacy”(Remediation 37). The news broadcast 2008 applied these logics very well and efficiently.

“The computer always intervenes and make its presence felt in some way, perhaps because the viewer must click on a button or slide a bar to view a whole picture or perhaps because the digital image appears grainy of with untrue colors. Transparency, however, remains the goal”(Remediation 46). However, the news broadcast 1990 and 2008 still had the same main goal; it was proving and updating accuracy information for the viewers. The technology has changes but the news was remaining the same.



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

blog 4: News and remediation


While reviewing a newscast from 1990 and then a newscast from 2008, there are definitely some changes I noticed in the way the news is presented. For example, in the 1990 newscast, whenever an anchor would talk about a subject, there wouldn’t be any distractions on the screen. All you see is the anchor talking or a video that relates to the subject. In the 2008 news, the anchor is surrounded by scrolling text, channel logos, and bold headlines.

Also, in the 1990 newscast, there is only one person talking a time on a subject. When they would switch over to someone else talking, it was a cut take. In the 2008 newscast, there could be multiple people on one screen talking to each other live. The news anchors would also have dialogue with one another instead of having separate segments. It makes the 1990 newscast seem a lot more scripted and has less improvisation. Also, while there is a video being shown in the 2008 news, a camera shot of an anchor could be played over the top.

Despite the differences in the ways the news is presented, there are many similarities in the format of both newscasts. This supports Bolter and Grusin’s claim that remediation is “the representation of one medium in another” (Remediation 78). The format of the 2008 newscast has many similarities to the 1990 newscast, but has added improvements that become the “new standard” in news casting. There is a more modern feel, but the news hasn’t changed completely.