@alweyman
The differences between the 1990s news and today’s news are more surprising then I had originally thought. The 90s news is very “dumbed down,” meaning that there are minimal things happening on the screen. When the lead anchor is reporting, all attention is on him. There are minor subtitles now and again but mainly its faces. It’s also very evident that the people were reading off of teleprompters because their eyes were not always on the main part of the screen. It may have been the quality of video, but the sound was not very good, because it sounded grainy and didn’t match the mouth motions very well. Everything opposite of this is what can be found in today’s news. There are a lot of other distractions on screen, such as the rolling news tab, stocks in the corners, etc. Also the background is a lot more high tech compared to the simplicity of the older news.
Remediation is the key for the change in news styles. As is said in the article: “ the practices of contemporary media constitute a lens through which we can view the history of remediation.” (pg 66). We can see the changes that have come since the 1990 newscast. In fact, the hypermediacy seems to have contributed a big part, because in the 1990 news cast, I thought it was quite obvious that we were looking through a medium (which may have not been the goal.) Todays news are so fluid and clear that it gives you a sense that they are talking directly to the viewer and almost completely eliminates the medium.