DTC 101 – Spring 2013

@JacobCWalton
How news is presented may at first appear to be the same as it always is. A person appears on your television screen and tells you about things that are happening. However, there is a clear set of differences between how this was done in 1990 and in 2008. In the former time, when an anchor was talking, it was just them talking. In comparison, in 2008, the screen is cluttered up with video, bulletins, and occasionally shortened versions of what the anchor just said in text form. A lot of media is used in a small space to convey the same piece of information. In 1990, there was one person on screen at a time, but in 2008, there can be as many as four. If the discussion is political, there will often be representatives of the parties, who will shout at each other from their boxes.
However, it’s still the news. The representation of one medium in another (Remediation 78) is clear, the old news peeking out from the new.

As I was watching the first you tube video clip of ABC world news I found it very boring, but yet straight to the point and being straight to the point can be good. Though while I was watching The Obama and Oprah you tube video clip I found it to be interesting, it had more things going on, like more sounds, a scrolling text box and more graphics happening. This made the topic more intense and made the consumer more into the story. Even though the graphics, and sounds can make the story seem to take longer to get out on the screen it intensifies what is happening, so more complex news stories keeps the mind going, and thinking…makes the story better than the ABC world news. It’s amazing how in just eighteen years technology can make watching TV a hundred times better. Both Bolter and Grusin say that “Immediacy is supposed to make this computer interface “natural” rather than arbitrary.” (67)I fully agree with this because in the two thousand and eight you tube video clip of Obama and Oprah the picture seemed more natural rather than the nineteen ninety video clip of ABC news. ABC’s news was fuzzier and scratchy; you could also see more interaction of what was happening. Also on page 67 Its has been under line “experience of being a virtual world or remote location, the more technology in the 2008 video clip allows us to see more, interaction of locations we may not even think about, with those extra sounds and graphics are minds and bodies are more into what is really happening.

@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.

@chrisdtc101

After watching both video clips and noticing the differences in how news presentation changed between those 18 years, the biggest change I see is that the 2008 Oprah clip is far more complex than the 1990 ABC clip. The Oprah clip features more color, better sound, and scrolling text on the bottom of the screen that relays breaking news stories as the reporters talk. In Richard Grusin and Jay Bolter’s article “Immediacy, hypermediacy, and remediation”, they define remediation as “The representation of one medium in another” (45). In the same article, immediacy is defined as “The automatic or deferred quality of computer programming promotes in the viewer a sense of immediate contact with the image” (28). I certainly think that the 2008 clip displays immediacy better than the 1990 clip due to better video and audio quality, more color, more on screen text, and overall better technology. Grusin and Bolter also describe remediation as “a defining characteristic of the new digital media age” (45).

The 2008 clip summarized much of what we look for from technology today. Good quality, flashy colors, short bits of information from both people and text, attention-grabbing pieces of news, and complex high-tech visuals. The 1990 clip simply gave us the news. The anchor simply read the news off a script for people to hear and that was it. No need to bring in callers and there was no video chatting with people who were experts on whatever topic was being discussed. People were left to form their own opinions on the news, as the news delivered simply the facts rather than the opinions of other celebrities as they often do today.

There is certainly a difference between the two clips, and the 2008 one shows far more interactions between people on the camera as well as between the news program and the viewer. Remediation and immediacy are very relevant when it comes to how technology such as this has changed over the years.

@KatieGullans

In the 1990 ABC World News video clip, it seemed more planned out and the screen was more simple by not having text and information running across it. They have a lot of good information about events, show scenes of what is happening, and tell interesting important news stories. It doesn’t give out information as quickly and everything in orderly.

In the 2008  Oprah Winfrey news clip, there was a lot text flowing across the screen below that talks about other news. That is probably helpful for the viewer in telling what else is happening and if they want to stick around to watch that. It’s kind of like getting quick information from scanning a page of text so one can get the main idea. There is also text above that, telling the title of what they are talking about currently. If someone just turned on the news, they would know what was being talked about by just looking at the title. Another difference is that it is more interactive with the people talking to each other. The people also seem more natural having conversations.

It relates to the remediation text in that he was talking about making technology more natural. “Immediacy is supposed to make this computer interface “natural” rather than arbitrary.” They wanted to make virtual reality seem more real and have the view forget they are wearing a headpiece. With people talking more “naturally” like you would see between people having a conversation in real life, it seems more real. But if it is planned out, it could seem more like a presentation where someone is reading the exact words they wrote in an uncomfortable manner.