Why can’t CNN uphold journalistic integrity?
CNN’s Election Night coverage attracted 12.3 million viewers. I was one of them. Were you?
Do you remember the dialogue from their New York studio when anchor Wolf Blitzer proclaimed, “You’re a hologram!” to correspondent Jessica Yellin as she magically appeared while poll votes were counted across the country?
“You’re the first one that we’ve beamed into the CNN election center,” said Wolf.
Jessica smiled from a Chicago tent where 35 high-definition cameras tracked her movements from a 360-degree ring around her body and projected a real-time image to New York.
“It’s like I follow the tradition of Princess Leia,” she giggled, referring to the Star Wars nymph.
For a split second, I believed them.
But something seemed off.
Maybe it was the red patch on the studio floor where Jessica “stood” or that Wolf didn’t move when talking to her.
I blasted a Twitter message:
I couldn’t prove she wasn’t a hologram — but I instinctively knew something was amiss.
I felt the same chills later in the CNN broadcast when anchor Anderson Cooper interviewed rapper Will.I.Am, also “beamed” from Chicago.
Both interviews were staged events; and holographic technology was never used.
By means of explanation, Hans Jürgen Kreuzer, a Dalhousie University professor of theoretical physics and self-described hologram expert, spoke to Peter Nowak of Canada’s CBC News, saying CNN’s holograms were actually tomograms.
The CNN anchors were not really speaking to three-dimensional projected images, but rather empty space, Kreuzer said. The images were simply added to what viewers saw on their screens at home, in much the same way computer-generated special effects are added to movies.
Kreuzer said the images were tomograms, which are images that are captured from all sides, reconstructed by computers, then displayed on screen.
Holograms, on the other hand, are projected into space.
Until I read that news story (triggered from a Google Alert), I never heard of tomograms. But now that I understand the difference between holograms and tomograms, I ask CNN (and every other provider of old and new media) to respect journalistic integrity and say things for what they are.
Let me say that again: I respect that more TV viewers probably understand the definition of a ‘hologram’ than a ‘tomogram,’ but journalists must be held to a higher standard, especially when social media threatens the existence of TV, radio, and print.
I consider bloggers a segment of online journalists, held to the same rung as those offline. If I conduct my due diligence to report the facts and attribute my sources, shouldn’t folks like Wolf and Anderson do the same?
Last week, CNN Washington bureau chief David Bohrman (and the mastermind behind this new technology) spoke to Broadcasting & Cable about their Election Night virtual technology and admitted green screens would be used, effectively showing a TV viewer something that wouldn’t exist for the interviewer.
Chris Boutet, reporting for Canada’s National Post, provides a graphical follow-up to Kreuzer and Bohrman with the spin that CNN’s holograms were inaccurately labeled:
It matters not that tomographic technology is not known to the masses as much as holographic technology, but when CNN continues to use the term, “hologram,” in reports two days after the event occurred, I question why.
Jessica Yellin came close to the truth when she described her technological setup in that Chicago tent, which I later learned was co-designed by Norway-based Vizrt and Israeli-based SportVU.
Questions:
How come none of the CNN journalists on Election Night nor in these subsequent reports and videos are attributing the companies who built it?
Why must I read about CNN’s fallacies from the Canadian press?
And why isn’t anyone stepping to the bat, short of the 1600+ online viewers of that CBC News story who dugg it?
Or am I off my rocker insisting holograms be called tomograms?
For the record, I did try getting an answer from CNN. I spoke to editorial manager Phil Taylor in the CNN Atlanta office and spokeswoman Edie Emery of the Washington bureau. Five hours after speaking to and emailing Edie, I haven’t heard back….so far.
Thoughts?
Related posts:
Comments:
Ari Herzog is an online media strategist and Newburyport City Councilor-Elect.
978-558-0008
ConvoTrack
{ 11 comments }
There’s an exchange in an early West Wing episode, along the lines of:
CJ: “during elections…voters are dumb”
Charlie: “No, during elections we treat voters as if they’re dumb.”
(My apologies for the paraphrasing…)
My point is: Agreed. I’m not sure why CNN chose that particular term over the correct one (are they afraid we’re not good with big words??) but the least they can do is acknowledge the gaffe (if that’s what it was)or explain their reasoning.
Good luck on getting any further response.
I think people care more about the election results and the crashing economy than nit-picking details about what I assumed was essentially a 3-D bluescreen. I did not believe Wolf was actually seeing her. But maybe people have seen too many episodes of CSI and Bones and believe a Princss Leia projection is possible. I wrote it off as a gimmick.
Far more impressive to me were the interactive historical maps showing county results. I could quckly see what was happening in Indiana and Virginia based on the red-but-close counties. CNN’s adept use of these graphical aids allowed them to cover thngs more effectively and in more depth than even local news or online. NECN was an old-school borefest in contrast as they waited on the AP to provide raw data and interviewed the local leftover pundits.
ABC had the worst data display. I stopped watching because I couldn’t see the numbers or tell what the totals even were.
I did not watch CNN but followed NBC. They used tomograms for fancy statistic projection around Ann Curry. I never heard the word tomogram but it was fun to watch. They also explained what they were doing by actually showing Ann is a green room. While Dave is right about the events of the evening being the story, it is nice to have something to break up the suspense and tension. For me, it’s similar to putting pictures in blog posts.
Susan/Unique Business Opportunity´s last blog post..Action Relieves Stress When Financial Times are Tough
News media doesn’t have to have integrity. People fall for their reports and keep buying the products, so they don’t care. You want integrity? Stop buying the products of the advertisers, and the advertisers won’t be able to afford the slots. The news media goes belly up. But, alas…people still tune in to TV, so the news will still deceive.
I worked at Florida’s News Channel (FNC) in Tallahassee as a contractor. They converted a theater into their station. There were virtual sets there. They had computer generated sets that didn’t really exist.
To watch their news, you would think there were actual reporters going out and getting news, but that wasn’t the case. It was canned news, and the sets were created digitally. That sat in front of blank screens and fed the audience lies.
Weather is done the same way. They don’t see what you’re seeing. They’re standing in front of a screen, touching and moving their hands over the screen, but there is nothing there.
FNC said they had news 24/7. That, too, was a lie.
The studio was very impressive…that is, that they could pull it off like that and deceive the people….but it was all just a non-existent set of 6 theaters. Each theater was for a different story type.
SharkGirl´s last blog post..Day 33 – Stand Firm
Like I said on my blog post about this, I think these types of features degrade CNN’s news channel reputation. It is because of both the lack of improvement these features have on the news and the distraction this creates for viewers.
News is separate from entertainment. Now that I have learned they lied about the technology, further reduces CNN to CEN in my mind.
Marivic: Hopefully it won’t be me but CNN who will explain their reasoning.
Dave: You bring up New England Cable News. I flipped between CNN and NECN and other stations, too. If their analysis is stemmed from other TV/wire reports, the question begs to be asked if they provide value on a night when I presume more local viewers were watching the national outlets.
Susan: Thanks for the comment! Can you share why you watched NBC and not, say, MSNBC? I presume the latter to have a wider range of resources to tap into for better coverage, no?
SharkGirl: It’s worth mentioning I never wrote CNN lied. I did say the truth was not told, for good or bad. As for TV studios and simulated realities, I know what you mean having seen numerous live broadcasts at Boston’s WHDH over the years.
Tom: Heh. On a side note, if CNN is the Cable News Network, is it not redundant to say “CNN’s news?”
Hi,
I’d have to say that the correct way to describe what they did is augmented reality.
They (or others) have used it before when they (was it CNN?) had a piece of paper with a target on it that then merged a graphic image with the output video stream.
Fairly simple, UWash and the HIT lab in NZ have done quite a bit of research and there are a couple of good libraries that one can use.
I’ve done a bunch of work in the arena, its pretty amazing what you can do.
Tomography is really just the capture and creation of the image, not the representation.
And certainly hologram is wrong since its the stored image and only accessible with a reference beam.
I knew what was going on when I saw it. Now apparently others do also. So maybe this is a good thing. SciFi is never technically correct but it does create ideas.
We do almost understand now how you could “beam me up” and that was only popularized 40 years ago.
thanks,
sds
Great post.
TV news channels have nothing to do with integrity. They are focused on ratings. If the actual news doesnt get them ratings, they go out an “make” the news. They will use any tactics necessary to get your attention. CNN doesnt care if you believe them or not, as long you are watching.
Until yesterday, your article was the only mention I could find of this misrepresentation by CNN. Yesterday I was listening to Harry Shearer on the NPR show Le Show and he did mention it. I kept hoping he would cite you as a source
Kim Woodbridge´s last blog post..(Anti) Social-Lists 11/2/08
I saw the Will.i.am pseudo-”hologram” on election night and saw right thought it. Well, not literally, because if it were a real hologram, I probably could see right through it. But I instantly called it, saying to my boyfriend, whom I was talking to on the phone at the time, “I highly doubt that’s a real hologram, looks to me like a green-screen type of thing.”
I wondered, and still am wondering, the same things you are, Ari. What’s with the gimmick, and do they really think we’re going to fall for it? Why not be up front about what it really is, a tomogram, and educate your viewers what you’re doing, instead of foolishly doubting the intelligence of your viewers and damaging your credibility?
For entertainment purposes, like say, that time when Celine Dion supposedly “sang” on stage with Elvis (sort of the same technology) is one thing, but a news channel? Puh-lease. There’s a reason I flipped the channel to MSNBC.
Comments on this entry are closed.