the science of pope funeral coverage
Last night I was unable to sleep. I shuffled into the living room and flipped on the tv to discover but one program worth viewing: the pope's funeral. I recognized the entrance to St. Peter's basilica from my trip to Europe years ago, and it took me back to when I first encountered that ornate church.
Michelangelo's architecture is stunning. The circular square seems to embrace and invite you inside. Once within you notice the ceiling sparkling with gold gilding. From a distance, you spy the images on the walls, each easily larger than fifteen feet square, that appear to be Raphaelite murals. You walk towards them only to drop your jaw in amazement when, from about fifteen feet away, you realize they are giant mosaics composed of tiny uniform tiles. And yet, they cannot hold your attention. You're drawn to the center - to the massive dome pierced by rays of sunlight. Vertigo overtakes you as you look skywards. But the focal point of Saint Peter's, its greatest artistic and religious gesture, is staring right there with you, directly beneath Michelangelo's dome - Bernini's altar. Sinister and wicked, it engulfs you in sin, a celebration of carnal pleasure that secretly usurps the holiness and pristine religiosity of the church that houses it. The crooked black pillars wind their way upwards like serpents slithering to swallow the light of the dome. You slither with them.
So I was sitting on the couch. Rome was overcast and windy, cardinals' robes and flags fluttered in the wind. Millions came to bury the pope. At first I watched out of curiosity, but my curiosity soon overtook the event and I became interested in the way it was being presented. I was really getting into the choral arrangement (it was the entrance canto or something) when some dumbass commentator on CNN started talking to explain some shit over the music. It pissed me off, so I changed to FoxNews and saw they were using the same live footage. Curious, I checked all the channels to see who was airing the broadcast. There were 7 channels: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FoxNews, Fox, and MSNBC. Headline News and CNBC stuck with their regular programming. PBS, it seems, doesn't ever air fresh footage in the middle of the night. So here are the interesting facts:
Everyone was airing the same footage - the same shots, the same cuts. This means only one video-mixing crew with its own cameras had access to the event. I never found out who this was, but since every news channel aired the footage, I imagine the vatican hired some independent film-maker and then sold broadcast rights to the various news entities. However, I overstated things when I said the footage was identical. This was true for the vast majority of the ceremony, but there was some variation during the less formal moments. During Cardinal Ratzinger's homily, towards the end of mass and during communion, the news organizations were clearly given optional camera shots from which to choose. What a logistical nightmare! How on earth did the video crew organize this feed that clearly stipulated degrees of freedom? If anyone can fill me in with technical details, let me know. I'm only incredulous because I don't know a thing about the process.
Scanning the channels, I discovered that different stations were employing different delays for this "live" event. FoxNews was airing the footage almost a whole second ahead of everyone else. CBS, NBC, and ABC were second, followed closely by CNN and Fox. MSNBC, for some reason, lagged slightly behind. Maybe Foxnews claims some sort of superiority by getting its footage out there so quickly. Maybe its screeners and editors are simply more efficient. Whatever it was, it made me wonder if all "live" programming is delayed and for how long. I realize that it takes some time for the signal to travel from earth to satellite and back to earth, but this delay should be uniform for all stations, as all communications satellites are in stationary orbit at the same altitude. The disparity must come from somewhere else. How live is "live?"
The growing prominence of station logos embedded in broadcasts offends me. Naturally, I examined the various logos as I surfed. The networks ABC, NBC, and CBS were the least offensive with small relief logos in the bottom right corner that blended in with the background. On the other hand, CNN and MSNBC were pretty annoying. Both stated the obvious - "funeral of Pope John Paul II" or something like that - in the bottom left corner, while obtrusive station logos occupied the bottom right. CNN even displayed "live" in the upper left corner. Fox and Foxnews were no better. Though they only used one corner, the bottom left, for their large station icons, they frequently displayed large banners across the bottom of the screen, giving a name to whatever ceremony was in progress. This brings me to another interesting observation. After some time, I realized that Fox and Foxnews were displaying the same banners at the same time. How closely affiliated are Fox and Foxnews, or NBC and MSNBC for that matter? Not that closely, it would seem. NBC and MSNBC were as dissimilar as any two stations on the list. The identical programming on Fox and Foxnews began and ended with the banners, and editorial differences appeared to be the norm, not the exception. They employed different translators, cut to different shots when given the freedom to, and felt the urge to interject bland comments at different times. Even their logos, both of which said "Fox News", were different. So why on Earth, amidst all this separate editorial control, did they need one guy in common, one guy to fill the most important position, one guy to synchronize their banners? It is most likely that he represented some attempt at efficiency, but banner uniformity is a ridiculous goal. Fox could have increased efficiency far more efficiently. Maybe I'm over-analyzing. Maybe one of the banner guys was sick.
However, screen appearance was only one facet of the funeral presentation. Some of the more substantive coverage choices certainly made me sick. The commentators for NBC, ABC, and CBS talked quite a bit more than their cable counterparts. They were far more likely to interject comments over ceremonial choral music or Latin readings, parts of the funeral that I think should have been uninterrupted to preserve the solemnity of the occasion and the effect of the experience. CBS's Harry Smith (I think that's his name) was the most egregious offender in this regard, but everybody did it to some extent. At one point, someone at Foxnews started translating a Latin reading only to stop abruptly once he realized it was being sung. At least someone realized his mistake. Didn't anyone stop to ask first: what is the nature of this ceremony? If they did, I think they would have concluded that the funeral was primarily designed to convey aesthetics rather than content, and, as such, any commentary was not only unnecessary but harmful to its conveyance.
The funeral dragged on, and the video liberties increased, and the networks attempted different things to make the broadcast interesting. NBC started jumping around the world to live shots of crowds watching the funeral on big screens. ABC interspersed their broadcast with photos of Karol spanning the history of his papacy. CBS split the screen so that in the upper left they could keep airing the live footage and use the bottom right for photos and world footage. Already too busy, they thought it needed more, so in the bottom left, they scrolled through the names of all the popes, which, altogether, made me vomit. To CBS's credit, I must say that the popes were listed in chronological order, enabling me to learn some history between heaves.
Which brings me to my final point: Remember OJ Simpson? I do. One of the first funereal broadcast disparities that I noticed invited me to revisit my OJ memories, of which I am quite fond. In particular, I remembered a mug shot that found its way to the covers of both Time and Newsweek. Some people (probably from Newsweek) raised hell about how Time had doctored the mugshot, giving OJ a darker (more sinister?) complexion. The media latched onto this, as they did all things OJ, and launched into a discussion of the ethics of "doctoring" photos. Conventional wisdom has changed considerably since then, to the extent that this sort of thing probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows today. After all, "doctoring" is a far looser term than it used to be. However, if you were to scan the various stations as I did on Thursday night, you would have noticed the broad range of color adjustments being made to the otherwise identical video feed. I don't think the saturation and hue reveal any political or emotional bias, but I noted the differences I could discern. MSNBC paraded the highest color saturation, so that the overly prevalent reds of cardinal robes and banners leapt like fire from the screen onto unsuspecting eyeballs. Their broadcast was also exceptionally bright, along with CNN and NBC. Both of these stations, however, toned down their saturation a couple of notches. Slightly more colorful, but considerably less bright, was CBS's coverage. They did a better job, along with Foxnews, of capturing the essence of the overcast morning. ABC was a bit of an anomaly in this category as their broadcast revealed a noticable yellow shift, causing robes of the cardinals to appear rusty orange and the walls of Saint Peter's to come alive in beige intensity. All in all, I favored Fox for their color scheme, which was clearly the dimmest. The contrast was high, the color saturation was low. It felt most like a tumultuous and overcast day in Rome.
Michelangelo's architecture is stunning. The circular square seems to embrace and invite you inside. Once within you notice the ceiling sparkling with gold gilding. From a distance, you spy the images on the walls, each easily larger than fifteen feet square, that appear to be Raphaelite murals. You walk towards them only to drop your jaw in amazement when, from about fifteen feet away, you realize they are giant mosaics composed of tiny uniform tiles. And yet, they cannot hold your attention. You're drawn to the center - to the massive dome pierced by rays of sunlight. Vertigo overtakes you as you look skywards. But the focal point of Saint Peter's, its greatest artistic and religious gesture, is staring right there with you, directly beneath Michelangelo's dome - Bernini's altar. Sinister and wicked, it engulfs you in sin, a celebration of carnal pleasure that secretly usurps the holiness and pristine religiosity of the church that houses it. The crooked black pillars wind their way upwards like serpents slithering to swallow the light of the dome. You slither with them.
So I was sitting on the couch. Rome was overcast and windy, cardinals' robes and flags fluttered in the wind. Millions came to bury the pope. At first I watched out of curiosity, but my curiosity soon overtook the event and I became interested in the way it was being presented. I was really getting into the choral arrangement (it was the entrance canto or something) when some dumbass commentator on CNN started talking to explain some shit over the music. It pissed me off, so I changed to FoxNews and saw they were using the same live footage. Curious, I checked all the channels to see who was airing the broadcast. There were 7 channels: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FoxNews, Fox, and MSNBC. Headline News and CNBC stuck with their regular programming. PBS, it seems, doesn't ever air fresh footage in the middle of the night. So here are the interesting facts:
Everyone was airing the same footage - the same shots, the same cuts. This means only one video-mixing crew with its own cameras had access to the event. I never found out who this was, but since every news channel aired the footage, I imagine the vatican hired some independent film-maker and then sold broadcast rights to the various news entities. However, I overstated things when I said the footage was identical. This was true for the vast majority of the ceremony, but there was some variation during the less formal moments. During Cardinal Ratzinger's homily, towards the end of mass and during communion, the news organizations were clearly given optional camera shots from which to choose. What a logistical nightmare! How on earth did the video crew organize this feed that clearly stipulated degrees of freedom? If anyone can fill me in with technical details, let me know. I'm only incredulous because I don't know a thing about the process.
Scanning the channels, I discovered that different stations were employing different delays for this "live" event. FoxNews was airing the footage almost a whole second ahead of everyone else. CBS, NBC, and ABC were second, followed closely by CNN and Fox. MSNBC, for some reason, lagged slightly behind. Maybe Foxnews claims some sort of superiority by getting its footage out there so quickly. Maybe its screeners and editors are simply more efficient. Whatever it was, it made me wonder if all "live" programming is delayed and for how long. I realize that it takes some time for the signal to travel from earth to satellite and back to earth, but this delay should be uniform for all stations, as all communications satellites are in stationary orbit at the same altitude. The disparity must come from somewhere else. How live is "live?"
The growing prominence of station logos embedded in broadcasts offends me. Naturally, I examined the various logos as I surfed. The networks ABC, NBC, and CBS were the least offensive with small relief logos in the bottom right corner that blended in with the background. On the other hand, CNN and MSNBC were pretty annoying. Both stated the obvious - "funeral of Pope John Paul II" or something like that - in the bottom left corner, while obtrusive station logos occupied the bottom right. CNN even displayed "live" in the upper left corner. Fox and Foxnews were no better. Though they only used one corner, the bottom left, for their large station icons, they frequently displayed large banners across the bottom of the screen, giving a name to whatever ceremony was in progress. This brings me to another interesting observation. After some time, I realized that Fox and Foxnews were displaying the same banners at the same time. How closely affiliated are Fox and Foxnews, or NBC and MSNBC for that matter? Not that closely, it would seem. NBC and MSNBC were as dissimilar as any two stations on the list. The identical programming on Fox and Foxnews began and ended with the banners, and editorial differences appeared to be the norm, not the exception. They employed different translators, cut to different shots when given the freedom to, and felt the urge to interject bland comments at different times. Even their logos, both of which said "Fox News", were different. So why on Earth, amidst all this separate editorial control, did they need one guy in common, one guy to fill the most important position, one guy to synchronize their banners? It is most likely that he represented some attempt at efficiency, but banner uniformity is a ridiculous goal. Fox could have increased efficiency far more efficiently. Maybe I'm over-analyzing. Maybe one of the banner guys was sick.
However, screen appearance was only one facet of the funeral presentation. Some of the more substantive coverage choices certainly made me sick. The commentators for NBC, ABC, and CBS talked quite a bit more than their cable counterparts. They were far more likely to interject comments over ceremonial choral music or Latin readings, parts of the funeral that I think should have been uninterrupted to preserve the solemnity of the occasion and the effect of the experience. CBS's Harry Smith (I think that's his name) was the most egregious offender in this regard, but everybody did it to some extent. At one point, someone at Foxnews started translating a Latin reading only to stop abruptly once he realized it was being sung. At least someone realized his mistake. Didn't anyone stop to ask first: what is the nature of this ceremony? If they did, I think they would have concluded that the funeral was primarily designed to convey aesthetics rather than content, and, as such, any commentary was not only unnecessary but harmful to its conveyance.
The funeral dragged on, and the video liberties increased, and the networks attempted different things to make the broadcast interesting. NBC started jumping around the world to live shots of crowds watching the funeral on big screens. ABC interspersed their broadcast with photos of Karol spanning the history of his papacy. CBS split the screen so that in the upper left they could keep airing the live footage and use the bottom right for photos and world footage. Already too busy, they thought it needed more, so in the bottom left, they scrolled through the names of all the popes, which, altogether, made me vomit. To CBS's credit, I must say that the popes were listed in chronological order, enabling me to learn some history between heaves.
Which brings me to my final point: Remember OJ Simpson? I do. One of the first funereal broadcast disparities that I noticed invited me to revisit my OJ memories, of which I am quite fond. In particular, I remembered a mug shot that found its way to the covers of both Time and Newsweek. Some people (probably from Newsweek) raised hell about how Time had doctored the mugshot, giving OJ a darker (more sinister?) complexion. The media latched onto this, as they did all things OJ, and launched into a discussion of the ethics of "doctoring" photos. Conventional wisdom has changed considerably since then, to the extent that this sort of thing probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows today. After all, "doctoring" is a far looser term than it used to be. However, if you were to scan the various stations as I did on Thursday night, you would have noticed the broad range of color adjustments being made to the otherwise identical video feed. I don't think the saturation and hue reveal any political or emotional bias, but I noted the differences I could discern. MSNBC paraded the highest color saturation, so that the overly prevalent reds of cardinal robes and banners leapt like fire from the screen onto unsuspecting eyeballs. Their broadcast was also exceptionally bright, along with CNN and NBC. Both of these stations, however, toned down their saturation a couple of notches. Slightly more colorful, but considerably less bright, was CBS's coverage. They did a better job, along with Foxnews, of capturing the essence of the overcast morning. ABC was a bit of an anomaly in this category as their broadcast revealed a noticable yellow shift, causing robes of the cardinals to appear rusty orange and the walls of Saint Peter's to come alive in beige intensity. All in all, I favored Fox for their color scheme, which was clearly the dimmest. The contrast was high, the color saturation was low. It felt most like a tumultuous and overcast day in Rome.
posted by hanazura at 8:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home