They don’t like firing people or eating contracts, but they loooooooove hiring people. Nothing makes a network exec happier than announcing, “We’re bringing in so-and-so!” And the sheer power of numbers makes shows feel like a bigger event than they actually are, so instead of choosing between Emmitt and Keyshawn, or Marino and Boomer, or Tiki and Bettis, they just keep both under the “bigger is better!” premise. Even if it inadvertently clogs up their shows and flies against the face of everything that has ever worked well on a Sunday pregame show.
Unfortunately, cable news networks seem to be picking up this fumble and running the wrong way with it. Here’s MSNBC’s wall of experts covering the Wall Street crisis. Jon Stewart labelled it “the decabox.”
Not to be outdone, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 featured 14 (14!?) people onscreen at the same time analyzing last night’s debate.
If CNN ran a restaurant, the kitchen would probably look like this:
Matt Linderman wrote this on Oct 16 2008
There are17 comments.
designslave
on 16 Oct 08
I find it annoying that most of the 14 people on Anderson’s panel have laptops. Maybe they could all be talking on their cell phones and driving too. That would make it seem REALLY important.
Great point….in general I think the “panel” style of interviewing is a bad idea. People end up competing for talk time, talking over each other, etc. Either be an asshole and talk over other people, or don’t get heard at all, which often happens.
It’s actually uncomfortable for me to watch some news because of the disagreements and and yelling going on back and forth.
I don’t get much value of out that. The best interviews I’ve seen are one-on-one.
Again what you at 37signals so well advocate, do less than your competition but concentrate on the important stuff…I agree with startbreakingfree; one good journalist and one good guest is as good as it gets.
Dear lord! CNN’s studio is crazy. I’ve stopped watching the Sunday pre-game shows because it’s just too much going on, everybody trying to develop their schtick to get more camera time, etc. 2 or 3 people at most!
I understand the desire to get many POVs following an event like the debate… but I live how MSNBC does it better, breaking coverage into segments with 2-3 at a time. Chris Matthews talks for a while, then Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchannen for a bit, then Keith Olbermann.
“This is Wolf Blitzer here with 45 debate analysts, all speaking at the same time about nothing”
Matthew O'Ryan
on 16 Oct 08
Typically watch Fox News, but last night I watched the after-debate analysis on CNN. I noticed the teeming panel too. The set was so bursting at the seams, they had to seat a few of the ‘experts’ on the sides of the counters.
Also, why must they slap silly ‘CNN’ bumper stickers over the obvious Dell notebook logos? Tacky and ridiculous,
There are some captures floating around the Internet of what those CNN notebooks are really being used for: Facebook and MLB playoff streaming.
I think part of the problem is that pundits have replaced news reporters. No longer do people want one “unbiased” news reporter. With pundits you know they have a slant and so you need some one with an opposite slant. A Liberal and a conservative…. oh and you need a woman’s perspective…. and a young person and an old person.
I feel the move to punditry has made it necessary to include many points of view to paint anything close to a whole picture.
I wouldn’t mind 6 sports commentators if they were intelligent. The mistake is thinking they can make up for uninformed analysis with volume.
Jason
on 16 Oct 08
I really wanted to make a snarky comment about the number of people at 37signals who post on this blog, but i realized that you aren’t blogging at the same time and I actually find value in what you have to say.
That being said, I think our culture has become so accustomed to the idea that EVERYONE’s opinion matters. Blogs have multiple authors, commenting on topics you know little about is common – so why shouldn’t the tv networks jump on the ‘noise’ bandwagon.
Thanks for keep the SvN ratio on track here at least.
Let it be said, that Bill Simmons is by far the best thing on ESPN.com. His weekly column is a must-read.
Like another commenter said, I gave up on NFL pre-game shows a long time ago. Most of the washed up athletes and coaches they put on those shows are surprisingly lacking in insight.
Also, several blogs have made a habit of zooming in on those CNN laptops to see the “experts” using twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc., making it even more ridiculous.
JohnO
on 16 Oct 08
As for the sports there are a couple:
Rome is Burning – two panel guests, one interview
PTI – face-off, maybe one panel guest
Around the Horn – three panelists, elimination down to one
NFL Coverage – 4 or 5 people One is always the face who didn’t play football. You’ve typically got an offensive player or two, a defensive player, and a coach. Covers your bases.
But I really don’t need a a cabinet-worth of political pundits all saying the same thing one after another. At least have a different opinion. Say something interesting! Disagree! Please!
Keith
on 17 Oct 08
NFL pregame shows are the absolute worst at this… Many panelists is fun when they have different opinions or styles, but thanks to E[S]PN the multiple points of view are condensed into 1 point of view with other people just re-stating the obvious.
The shows that work are the ones where there is reasonable disagreement supported by experts.
It’s like Lewis Black’s line in ‘Man of the Year’ where he says:
“If everything seems credible then nothing seems credible. You know, TV puts everybody in those boxes, side-by-side. On one side, there’s this certifiable lunatic who says the Holocaust never happened. And next to him is this noted, honored historian who knows all about the Holocaust. And now, there they sit, side-by-side, they look like equals! Everything they say seems to be credible. And so, as it goes on, nothing seems credible anymore! We just stopped listening!”
They don’t like firing people or eating contracts, but they loooooooove hiring people. Nothing makes a network exec happier than announcing, “We’re bringing in so-and-so!” And the sheer power of numbers makes shows feel like a bigger event than they actually are, so instead of choosing between Emmitt and Keyshawn, or Marino and Boomer, or Tiki and Bettis, they just keep both under the “bigger is better!” premise. Even if it inadvertently clogs up their shows and flies against the face of everything that has ever worked well on a Sunday pregame show.
designslave
on 16 Oct 08I find it annoying that most of the 14 people on Anderson’s panel have laptops. Maybe they could all be talking on their cell phones and driving too. That would make it seem REALLY important.
Jay Owen
on 16 Oct 08Totally agreed. It is really getting ridiculous on cable news and sports commentary shows.
HP
on 16 Oct 08Imagine the possibilites with broadcasts in 1080p …
StartBreakingFree.com
on 16 Oct 08Great point….in general I think the “panel” style of interviewing is a bad idea. People end up competing for talk time, talking over each other, etc. Either be an asshole and talk over other people, or don’t get heard at all, which often happens.
It’s actually uncomfortable for me to watch some news because of the disagreements and and yelling going on back and forth.
I don’t get much value of out that. The best interviews I’ve seen are one-on-one.
Roy
on 16 Oct 08Again what you at 37signals so well advocate, do less than your competition but concentrate on the important stuff…I agree with startbreakingfree; one good journalist and one good guest is as good as it gets.
Benjy
on 16 Oct 08Dear lord! CNN’s studio is crazy. I’ve stopped watching the Sunday pre-game shows because it’s just too much going on, everybody trying to develop their schtick to get more camera time, etc. 2 or 3 people at most!
I understand the desire to get many POVs following an event like the debate… but I live how MSNBC does it better, breaking coverage into segments with 2-3 at a time. Chris Matthews talks for a while, then Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchannen for a bit, then Keith Olbermann.
Patrick
on 16 Oct 08Can’t wait for 2012 election coverage.
“This is Wolf Blitzer here with 45 debate analysts, all speaking at the same time about nothing”
Matthew O'Ryan
on 16 Oct 08Typically watch Fox News, but last night I watched the after-debate analysis on CNN. I noticed the teeming panel too. The set was so bursting at the seams, they had to seat a few of the ‘experts’ on the sides of the counters.
Also, why must they slap silly ‘CNN’ bumper stickers over the obvious Dell notebook logos? Tacky and ridiculous,
There are some captures floating around the Internet of what those CNN notebooks are really being used for: Facebook and MLB playoff streaming.
Tim Jahn
on 16 Oct 08That’s unbelievable! 14 people?!
I don’t understand why they continue to just pile on the “experts”. Quantity does not equal quality by any means.
Stefan Hayden
on 16 Oct 08I think part of the problem is that pundits have replaced news reporters. No longer do people want one “unbiased” news reporter. With pundits you know they have a slant and so you need some one with an opposite slant. A Liberal and a conservative…. oh and you need a woman’s perspective…. and a young person and an old person.
I feel the move to punditry has made it necessary to include many points of view to paint anything close to a whole picture.
Colin
on 16 Oct 08I wouldn’t mind 6 sports commentators if they were intelligent. The mistake is thinking they can make up for uninformed analysis with volume.
Jason
on 16 Oct 08I really wanted to make a snarky comment about the number of people at 37signals who post on this blog, but i realized that you aren’t blogging at the same time and I actually find value in what you have to say.
That being said, I think our culture has become so accustomed to the idea that EVERYONE’s opinion matters. Blogs have multiple authors, commenting on topics you know little about is common – so why shouldn’t the tv networks jump on the ‘noise’ bandwagon.
Thanks for keep the SvN ratio on track here at least.
Jason Z
on 16 Oct 08Let it be said, that Bill Simmons is by far the best thing on ESPN.com. His weekly column is a must-read.
Like another commenter said, I gave up on NFL pre-game shows a long time ago. Most of the washed up athletes and coaches they put on those shows are surprisingly lacking in insight.
Also, several blogs have made a habit of zooming in on those CNN laptops to see the “experts” using twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc., making it even more ridiculous.
JohnO
on 16 Oct 08As for the sports there are a couple:
Rome is Burning – two panel guests, one interview
PTI – face-off, maybe one panel guest
Around the Horn – three panelists, elimination down to one
NFL Coverage – 4 or 5 people One is always the face who didn’t play football. You’ve typically got an offensive player or two, a defensive player, and a coach. Covers your bases.
But I really don’t need a a cabinet-worth of political pundits all saying the same thing one after another. At least have a different opinion. Say something interesting! Disagree! Please!
Keith
on 17 Oct 08NFL pregame shows are the absolute worst at this… Many panelists is fun when they have different opinions or styles, but thanks to E[S]PN the multiple points of view are condensed into 1 point of view with other people just re-stating the obvious.
The shows that work are the ones where there is reasonable disagreement supported by experts.
It’s like Lewis Black’s line in ‘Man of the Year’ where he says:
“If everything seems credible then nothing seems credible. You know, TV puts everybody in those boxes, side-by-side. On one side, there’s this certifiable lunatic who says the Holocaust never happened. And next to him is this noted, honored historian who knows all about the Holocaust. And now, there they sit, side-by-side, they look like equals! Everything they say seems to be credible. And so, as it goes on, nothing seems credible anymore! We just stopped listening!”
Alex
on 17 Oct 08Can I just say that this is the first time I’ve ever been on television?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU
Jesse Hines
on 17 Oct 08I noticed the same thing about CNN’s post-debate commentary panel and was immediately disgusted by it.
Seriously, just have one conservative, one liberal, and one “independent” analyst with the moderator.
But, 14 people all vying to say something catchy?
I’ve pretty much vowed not to waste any more of my time watching the cable news commentariat the rest of this election.
I’ve seen McCain and Obama speak for themselves. I can make up my own mind.
This discussion is closed.