"SURVIVING THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS"

     Wins and losses as played out on TV often seem like an American preoccupation, perhaps understandable because of our county's competitive nature.  Consider our interest in the World Series, the Academy Awards, and, of course, the federal elections, all traditions featuring shared experiences ( like sports, culture and politics, respectively). However, and without a doubt, the recent elections were different from years past. Wins and losses took on new meanings, driving everyone absolutely BONKERS, at least everyone this critic knows.

     Thus, by the time election day came around, it was almost anti-climatic. While voters still cared which candidates won or lost, they were also tired of boring debates, attack ads,  journalists' views, and pundits' opinions; they didn't wonder so much about results. The idea, "less is more, " certainly didn't apply to the election events on TV.

     Some viewers, including myself, began to wonder, was there any coverage that we did like or seemed worthwhile, material that was interesting or kept our attention? Or did a lot of TV simply arouse our emotions, making us angry and inattentive?

     In a nutshell, did we waste our time watching the election events: are there any specific aspects of the coverage, if any, that did have value? Here are my own responses to those questions, focusing particularly on election night.

     For the most part, there was a large amount of information placed in small spaces generated by the coverage. Candidates' photographs, party affiliation, state representation and voter numbers all consistently filled the screen, along with running totals for both the House and Senate winners. Often, county maps showing specific states provided geographical data.  Viewers took this material as "normal" communication tools, keeping people abreast of the facts. But let's face it, seeing numbers on the screen, for example, gets tedious. Very tedious. Yet, we can't deny that such presentations are needed.  In fact, we must also admit this information can be an effective manifestation of the graphic arts.

     Another tiring aspect of TV election night is the journalists who present results, mostly hosts of daily news broadcasts. If you're a fan of such people, their being on the air for an hour at a time is manageable. But if they are broadcasting for several hours during election night, their usual delivery techniques may become a bit too much. ( For example, a high shrill voice or extreme animation are sure to annoy you. ) Their talking over each other and asking less than substantial questions are not attractive attributes either. Let's not also forget the endless material read from a teleprompter. Again, not a particularly engaging delivery device.

     It doesn't have to be that way. Consider PBS's coverage of election night regarding the newscasters' delivery style. For example, all the panelists, including Judy Woodruff and David Brooks, interacted with each other in a casual, non- interruptive way, listening to each other and not looking at the teleprompter.  Amy Walter and Lisa Desjardins conversed with each other similarly while standing in front of a large board. 

     Such instances proved an important point. Thus, it was possible for viewers to experience worthwhile moments on election night, watching journalists having an informative, spontaneous "conversation" with each other about an important topic. No following formulas here.