My photo
wheaton, illinois, United States
View Bill Voigt's profile on LinkedIn

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Sensory overload

Disclaimer: I have chosen Fox News as the subject of this discussion only because I believe they edge out the other 24 hour cable news networks in their use of graphics technology, but truth be told every dedicated cable news channel is guilty of leveraging the same strategies, just not as effectively as Fox has.


It was my Mom who theorized recently that the reason these 24 hour cable news networks rely so heavily on splashy, strobe-lighting graphics is to keep the human eye focused on the screen. By its very design, the human eye is genetically predisposed to flick towards a flash of light or jerking motion instinctively, a skill probably honed early in our species' history to keep our distant ancestors away from danger, and alive to see another day. It still comes in quite handy while driving our vehicles down the eight lane 65mph mega highway that for many parts of the country is the new Main Street, USA.

Earlier in the era of television advertisers and programmers relied on keeping someone's attention through the use of engaging dialog, whether the topic was a televised debate about McCarthyism or a game show host lauding the wholesome properties of Minute Rice via an hourly live read. To be fair, those were the days before remote controls, 498 channels, High Def TV and DVD players, so the practice of keeping an attentive audience who is still getting used to the idea of tiny people living inside the wooden and glass box in their living room was easy as, well, Minute Rice. Are cable news channels, who are by their very nature striving to blast past all the glitzy distractions of modern daily life to pin viewers to their couches for twenty four hours at a time using a variety of advanced graphics technology to leverage our ancient instinctive nature to glue our overloaded eyes to the sweeping, colorful movement and periodic alarming strobe lights on the screen? Will this result in a sort of "Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf" syndrome whereby legions of glassy-eyed news junkies, instincts numbed from sensory overload stare straight ahead and fail to spot the flashes of light coming from that fire truck barreling down across their field of vision?

Curious to test the theory, I conducted my own ad hoc experiment. Yesterday my beloved Car and Driver magazine arrived, perfect timing. I kicked back, tuned in to Fox News, opened the magazine, and attempted reading about the latest 0-60mph in .3 seconds street legal Corvette. True to Mom's theory, the movement and flashing definitely made it hard to focus on anything but the screen. I lost my place many times, and must have inadvertently re-read the bit about the Vette's cornering capabilities at least five times. So, the graphics do definitely grab one's attention away from whatever else is in their field of reality and pull it magnetically to the screen. Check.

But maybe the same would happen on any TV show? Perhaps intense graphics have little to do with distracting me away from my magazine article? Maybe I was being too hard on cable news networks. I tuned in to PBS to see what would happen. "News Hour with Jim Lehrer", perfect.

Big difference. I not only got through my Corvette article, but also the article on the new Mercedes Benz luxury Hybrid concept, and even a few pages of the Letters section without so much as a glance at the screen. I was listening, and the same basic format was had there -- same big stories, same roundtable debate, albeit with less yelling and infantile insults flung at the participants from the newscaster. So, it appears as though graphics, flashing lights, bells, and whistles definitely do have a significant, measurable effect on viewer's attention when compared to a less, entertaining medium.

But what about sound? I switch back to Fox News, but this time I mute the cacophony. It's pretty interesting, you should try it sometime. Same flashing lights, Old Glory waving bravely in slow motion in the background behind the laid in boxes of talking heads. Same corporate news logo spinning like a lethargic top in the bottom left, reminding me what time it is in all four time zones, and of course -- The Crawl. That ever present, bite sized spoon fed meal of nourishing mush at the bottom of every screen on every cable news network.

The image of a chubby, cute infant having tiny spoon after tiny spoon of mashed bananas gently pushed into it's cute little mouth by a cooing mother popped into my head.

But, I noticed something else, too. The flash-bang impact of the news was significantly less with the sound muted. I was able to get almost all the way through the Mid Priced Sedan Comparo before an explosion, literally, of color and corporate logo blasted its way -- complete with animated bits of..wherever the Gibraltar like logo burst forth from before fading mercifully to the perfectly groomed face of the newscaster. The crawl cooed temptingly at the bottom of the screen, but with the sound off, it was easier to turn away.

Conclusion: Mom, you were right. The bright lights do absolutely have a real effect on us humans. Probably our pets, too, on some level. But looking at the whole picture, the psychologists and computer animation artists have gone one step further by introducing the siren to the lights, so to speak. Listen to a cable news cast tonight. Years ago, while watching Cronkite you'd have heard an important sounding, one note repeating little ditty, almost like Morse Code sending us the important news from the front lines, before the lights panned up on the master himself. But today, that won't fly. Today you've got loud swooshing, explosions, dramatic orchestral, almost rock and roll like, crescendos, another swoosh sound or two (like jets buzzing about above our heads), which eventually settles into the heavily emphatic up and down speech of the actor reading the teleprompter.

Thanks to the technology of highly advanced video production equipment behind the scenes at every newsroom on the dial (that's quaint, isn't it? A "dial", on a TV?), we can remain at a state of perpetual alertness, like being in a never ending parade of police cars, ambulances and fire trucks all blaring and blinking at full tilt, all day, every day. Exploding logos and waving American flags: the lights. Swooshing, explosions and electric guitar riffs: the sirens, horns and buzzers, warning us of...of....impending danger? Nay, of impending silence and solitude, and perhaps the moment alone to enjoy the beauty and joy of personal thought.

I then did something that felt counter intuitive, I turned the TV off and sat in the silence and listened to my own thoughts, devoid of lasers, lights, explosions and sirens. Technology is great, it lets us tune in to get caught up on the news, the sports scores, the weather, or watch an entertaining movie, any time of the day or night. But it can't begin to touch the value and importance of a moment alone with one's own thoughts.

13 comments:

Jim V said...

Here's another interesting comparison:

Compare the written transcript of any such newscast with the actual audio of the newscast itself. One of my favorite sample specimens is the now-famous Tom Cruise / Matt Lauer interview in which Mr. Cruise displayed his advanced understanding of psychology and cleverly pointed out Mr. Lauer's grotesque lack of such knowledge.

News channels pride themselves (is this still even asserted, actually?) on presenting "just the facts". Let's assume, in arguendo, that this is true. What I mean is, let us assume that the WORDS delivered are nothing but the facts.

Read the written transcript of the broadcast. Then compare it with the audible delvery of the broadcast. The tone used, the urgent "this is HUGE" voice, the "this is a load of garbage" tone, and so on. I believe you would find a HUGE discrepancy between your perception of the day's events based on a reading versus a listening.

So that said, does the way you say something alter the objectiveness with which it is spoken even if the words themselves are as objective as the day is long? Well, I'm the son of a communications major. You do the math.

In the law, this is referred to casually as "the sweaty palms doctrine". On appeal, a judge will almost NEVER overrule a finding of fact by a jury. Why? Appellate judges recognize that being there, hearing the testimony, seeing the glances around the room, the facial contortions, the uncomfortable silence, the purposeful movement of the attorneys, the "sweaty palms" of the defendant, and so on is all part of the determination of the facts. Judges know that they cannot trust "the cold record" to deliver the same access to the truth that being there did for the jurors.

So to summarize, I would say that the "muting the t.v." portion of your study was most compelling to me. Listen carefully to the delivery methodology of the words as they are spoken.

Is this really "just the facts" even if the words themselves would qualify? Is the delivery methodology deliberate? Is there any chance that it is not?

bill voigt said...

Oh absolutely, tone sets the message. If I'm not mistaken, news anchors from 25, 30 years ago were deliberate in their monotone delivery, to avoid unfairly influencing viewers. One notable exception to this rule would be Cronkite's famous 1963 tear wipe when Kennedy was shot, but obviously the overwhelming emotion of that moment was unavoidable for anyone. A far cry from today, where titillating verbal tone is a given.

"The United States government is very interested in the desperate search for Natalee Holloway, missing since May"

becomes, under the hot stage lights of prime time cable news:

"The United States government is VERY interested in the... DESPARATE search for Natalee Holloway....MISSING......since May" dramatic pause, dramatic sigh...perky, toothy smile again: "And later, how you too can buy more great stuff this Christmas!"

Pair this award winning delivery with the flashing lights and sirens created by the expansive graphics departments and it's easy to see why ad revenue is so insanely profitable for these stations.

Quoth Don Henley,

"Put the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry."

Anonymous said...

[Is there any chance that it is not?]

Not a snowball's chance in hell! And there is no chance, either, that the frenetic flashing on your television screen is mere happenstance. The more we learn about the functioning of the human brain, the more capable we are of manipulating that function in order to control the behavior, thought processes, feelings and attitudes of other human beings.

The flashing graphics and carefully modulated tones of our news broadcasts are more than just the latest techno-twist on reporting the events of the day. They are also a harbinger of Big Brother shaping our minds, like soft clay in the hands of expert sculptors, by choosing for us what we will pay attention to and what we will not.

It is not only quiet enjoyment of the evening news at stake here ... the very autonomy of our personal thought processes has been targeted for extinction. Once we have lost our capacity to think for ourselves, we are a nation of mindless puppets collecting dust on a shelf while we wait for Big Brother to shove his hand into our minds and make us do whatever he wants done.

bill voigt said...

*gulp*

Sounds a lot like what all those nutty Facists were talking about.

Anonymous said...

Yup, 'fraid so. In 2005, futuristic books like 'Brave New World' and '1984' [which sounded extremely futuristic when I read it in the 60s] now sound more like news reports than science fiction. Televisions yammering incessantly at us from every wall, readily available drugs that make us happy no matter what is going on, and casual sex as a recreational activity to relieve boredom are now commonplace realities, not the shocking concepts they were considered to be when those books were published.

At the risk of sounding like one of those wild-eyed fanatics who proclaim that the world is steadily degenerating into spiritual, emotional, mental and eventually physical chaos, I can only say that the hope of the world literally rests in the hands of the young people in today's society who have managed to retain their capacity to recognize truth when they hear it and to go after truth and dig it out when that's not what they're hearing.

We have just as much technology available to us to seek and find the truth as we do to hide and distort it. Where we go as a race of beings will be determined largely by how we use the technological advances that basically give us a whole new world to live in every time the sun comes up ... it will be our choices that determine whether that world will be heaven on earth or hell.

bill voigt said...

We have just as much technology available to us to seek and find the truth as we do to hide and distort it.

I like that. A lot. Carl Sagan believed we humans are living at a very important point in our evolution. We have the technology to easily destroy ourselves, or harness that technology to perpetuate the human race for thousands of future generations.

Never before in human history have we been at such a precipice. If we can collectively resist the temptation to destroy ourselves we will eventually emerge from this chapter in our history and our great great grandchildren will go on to do great things beyond our imagination.

Jim V said...

I thought that was "Put the WINDOW on the set".

I never understood that line.

You have saved me. This is a very very small start toward redeeming yourself for the Warm Tin Love fiasco.

Jim V said...

"They are also a harbinger of Big Brother shaping our minds, like soft clay in the hands of expert sculptors..."

Listen people, we all saw what happened to Gumbi every week. Let's not have a global-scale "Ohhhhhh Nooooooo" moment. Shut the tv off and read something objective, like the New York Times.

Jim V said...

Nanci,

While I agree with you, it does leave me puzzled as to why you watch so much of what you just so aptly described as destructive. I'm not trying to hammer you here, this is genuine curiosity without the "gotcha" attached. I'm just trying to be sure I fully understand what was an exceptionally well written comment.

bill voigt said...

Jim Voigt wrote: Listen people, we all saw what happened to Gumbi every week. Let's not have a global-scale "Ohhhhhh Nooooooo" moment.

A little claymation history, kids. Hey, claymation is technology!

That quote wasn't attributed to Gumby (dammit!), it was Mr. Bill.

No relation, in case you were wondering.

Anonymous said...

[why you watch so much of what you just so aptly described as destructive]


Good point ... that does seem contradictory to my comments at first glance. However, you'll notice that I pretty much only watch news broadcasts, so I'm not really marinating my mind in the drooling drivel that passes for entertainment on the boob tube, a/k/a the idiot box.

As we've already commented here, the cable news networks have become so frenetic in their attempt to keep us well supplied with eye candy to top off our news of the day that they have become as much entertainment as a source for information.

However, the one saving grace of the news broadcasting industry is that it is, at the least, not guilty of creating some altogether unrealistic expectation for the human experience. No one tries to dress or talk or walk perfectly in order to emulate some newscaster, but a lot of us did that through the 50s, 60s and 70s as we tried to become June Cleaver.

It's probably impossible to know just how many young people had their hopes and dreams shaped by 'Father Knows Best' and 'Leave It To Beaver' but I do know that happened because I was one of them. I spent many years mopping floors in high heels and a polyester pantsuit before I woke up one morning and found myself living in the real world.

Over the course of the intervening decades, I've gradually learned to be who I really am, not who some Hollywood script writer created as a role model. I have beaten the destructive power of entertainment television, and others can do the same thing if they really want to.

It's true that the news broadcasts of the 21st century are a dubious art form all their own, but so far they don't promise us lives where all the problems of the day are solved and wrapped in a neat little bundle at the end of the broadcast hour.

If we proceed very carefully in choosing what we watch on television, we might even curb just a bit of its destructive power. If we don't, we can realistically expect the literal destruction of who and what we are as a nation and as a race of beings.

bill voigt said...

I spent many years mopping floors in high heels and a polyester pantsuit...

Wow. Does, not, compute.

Interesting observation though; I've always wondered about some of the things that fueled the early sparks of the counter-culture, even before Vietnam was the fireball it eventuall became. If you think of it, back then I don't think many people in the audience or in the production rooms of television programs fully grasped the power television has on us. Of course, pre-TV there were movies, and I'm sure many strove to be like the stars of the time, but with TV you're brining those personalities into the home. I suppose there may have been a much higher comfort level sitting on your own couch surrounded by familiar surroundings, watching June clean not her own floors in high heels, but yours. How much easier it must have been to glance away from the pristine Cleaver family home and compare it to your own. And to your point, not just the floors, either. The whole family. Look how Ward comes home with a smile every day, and how June keeps a warm, perfect pot roast in the oven. And those kids! Perfect, honest, cute, and an integral part of the nuclear American family unit.

I wonder how much has really changed since then, as far as our penchant for emulating our familiar TV world we escape to on such a frequent basis.

Some have speculated that a big part of the whole Starbuck's phenomenal success can be attributed back to the mid 90's, when we watched our "Friends" Thursday nights drink endless cups of fresh ground coffee at their favorite hangout, the "Central Perk". (cute, huh?) A lot of people probably thought "Hey, if I start drinking really good, fresh ground $2.50/cup coffee while sitting on a plush velvet couch in a dimly lit coffee shop, I'll have a bunch of cool, hip friends like Chandler, Rachel, Joey and Ross come by and plop down next to me so we can all hang out!"

Side note: it's ridiculous that I know character names from that show. See? We may not be wearing polyester pantsuits and high heels....at least not while mopping....but a lot of us are still grasping at the unattainable; that sweet escape from the mundane.

And with the recent explosion in popularity of big screen TV's, those tiny people we used to see moving around in the box in our living rooms are now life sized.

Jim V said...

Pursuant to this exchange, it has just become mandatory that each of you watch Mona Lisa Smile if you haven't already.