SCOTT LIBIN: Okay, so it probably isn't quite as significant as the new balance of power in Congress, but one big story of election last night was what didn't happen:
Television news didn't jump the gun, get it wrong or otherwise embarrass itself. This no doubt disappointed many pundits who were poised to pounce again, but it makes me happy. I smile at the suggestion that it was a boring evening because TV journalists did their jobs well.
JILL GEISLER: Isn't it interesting that the absence of shouting guests or "out on a limb" predictions might be seen as boring? From a leadership standpoint, I think the network's caution wasn't cowardice -- it was responsible reporting. The nets used exit polls as one of several sources for calling races. And the quarantine system seemed to have worked well, even though some bloggers I read hated it.
LIBIN: There's a blogger out there somewhere who hates anything you can name. I do think the explosion of online outlets for opinion, analysis and even rumor added an interesting wrinkle to this election cycle, and provided a place to go for just about anybody with an interest in politics -- including those who have become so disenchanted over the years with the "mainstream media." But the "dinosaurs" of broadcast and cable television didn't seem at all dead to me last night. They not only acknowledged and sampled the blogosphere, they introduced innovations of their own that I really liked, like
CNN's continuous coverage that provided up-to-the-minute vote results at the bottom of the screen even during commercials. That's one way to keep viewers from reaching for the remote.
GEISLER: CNN was the most engaging of the three cable networks. How odd that
FOX, which made a name for its flashier approach to news, seemed almost staid -- dare I say, PBS-like in its presentation last night. CNN has really figured out how to let people in on the back-of-the-house work of newsgathering -- something you and I as former news directors understand. The insiders can see all the graphics, all the incoming video, can walk from expert to expert in the shop and say "what do you have right now?" CNN did exactly that. That's in contrast to the traditional approach of "Here's the anchor team, here's the set, here's the side set, let's go from here to there to the field reporter." The interesting part about advanced technology and delivery, as CNN used it, is that when it works, it looks so easy. Like exit polls -- technology becomes a big story when it fails. And it didn't.
LIBIN: You got that right, and CNN got a lot of things right, too. I've confessed to a smart-aleck comment or two about what
Tom Shales in today's
Washington Post calls all the "parad(ing) back and forth" in front of that screen that seemed to stretch about the length of a football field, but that set and graphics approach provided an environment that was really rich with meaningful content. I think that may be what worked best: Having sworn off the speculation of the sort that got the networks in trouble on past election nights, they substituted real reporting, including context. I hopped around from CNN to
MSNBC to Fox News Channel all evening and never caught anybody in what TV types would call a "stretch" -- a period of potentially dead air with nothing meaningful to say. The anchors, the analysts, the panelists and the correspondents always seemed to have something of substance to contribute.
GEISLER: On nights like this, you see the promise of cable news. Information as well as opinion. Civil discourse instead of gas-baggery -- on all the networks. Journalism, well done, really can be more interesting than bad theater.
