The TV Zone

A split decision!

No massive screw-ups. (No noticeable screw-ups of any sort). Solid coverage. Good graphics. Competent field reporting. Amazingly detailed and informed commentary. Lower thirds...well, a little more on that in a bit.

All in all, a pretty good night of TV coverage.

But during an historic evening, personalities - network personalities - tend to emerge, stripped of flackery or spin, they show their true colors. Last night wasn't about "who was first" but "who was most watchable," which is a whole different metric. So let's just go network by network:

CNN: By God, it's Grand Central Station at five, with bodies moving endlessly, restlessly, about the cavernous set, and anchors trolling for commentary from one set of desks to the next; meanwhile, where were all those people in the background going? To get coffee? Find the bathroom? WHAT DO ALL THOSE PEOPLE AT CNN DO? To watch CNN for any length of time last night was to induce motion sickness - with so much activity, and that wall of verbal sound, accompanied by hand-held cameras and a lower third - bottom portion of the screen - stuffed with more information that the Manhattan directory, you start to get the sense that you’re swimming in an aquarium over-filled with lovely, exotic, tropical, and slightly deranged fish. You start to lose perspective (why is Anderson walking to one desk, why Wolf to another). Up becomes down, down up, the chatter is voluminous..and that magic wall? Amazing!

Best part: John King's mastery of said wall. To watch his dissection of Missouri was to get a real sense of what vote counting is really all about. Worst: Lou Dobbs. When he smiles the screen cracks, and his outright dismissal of McCain (the three Repubs are all equal!) smacked of pure, bilious bias. Fox's ill-disguised pro-Romney bias was equally grotesque.

MSNBC: The less-is-more approach, and Keith Olbermann to boot (who, yes, is the personification of more-is-more...) The tactic here was to create a distinct visual anti-thesis of CNN, and in some ways that was the better approach. While CNN overwhelmed ( a sign of innate insecurity?) MS usually underwhelmed. MSNBC also kept your eyes focused on the screens, ears attuned to the speaker. It was a less disorienting experience as a result.


Best part: Olbermann, hands down. Love him or hate him, when that giant manhead fills the screen, and that near-parodic anchorman voice fills your ears, you tend to pay attention. But he also had a "please explain this baffling business to me" attitude which brought everything down to earth. Analyst Chuck Todd - if I'm not mistaken - also had the first clear, or at least intelligible, snapshot of the final delegate count. Worst part: That torture chamber, or the set from "Tron" (per Keith) where anchors were encased while they dodged swirling and unintelligible graphic bars.

Fox: Spend much time with Fox and you feel like you want to sidle up to a bar somewhere and order a Mai Tai. It - the set - is all so dark and sinuous and alluring, who the hell wants to leave? Then...here comes Megyn Kelly – good, by the way - and the effect is complete. But then the dissonance: When Brit (Hume) and Michael Barone get together (for example), you wonder: what language are they speaking? And then, those little swooshing sounds when a state's called and the bumper spins - you look over your shoulder to see if a bird just flew in the window. Karl Rove - the master of dark arts for the Bushies - was pretty good, but occasionally incomprehensible too. With that soaring dome and all those shiny spots, you also realize: TV is not kind to him. He like everyone else was scratching his math on the back of envelopes, and you wonder yet again: with all that money poured into the set, not enough $ left over for Fox to afford NOTEPADS?

The best: The set and the best of all the networks, period. Hume, who always looks like he's having a pretty good time, was a solid center.
The worst: Like CNN, Fox and its bounty of T-heads babble over the rest of us, the great unwashed, who are left wondering..."uhhh, what did that guy say?"

ABC: Visually, the cleanest look of anyone - plenty of blues, reds, black suits (but then everyone last night wore black) and exquisite ties. There's something terribly British and civilized about the ABC style on election nights - no one raises their voice, or is disputatious, or uncivil. Diane - regal of bearing - completes the effect while Charlie is the grand pooh-bah, with baritone voice and jowly good humor. ABC likes containment - nothing flies around the screen, while direction is steady-as-she-goes. It's all nice, very nice, to look at but devoid of pitched drama or surging emotion. Staid...I think that's the word I'm reaching for.

Best: Di. The queen was terrific. Worst: Tone. It...was...just...too...dull.

CBS: Think back four years ago to this night, and who was sitting here? Dan? Ed Bradley? Probably some other icon? Last night: Katie, who had a fabulous hairstyle with a dashing little flip that made her look like a '20s flapper. But get past this stuff - no apologies, but I just can't - and you realize she had a pretty good night. She was poised, and smart and well prepared, and simple. The drama? It was here: Bob Schieffer, the last lion, would talk about something and then she'd start chattering, and he'd keep chattering and then she'd keep chattering...WHO IS GOING TO GIVE UP THE MIKE, you wonder? Then, there is Jeff Greenfield - terrific, as always, last night - who stood down (and where can I buy the ringtone on his cell?)
CBS, overall, had a good night - even though you could tell they didn't spend ten bucks on their set. My bet is that millions of viewers at home had better-equipped dens then this set.

The best: CBS's lower third. Someone had the brains to realize that the only count that mattered was the DELEGATE count, which is what the screen graphics paid attention to. It was very simple, and effective. The worst: Some irrelevant remote from a New York bar; an absolute waste of airtime.

NBC: "The Biggest Loser" - the show, that is - crowds NBC out of the action until 10 p.m., which was an eternity of invisibility. As a result, if you want a real loser last night, look no further than here. They weren't bad, just irrelevant. Brian Williams comes on and says Ann Curry's been sifting through a "mountain of numbers" - I doubt that very much - and then we get a few crumbs.

The best: Honestly, didn't see much, but I did like Williams' interview with Bill Richardson; Tim Russert, as always, was solid too. The worst: The simple fact that NBC just doesn't seem to give a damn anymore. At least MSNBC does.