In the aftermath of November 4, 2008, most political pundits are talking about the historic results of the presidential election. I see interviews with prominent men and women on both sides of the political aisle; I see many moving on to process stories about the transition in power, about president-elect Obama choosing his cabinet, about Mr. Obama's priorities on taking office and what he has to do to fulfill his promises to his country. But while the blogosphere has made some comment about the pundits themselves, outside of the tech-buzz about CNN's hologram, I've yet to see an analysis of the way news outlets presented the election as it happened. I had my laptop with me last night, and many different websites open but I, like many Americans, gave most of my attention to what was happening on my TV. I flipped between MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, and while I wasn't paying too much attention to the words of the talking heads, I was a hawk for the numbers flipping around the bottom of the screen, and the contrasts I saw in the visual display of information were nothing short of astounding.
Start with maps. CNN kept a map of the US (red, blue, not-called) on the bottom-right of the screen the entire night; it took up between 1/12 and 1/15 of the screen real-estate. MSNBC cut to a full-screen map of the then-current results every 10 or 15 minutes, and had one sitting in the background for every wide-angle shot of their group of pundits. Fox news didn't show a map of the country once the entire night.
Maps of the House and Senate results were similar. CNN had both, organized in an arc by party seated, crawling across the bottom of the screen - 1/6 to 2/15 of screen real-estate for a few seconds every minute. They also called those maps up full-screen every 10 to 15 minutes, which is what MSNBC did. Again, Fox never showed a map of the House or Senate the whole night.
Next, look at how each network showed the results for each race at the bottom left 2/3 of the screen. CNN showed one at a time, for 10 seconds each, 1/6 of the screen in size. State and race names were large, as were results percentages and the results, when called, were strongly color-coded by party. MSNBC had smaller text than CNN, and showed the results for the same 10 seconds, but stretched them across the entire bottom of the screen; overall, still 1/6 of the screen. They, also, showed one race at a time and the candidates in each race were heavily color-coded by party; the results were not, with a simple check marking who the station had called the winner.
Fox News was a real anomaly, here. While they kept the results on-screen for 10 seconds each, unlike their peers they didn't strongly color-code at all; just a small circle of color around the D or R for each candidate and a gold check mark to indicate a called victor. They also showed two races at the bottom of the screen at any one time - near the same 1/6 of screen real-estate overall, but split in half between each race. More strangely, the two races they showed were never of the same type or from the same region. For example, rather than showing presidential race results in MN and MI, or in the gubernatorial and house races in WY, Fox News showed, say, the senate results in IA alongside the presidential results in TX.
Third, the way each network called a presidential race result is worth a mention. CNN heralded each new state called with a bumper graphic full of stars, a resounding sound effect, a cut to a standing pundit in front of a US map and, finally, a full-screen presentation of that race's result, color-coded and with candidate pictures. MSNBC had a quieter sound effect, no bumper graphic and cut to the results, showing the stats but only a picture of the winning candidate, before a second cut to a map of the US. Fox did not use a sound effect, showed the candidates side-by-side, and then cut back to their seated pundit.
Finally, the networks differed in the way they showed what states they had previously called in the presidential election. CNN included the presidential results in with their other race results in the bottom-right corner of the screen, at 1/15 of the screen real-estate and with the candidates names color-coded. Next to those numbers they had the shifting results map of the US I mentioned above. MSNBC devoted almost 1/3 of their screen real-estate, the right side of the screen, exclusively to presidential results throughout the night. They showed the two candidates' faces and party colors prominently, state-by-state, and showed a colored map of each state when transitioning between state results. The bottom-most portion of this bit of the screen was color-coded and devoted to the race overall. Fox presented previous races as crawl-text sized across the screen, color-coded by victor. However, they grouped Obama's wins ("Obama wins NH, NJ, VT, CT"), but gave a title-card to each of McCain's wins ("McCain wins KY" - graphic change - "McCain wins TX"). Despite Obama winning a larger number of states, this had the effect of giving McCain's wins more overall screen-time. Fox did keep the overall electoral vote tally in the bottom-right corner of the screen throughout the night but, again, it was not color-coded and non-mobile, and in smaller font than every other text on the screen.
What does this four-point analysis mean, in the big-picture sense? It means that, intentionally or not, Fox News made it very, very difficult to see the big-picture in the election by watching their network; about as difficult as CNN made it easy. This is especially true, in both cases, if you were only tuning in for a few minutes at a time. With an uncluttered screen, strong color-coding and other visual and auditory signals, and a constant display of the races as a whole, CNN made it very easy to see what was happening in the election with just a few minutes glimpse. Fox News, by contrast, showed a jumble of information clamoring for attention, none of it immediately obvious what it was; and, again, at no point did Fox News show the senate race, the house race or the presidential race as a whole (leaving aside a three second "Obama elected president" banner center-screen in the moment that Obama won). MSNBC was between the two, tending more towards CNN's clarity.
I don't think that Fox News was trying to mislead anyone. No one watching their election coverage should have been fooled into thinking that McCain was going to win, even if they watched no other coverage. At the same time, if you watched only Fox News, you would not have thought Obama was going to win, unless you were keeping careful tally of the electoral results on your own.
From the perspective of informing the public, of providing available data in a clear and detailed way, and of aggregating that data to show overall trends, Fox News' election coverage was an utter failure. If I were a conservative, if I were a Republican and if I, as many conservatives and Republicans do, got my news from Fox alone, I very well might be floored at results of this election; I very well might feel that Obama somehow stole the election.
The lesson to learn? Presentation matters.
Note: I apologize for not having graphics to go along with this short essay. I didn't expect to write it while I was watching the results last night, and so I didn't take any screen-captures. At this point, of course, it's too late to get any. If anyone finds any shots from any of the networks I talk about below, please send them my way so I can add them in.
