I wasn't watching CNN on election night (or day, as it was here in Australia). I know virtually nothing about this hologram stuff you've mentioned. Yet holograms greatly intrigue me.

In case you weren't watching, here's what it looked like.

Blitzer says "You've never seen anything like this on television." ...neither has he.

Thanks for the clip, Srol you relatively independent sub-totality!

Uhm... no offense dude, this is a big fat "duh". They even said it themselves. "We can't see you, but people at home can". It's also done with about 30 some odd "HD" cameras in different angles, tied to the camera movements in the studio, so it can look like she's actually "hologrammed" in front of Blitzer. No green screen required.

All in all, it was a day of really lame and cheap tricks across all news networks.

Hahahah! When Anderson Cooper "beamed in" Will.I.Am. his face...was basically...priceless. I'll try and find it. My roommates and friends were wondering if it was real or not. Thanks for this Srol.

One of my teachers is convinced it was real.

Can't fool my eagle eyes - I spotted this as phony the moment I saw the video. 😛 Can't believe people coulda thought this was real...
It was too...'Clean' for a first attempt on live network TV - and so underexposed...like they didn't WANT people to see it worldwide almost.

I was more bothered by her blue outline more than anything else.

Sorry Jin, I must have missed that part. I was a little preoccupied.

I remember having my suspicions and I went to look it up on Wikipedia as soon as I got home, and that's when i learned what I said here today.

I was drunk, leave me alone. I figured it out the next day. I hate you all. *runs off crying*

~Tobe

CNN desperately tries to keep up with the other networks with yet more gimmicks, and this is probably the 2nd dumbest gimmick after the situation room. BTW, Wolf Blitzer sucks.

I don't think Wolf Blitzer's that bad. He actually seems to know a lot about what he's doing as opposed to Anderson Cooper who was clearly hired for looks, because mmmm, there's a scrumptious piece of mancake..

...what?

It's interesting what you said about the Situation Room. I was thinking about that election night. Two elections ago, we would've seen nothing on TV but people sitting behind desks. Now everyone's standing up and doing stuff. I'm not certain if I like it or not.

Heh they were just trying to be show offs

Shame it put people 'off' the show a little when the sham was exposed - at the end of the day, was such a retarded publicity stunt, which is destined to be put in TV history as the stupidest attempt at attention seeking, really worth it?

Then again, this IS CNN.

I don't think Wolf Blitzer's that bad. He actually seems to know a lot about what he's doing as opposed to Anderson Cooper who was clearly hired for looks, because mmmm, there's a scrumptious piece of mancake..

...what?

It's interesting what you said about the Situation Room. I was thinking about that election night. Two elections ago, we would've seen nothing on TV but people sitting behind desks. Now everyone's standing up and doing stuff. I'm not certain if I like it or not.

I didn't even think of them standing up, because when I think of "situation room" I think of that stupid multi-monitor thing they use, and Wolf Blitzer just... being annoying to me. I don't watch it enough (5 minutes in a month, and when I don't have control of the channel) to be specific, but he puts off a vibe of pandering and talking down to the audience to me, which is just supported by him making a big deal about "beaming in," and talking as if simulating reporters talking to each other is even desirable. Frank Cafferty is OK though.

I think that CNN can't compete with the partisan networks though. Superficial balance is intellectually dishonest and leads to news media entertaining absolutely absurd arguments just to appease. Pandering to the middle is just as much pandering as pandering to an ideology, but without belief behind it. It's like if Bush were to claim the moon was made of cheese, and Democrats said no, CNN would report "Washington clashes over the moon."

If CCN was real news competing against MSNBC and FOX, like it was BBC or PBS, that would be different, but their news is arguably even more shallow. The internet wins, but for cable TV it's MSNBC IMO.

Pandering to the middle is just as much pandering as pandering to an ideology, but without belief behind it.

And who gets to say what the "middle" is anyway? But yeah, gotta agree that the Internet wins, you can look for something specific rather than having to wait to see when they'll get around to elaborating on what they mentioned earlier, and if you want balance you can find both sides of an issue itself rather than both sides of some random association of specific perspectives on a whole lot of separate subjects with each other...

As for the topic itself, hadn't heard of it before. I only watched part of Srol's link but from what I've seen it looks pretty cool, even if it's just edited, it's another way to make the news more entertaining aside from sensationalism...

EDIT: Fixed quoting and wording

blablablabla...

If CCN was real news competing against MSNBC and FOX, like it was BBC or PBS, that would be different, but their news is arguably even more shallow. The internet wins, but for cable TV it's MSNBC IMO.

Eh. CNN has its good moments. I can't stand Anderson Cooper much, but Blitzer is alright. The situation room is a stupid ass name, (or giving a name for everything involving news to "class it up" is bullsnot anyway), but either way, they give good news.

All I know is, there's a new show on CNN, "No Bull" or something along those lines, and I love that one. If you want some neutral stuff, that show is pretty good, methinks. So far, anyway.

I'll agree with you, though, I'll watch MSNBC over CNN, but those two are my main cable news stops. Also, you've got to agree, that touch screen they have on CNN... very nice. I want it.

The Internet absolutely and utterly loses when it comes to news for me. All news on the Internet is either the translation of the work a print, TV or radio reporter already did, or blogs, which fail, fail, fail at the news.

They're just a gigantic echo chamber where if something is repeated enough times on enough people's blogs, people come to believe it to be true. There's no fact-checking or credibility. I will always get my news from a wire or a newspaper first, that is until newspapers go out of business, at which point I won't be reading the news because I'll be living in a cardboard box in an alley somewhere.

Full disclosure: I work for a newspaper =P

The Internet absolutely and utterly loses when it comes to news for me. All news on the Internet is either the translation of the work a print, TV or radio reporter already did, or blogs, which fail, fail, fail at the news.

They're just a gigantic echo chamber where if something is repeated enough times on enough people's blogs, people come to believe it to be true. There's no fact-checking or credibility. I will always get my news from a wire or a newspaper first, that is until newspapers go out of business, at which point I won't be reading the news because I'll be living in a cardboard box in an alley somewhere.

Full disclosure: I work for a newspaper =P

Actually, I used to work for a newspaper myself, (had a Telegram paper route in Gander the summer before last summer) although that doesn't make me any less inclined to prefer the Internet as a medium...

Anyway, just because the Internet uses clips from TV news doesn't mean it's worse than TV news... sometimes, you get things with Internet use of those clips that you wouldn't get with the way the TV news used the clips. Like this video, which uses different networks' versions of a story to catch one of them taking something out of context, or this video, which, though it uses the video clips selectively, does so to make a legitimate point.

The Internet absolutely and utterly loses when it comes to news for me. All news on the Internet is either the translation of the work a print, TV or radio reporter already did, or blogs, which fail, fail, fail at the news.

They're just a gigantic echo chamber where if something is repeated enough times on enough people's blogs, people come to believe it to be true. There's no fact-checking or credibility. I will always get my news from a wire or a newspaper first, that is until newspapers go out of business, at which point I won't be reading the news because I'll be living in a cardboard box in an alley somewhere.

Full disclosure: I work for a newspaper =P

There's certainly a lot of that, but the high level of competition means there are more sources a few clicks away. It just requires a strong ability to analyze and question what you read.

...So that's why some people will believe some of the crap out there.