Iowa 2008: Graphics wars…
Watching the differing graphical approaches taken by the three networks is striking. Both CNN and FNC have the results in their expanded lower thirds. CNN’s stay on during commercials. MSNBC has opted to periodically flash a big board showing three of the candidates from each party at a time with pictures of each and the results.
Of the dueling lower thirds on CNN and FNC, I think I prefer FNC’s because it’s more easily legible and it just plain looks better to me. CNN seems to have taken an approach more along the lines of something you might see on CNN International. I think the all white (or off white) background with the black text, plus the cluttered layout; with only a relatively small percentage of the screen being devoted to the candidate names and their standing and a pie chart in the lower right corner, a bit too cluttered for my tastes.
I don’t think I can compare MSNBC’s approach to FNC or CNN’s because it’s fundamentally different. It’s apples and oranges. It’s the classic “old school” style that you would see on the broadcast networks. I do like that the photos are included though.
What do you think?
I think you’re wrong ;). Honestly, I like CNN’s more as its cleaner, if you will, and just plain better. Maybe its the pie charts. I just feel FOX’s is old and stodgy with all the competing fonts.
Comment by Jordan — January 3, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
It’s “cleaner”, yeah. But it’s also a little too dry for me. You have a point about the differing fonts on FNC’s lower thirds. But CNN is also mixing its fonts so it’s sort of a wash. Which set of mixed fonts are preferred, if you will…
Comment by Spud — January 3, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
I like CNN’s as well…it looks REALLY good on CNNHD.
Those pie graphs AC is showing off…they’re approaching goofy status.
Comment by Anonymous — January 3, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Skimming around, I don’t understand the logic of MSNBC’s usual L3 since I never saw the scoreboard come up searching channels an hour ago. I honestly have just kinda avoided this and decided to watch something else. But also, CNN seemed to show local statistics also, with select counties and such, but FNC just seem to have the default ones, which most like.
Overall, CNN’s screen is just a little too chaotic with the amount of room being taken over for information, plus the styling seems like it could use a touch of work before we reach the next big event. Still, the overall style is good, and the pie charts is a nice touch. Now, FNC’s setup is clear and all, but just looks kinda gross with that current horrid scroller setup, plus their overall graphics look horid with a few good elements on occasion (what were they thinking with the anchor/reporter split screens, can someone say bland and ugly?)
Comment by Chris — January 3, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
FNC’s as usual is cluttered and looks like it was made in 1996. I like CNN’s but its a little too big.
Comment by Mike Beckham — January 3, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
CNN has overdone it to the point that it is tacky. Kid with a new toy.
Comment by Calvin — January 3, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
The lower thirds/graphic charts on CNN HD was smashing. Fox is still in 1996.
Comment by Cameron — January 4, 2008 @ 12:37 am
When we talk about graphics, I think we should exclude Fox from the discussion until they fire their high-school design team.
Comment by SuperNoxic — January 4, 2008 @ 3:05 am
Why does Fox have to scream “Election Ticker” at the top of the screen? We get it, its the election results. Why do they put their ticker at the top of the screen at the top and the news ticker at the bottom? Get rid of the news ticker and put the election ticker there. And why must the text when putting the name of a guest on the bottom of the screen be super huge? FNC’s graphics looked horrible.
CNN’s graphics looked horrible. The pie charts made no sense and the font was hard to read.
The only graphics that made sense to me was MSNBC’s… nice, simple, and old fashioned!
Comment by Paco — January 4, 2008 @ 4:30 am
FNC seemed to be “flipping” the text in that election box.. from results to who was talking.. (contributor, anchor) Anyway, when they went to the anchor/contributor name, the text was absolutely gigantic. And it looked terrible, don’t ya think its about time FNC hires someone who knows how to choose fonts?
Comment by Terance — January 4, 2008 @ 8:19 am
I don’t like the way either FNC or CCN did their L3. But if I had to chose a preference, I’ll go with FNC’s lower as it is simple with the pertinent info only. Having said that, the above comment about FNC and their high school design team is right on. I’ve had a problem with FNC’s graphics, typefaces, etc. for a long time now.
CNN’s has too much going on. Lose the pie chart, lose the big red IOWA graphic that takes up 1/3 of the usable area (as we already know we’re watching Iowa results). The % of precincts reporting is good enough so the particular county listing isn’t necessary in my opinion (but Iowans might like I suppose). Is the delegate info necessary at this point in the results process? Probably not. I will give them a thumbs up for losing the news ticker.
MSNBC’s looks good but if it’s not on the screen when the viewers happens to flip over, it’s missed.
Someone at FNC must have liked MSNBC’s photo style graphics enough that they put up the same sort of thing on F&F this morning. They went horizontal instead of vertical with larger photos, swapped in their usual red & blue and actually left a large blue field under the photos completely empty of graphics. I thought FNC’s larger photos looked a little too horsey when compared to MSNBC’s.
Comment by STP — January 4, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Even though Fox News’s graphics are hideous, horrendus, and terrible….I like watching them. There easy to read, simple, and is part of their success. They “get it”. They understand what we want. If they were more attractive, theyd be less easy to read. Who agrees with me?
Comment by Stevie — January 4, 2008 @ 3:33 pm