I thought I'd expand on a particular angle of the uncanny valley which I posted about recently.
There is such a variety in production quality. We're in a YouTube world, where we accept crummy video quality for reporting: embedded reporters, soldiers camcorders (or mobile phone videos)... And yet we force movies and video games to have ultra-high production values: Assassin's Creed, Halo 3, Mass Effect...
The juxtaposition is harsh on CNN: they might cut from an embedded reporter with YouTube quality to Wolff Blitzer working the touch-screen with graphs & reports.
I wondered for a while what the difference was. I think my previous post is the difference. You can do gritty and real or you can do ultra-polished. Both work. Do one or the either, not both and not something in between.
There is also something about the audience perception of it. Gritty and real feels like a camcorder: some person capturing reality - not editing or polished (read: "not slanted"). Whether that is true, that is the general perception. Truth and reality are also available in polished, but the expectation is different.
Consider the difference in perception if:
- Wolf Blitzer mispronounced the name of a political candidate
- An "embedded reporter" mispronounced the name of a General
- The nightly news anchor stated that "the war was harrowing"
- Soldier into camcorder: "I heard a mine go off probably about a half of mile from our HMMV. How many more are out there?"
- NewYork Times: "people with pancreatic cancer have less than a 10% probability of being alive in a year."
- Randy Pausch's testimony to congress (particularly the opening candid video segments)
