Unnecessary Technology

During the election coverage on Tuesday evening, CNN tried out some new “holographic” technology. With this, Wolf Blitzer was able to talk to a 3-d projection of commentators located on the other side of the country. [insert obligatory Star Wars quote here] Here is a clip from the broadcast:

I understand that CNN wants to be on the cutting edge of broadcasting technology, and they want to show it off on Election Night, arguably the most watched night for that network. However, was it necessary to have Blitzer stand and face a “holograph” of a commentator? What made this format an improvement over the original format (two talking heads)?

Personally, I found this to be distracting. Even now, after watching the video several times, I have no idea what the female commentator is talking about. Rather, I am focused on the technology and the finished product.

On the other hand, most of the networks used a multitouch wall to display and manipulate results on a map. Some used this technology in an effective way, zooming in on counties and regions of battleground states. Being a very concrete visual learner, this use of technology helped me a great deal.

The same thing can be said of the use of technology in ministry. You can have an awesome setup of technology, but if it becomes a distraction to communicating your message, it is not worth it. (Also, if your message is nothing more than technology, without any content, that is not worth it, but that is another post).

Just because you have the technology does not mean you have to use it. Make sure technology is a tool to help communication, not a distraction from communication. Make technology a help, not a hindrance.

On a side note, here is SNL’s take on election technology, mocking the networks’ use of multitouch video walls: