For this assignment, I watched the 10PM news on Fox on Saturday night. The news program is purely informational, aiming to give its viewers information about current events, sports, weather, and so forth. I came to view the aim the presentation of information in the broadcast in three ways. First, a large portion of the program was devoted to a number of small segments with sensationalist value, such as reports of kidnappings, murders, robberies, vehicle accidents, and so forth. Secondly, there was informational pieces intended to provide advice to viewers, such as a piece on how to prevent being scammed by phony census takers. Finally, there were a couple of segments of the program which seemed to simply present information which they assume would be of interest to viewers-on Saturday night this consisted of sports updates and a piece on how computers are being used for test-taking in a Wellesley elementary school.
As I watched the broadcast, I was immediately stunned by the pace of the beginning of the program. It began with a series of quick summaries of stories that would be presented later. Each summary was perhaps seven seconds long, with about a second-long pause between them. After this quick introduction, the anchors began describing each story-this time for about twenty to thirty seconds each. I noticed in a couple of cases that the "expanded" story didn't even have much more information. The video presented during these stories seemed chosen to be particularly evocative, likely intending to evoke what Moeller calls "arousal"-emotional and physiological responses to the program. Many of these visual elements also featured "real" people in distress-perhaps to intensify viewers' reaction by briefly putting a face on some suffering.
I noted with interest that after about six minutes of this furious
barrage of news stories was a piece about the Catholic 
church
apologizing for the faults of its members and sins committed by them. This
segment was much slower-paced and lasted for several minutes. This piece seemed
to fall in the category of information assumed to be of interest to viewers,
proceeding slowly perhaps so as to be perceived in dealing with the church
respectfully-it is easy to imagine that Catholic viewers might feel somehow
slighted for their church to receive the same twenty-second treatment as earlier
stories.
Even the weather report seemed fast-paced, providing a lot of information in a minute, with quickly-changing graphics that got less that ten seconds of screen time each. This was followed by the first commercial break, fifteen minutes into the program. I actually found myself relieved to watch the commercials, as I could at least be sure that they would talk about the same thing for thirty seconds at a time. After the commercial break, the pace of the program seemed to have substantially slowed. The information that followed seemed less eye-catching, and had much longer segments of the program. Topics such as technology in education, the rescue of a stranded pet, a flower show in Boston, and a six-minute segment about an unsolved murder were all slow-paced and in-depth. It was also interesting to see that the second weather report was six or seven minutes long. It was much slower, with more time spent on some of the same graphics from the first report. The final seven-minute section on sports had an even more relaxed attitude, with the commentator constantly cracking jokes and poking fun at himself and others in the newsroom. The final wrap-up consisted simply of the anchors joking with each other for thirty seconds or so.
The most immediately interesting feature of the show was the difference in pace throughout the show, which points to an interesting notion of how the show's designers expect it to be viewed. The first fifteen minutes of the show attempt to pack a large amount of information in at a relatively superficial level. Information is briefly repeated for emphasis in the brief summaries given of each story before the (slightly) longer versions were given. Yet even these seemed mainly intended to grab the viewer's interest just long enough to convey that message-perhaps expecting that their viewers wouldn't be paying much attention to the show. This seems odd for a show that airs at 10PM; I would expect this more from a morning news show where the viewer is likely dashing off to work. The depth of the later segments seems to indicate that viewers are expected to stay and watch this portion of the program-perhaps expecting that if they haven't left the set already, they'll watch the show to the end. Later sections of the show also had a more personalized feel, both for the anchors and the people being described. At the beginning of the show, the anchors seemed like automatons, rocketing through their script, but by the end of the show they were joking with each other as if they were actually real people.
Also interesting was the use of visuals throughout the show.
In the beginning of the show, visuals were used mainly for "shock value,"
trying to capture the viewer's attention so that they would pay attention
to the anchor's description, 
which
contained the substantial information about the news item. This was done both
by images involving gunfire or suffering as well as bold text proclaiming,
for example, "Guard Attacked!" There were cases, however, where visuals were
used to emphasize information by providing a map or diagram or a phone number.
The later segments also took more time to show people talking, whether they
were being interviewed or whether they were the reporters or anchors for the
show. This also gave a more personal feeling for the latter portion of the
show.
In order to improve the news program at conveying information, I would like to suggest that it be made more accessible to viewers by slowing the pace of earlier segments and providing more of the personal interactions afforded by the later segments. I imagine that the quick pace of the beginning of the show can alienate viewers since I found it hard to follow despite paying full attention to the show. I also think that the show would be better able to convey information if it used the visual channel more effectively to complement information presented. Graphs, maps, and diagrams were used a few times with a good effect, but they could have been more useful. For example, it's much more effective to show where a fire occurred on a map than to simply give the town's name. This sort of visual explanation could greatly increase viewers' comprehension and retention of the information presented.