I’m watching the election returns on several stations–typical guy with a remote control, I know–but I’m interested to see that, even more than in 2000, there’s extensive use of computers on the sets. By that I mean interaction with computers that involves touching or writing on them, not just passive reception of stuff generated by computers that are essentially invisible.

Two examples. On CBS, one fellow had what looked like a large, touch-sensitive screen he could manipulate as he analyzed the data. He launched what looked like applications by touching a toolbar or icons on the screen. He also moved through large maps by touching them and sliding them along. He also zoomed in on maps by touching areas. The whole effect was rather like the “pre-crime” screens in Minority Report. The other example was on NBC, where Tom Russert did his “magic math” on a tablet computer with a wireless connection to a larger studio monitor. Tom Brokaw called attention to the fact that the magic math was being done “electronically” this year.

My thought is that it’s more dramatically effective to have someone visibly controlling or interacting with a computer on the set than it is simply to have slick computer graphics or displays. Somehow the human agency makes the process more compelling, as if the visible human intervention makes the information seem more purposeful.

I don’t think I’ll count Dan Rather’s pencil-on-the-monitor in this category, though perhaps it has its own homespun charm.