Holo Man

We all know that even though CNN's eye-catching live "hologram" reports during its election night coverage were a really cute trick, they weren't actually holograms -- right?

Well, at least one person says they were. And if you holo-haters argue with him and question the network's decision to ignore the actual definition of what a hologram is in favor of making up its own, he'll -- well -- he'll post a stern and somewhat transparent comment on your website.

Such is the case with Mediabistro.com -- a popular site that follows the inner workings of television news.

It ran a story yesterday morning on a report put together by the Canadian Broadcasting Company that poked holes in CNN's nifty new TV technology. The CBC talked to a scientist who basically explained that what CNN had created by "beaming" its reporters and guests into its studio wasn't in fact a hologram -- as it claimed -- but a "tomogram." The difference is that a hologram is an image projected into physical space while a tomogram is simply an image captured from all sides then reassembled by computer and displayed on screen. From a journalistic credibility standpoint this is a hell of a distinction, given that Wolf Blitzer -- an ostensibly serious newsman -- spent several minutes talking to empty space on live television the other night.

In this age of CGI post-production technology, actors are often forced to perform with and react to plenty of things they can't see; journalists, however, are expected to deal in the factual rather than the fantastic, and I'm not sure pretending to have a conversation with someone who in reality isn't there in any physical form whatsoever does much to bolster CNN's claim of being "The Most Trusted Name in News."

But once again, there's at least one person who'd strongly disagree with this assessment.

He calls himself "CNNfan" -- which is laughably suspicious right off the bat, since it's hard to imagine CNN having "fans" in the traditional sense, and anyone who really wants to be known as one is probably somebody well-adjusted people would be wise to avoid.

He left this suspiciously pedantic comment on Mediabistro in response to the story about the story debunking CNN's Star Wars-universe technology:

"It is proprietary technology which CBC has no access to. So they can only infer from incomplete information. I say in general, based on the basic definition, 'Yes, it is at the very least, a type of hologram' A hologram is a flat optical image which looks three dimensional when viewed with the naked eye.

Besides that, all I know is that I like it, and I applaud CNN for being cutting edge! It does not matter if the CNN anchor is speaking to a traditional flat screen off camera. Only what the audience sees matters, and they see a really cool hologram.

The CBC needs to realize that as TV goes all digital, new technologies will emerge. Hologram experts need to see this as a wake up call before they are made obsolete by new CNN TV technologies that do a better job of telling the news story."

If this sounds overtly defensive and priggish as hell to you, that's because there's there's always the possibility that it was written by CNN's president, Jon Klein. Although nothing can be proven, and I admit that I'm reticent to dabble in too much conjecture, Klein has reportedly been known to troll the internet, searching for stories about himself and CNN to, I suppose, give him ideas -- as he's the most knee-jerk reactive man in television news -- while simultaneously fueling his mammoth ego. Word has it that he's not above leaving an acerbic comment or two (under an assumed but conspicuous name of course, like, say "CNNfan") when he comes across a story he takes issue with (like, say, a Mediabistro blurb about how the hologram that Klein was so giddy over he would've stuck his penis in it if he could've wasn't a hologram at all). Many readers of this little experiment of mine insist that Klein has even left comments on this site in an attempt to furiously strike back at the negative press I've given the network both here and at the Huffington Post.

Is he really that petty and vindictive?

Actually, yeah.

Once again, nothing can be proven in regard to the Mediabistro piece -- but go back and read the comment from "CNNfan" again.

Who the hell talks like that?

Then again, there's always the possibility that Jon Klein himself is a computer generated special effect.

It would explain a lot of things about CNN.