Some random thoughts...
The television coverage was, well, conventional. The sky boxes looked the same, the floor reporters, the reporters interviewing reporters, the pundits with nothing to say, endless and useless speculation.
I didn't notice any whiz bang advances in technology or content. On the other hand, technological advances should be transparent to the viewer. I'm sure cameras, communication, graphics, etc. were better than they were four years ago. It didn't look that way, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Political conventions aren't what they used to be. For the most part, parties show you what they want to you see. Tight lids. Restricted access. As much control as possible.
It's why the stakes are higher than ever before.
Remember all that brokered convention talk in the spring?
It was all said and done by the time delegates arrived in Cleveland and Philadelphia. It's why the media, mainstream and other wise, will take any nugget and jump all over it. Total saturation. Isn't that redundant?
Melania Trump's plagiarism, Republican unrest and snubs by big party names, DNC emails and Bernie Sanders... it's all like taking a steak and waving it in front of a hungry dog.
And, can we think of better ways of describing convention addresses? I've been watching conventions since I was a tot, and every four years, just about every reporter and anchor says "(Insert candidate name here) tonight will give the biggest speech of his/her political life."
Is that the best you can do?
We'll see if it gets better in 2020. I hope to see you then.
