These stories
demonstrate the value of providing the right amount of background information at
the right time to make a complicated story understandable. The second version
also illustrates how a graphic section can be used to clarify complex
relationships.
The Story: Grand Jury Hearing
The
Changes
A grand jury in Tampa, Florida, is investigating allegations
that members of the county commission pressured a local
hospital to do business with a particular medical equipment
salesman. On
this day, two commission members and
one former member have been called to testify before the
grand jury. Television cameras are not allowed inside
the grand jury room. This story is a day-of-air news package.
Reporter: Deborah Potter for NewsLab.
The Issues
Relationship between key players
in the story is unclear.
First version provides too much
background information on what the board of commissioners is alleged to have
done.
Lead-ins do not provide enough
context for sound bites.
Detour in the middle about the
history of bribery scandals in the county causes viewer to lose track of
story.
from Bekhor because, in fact, he was a contributor.
Restructured story to put Scott's
remaining sound bite immediately after the explanation of what the grand jury is
investigating.
Moved reference to bribery
scandal history to the end.
For
Discussion
Where should background
information be placed in a news story? Why?
Do journalists assume that
viewers know more or less than they really do about any given story? What are
the consequences of those assumptions?
How can a graphic be used to help
viewers understand complex relationships for information?
Is a story easier to follow if it
is told in a more chronological order? Why or why not?
How does the content and context
of sound bites affect the viewer's perception of the speaker?
