People remember
what surprises them. These stories demonstrate how to use surprise as a
storytelling strategy by letting the tape reveal the surprises rather than
announcing them in track or a standup. This approach of building tension and
then releasing it makes stories more memorable.
The Story: Horse Accident
The
Changes
A young boy seriously injured in a riding accident is
visiting his horse for the first time since he was thrown
two weeks earlier. His recovery is described as "remarkable."
Reporter: Emily Schmidt for
Version two begins with
voice-over sound from the boy's mother, followed by background on the accident.
It builds suspense for viewers, who must wait to learn what happened to the boy.
NewsLab.
The Issues
Version one begins with
voice-over sound of the boy describing the accident, followed immediately by
video of the boy, making it obvious from the start that he's recovering well.
The track says the boy suffered
severe head trauma, but the video of him in doing well in rehabilitation fights
that description.
The viewer is told not once but
twice, in track and standup, that the boy is recovering well because he was
wearing a helmet when he fell, making the sound bite that follows from the boy
himself almost pointless.
The physical therapist's sound
bite gives the boy's diagnosis before we see the boy on tape.
Video of the boy riding an
exercise bike is matched with his sound bite about riding his horse. Viewers
should see the irony; the track doesn't say it's ironic.
The boy himself reveals the
secret of his recovery--the fact that he was wearing a helmet--in a sound
bite.
For
Discussion
Which story is more interesting
to watch and easier to remember?
What concerns do you have, if
any, about keeping viewers in suspense-however briefly-about the outcome of the
accident?
Is that concern mitigated by the
fact that this is not a hard news but a feature story?
What decisions must be made in
the field while shooting and in the edit room to preserve and reveal surprises
rather than announcing
them?
