These stories
demonstrate how a non-visual story can be made more interesting to watch, and as
a result, more understandable. Both versions have essentially the same audio
track. The differences, which are substantial, are in the video. Use these
stories to compare the effectiveness of using file tape to the effectiveness of
a demonstrative on-camera presentation in telling a complex, non-visual
story.
The Story: APEC Conference
The
Changes
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference opens
tomorrow in Seattle, WA. There are no events today. This
preview story explains what the group does, what it has
Version two replaces generic
b-roll with show-and-tell style on-camera sections.
Photographer/ editor uses reverse
video and slow-motion video (where we see the reporter picking up the money) to
show a change in policy.
accomplished so far, and why that matters
to local viewers.
Reporter: Josephine Cheng.
The Issues
Version one is video poor,
depending to a large extent on file tape.
Much of the b-roll is generic,
not matched to the audio track.
The script includes too many
numbers without any visual illustration.
Reporter uses a visual aid (stack
of paper) to match the track's description of how customs forms have
changed.
For Discussion
How does the use of file B-roll
help viewers understand the issue under discussion? Does this kind of video send
a subtle, unintended message to viewers about the freshness or significance of
the story?
Can a reporter show-and-tell,
on-camera, help to explain a complex story? How?
Are there potential drawbacks to
doing this kind of on-camera presentation? What are they?
What is the effect of using
reverse video and slow-motion video in this story?
What other options can you think
of for illustrating this kind of
story?
