These stories
illustrate two different ways of getting the voices of "real people" into the
news. Both are v/o sots, not packages, but they're different largely because of
the way the sound bites were collected and presented. The first version takes a
standard MOS (man-on-the-street) approach. The second version lets the viewer
listen in on conversations between
participants.
The Story: World Bank Protest
The
Changes
About 200 people protested outside the World Bank today.
They were vastly outnumbered by police, and the demonstration
was peaceful. (This story was produced by NewsLab and
Soundbites come from three
people, and all sound is from conversations between them, not from interviews.
The use of wireless microphones and shooting from a
distance make people less aware of
did not air.)
The Issues
The first version takes a
standard approach to a man-on-the-street story, with sound from just two people.
The soundbites almost appear to
be scripted. They lack spontaneity.
The use of a hand microphone for
interviews makes interviewees appear somewhat
stiff.
the camera and therefore more
relaxed.
The segment looks different from
standard TV news fare.
This approach mimics one of the
most common ways in which people learn about the world and develop their own
opinions--through normal, everyday conversations with friends and colleagues.
For
Discussion
How do the views people express
to a reporter differ from those expressed in conversation with a friend? In
content? In tone?
Which version offered more
insight into the participants' views and feelings?
Which version was less
predictable and more interesting to watch?
Which version seemed more
accessible to you as a viewer?
Why?
