These stories
illustrate the importance of words in television news. Both versions use the
same limited video: courtroom, file tape, still photos. But the difference
between them is immense. These stories show how simple language is more powerful
than jargon, and how details are more powerful than generalities. Use the
stories to discuss structure as well-one version uses an inverted pyramid
structure and the other a more narrative, chronological
structure.
The Story: Sentencing Hearing
The
Changes
A 24-year-old man is
being sentenced today for the murder of Seattle businessman David Loucks. This
day-of-air story tells what happened in the courthouse. Reporter: Kim Riemland.
The story is told as it happened
in the courtroom, with the result revealed at the end.
The writer establishes a
framework for
the story at the start, contrasting the case number with
the
(NOTE: The second
version of this story aired on KOMO-TV in Seattle.)
The
Issues
The story tells the result of the
hearing in the first sentence, without context.
The writer uses words and
pictures to evoke emotion ("emotional hearing," "distraught family," a woman
weeping), but provides no framework for understanding the emotions.
The description of the crime is
mostly in police jargon. Notice the language used: strangulation murder,
asphyxiation, bound and gagged.
The writer describes the
pictures, telling us what we can already see.
Sound bites are so short their
emotional impact is defused.
personal story of "the woman
in the second row." She brings the story to a close using
similar language.
The writer includes more
background on the victim's personal life.
The writer refers to the victim
and his wife by their first names.
The description of the crime is
in plain language.
Sound bites are allowed to run
long, increasing their emotional impact.
For Discussion
How is the second story different
from most stories you see about crime?
Does the inclusion of more detail
in the second version give viewers a better understanding of the impact of the
crime and why it matters?
Which version is more likely to
maintain a viewer's interest? Why?
Does the viewer's experience of
this story change if he or she knows from the beginning that the man will serve
almost 30 years?
What is the effect of using first
names to refer to people in a story?
What is the effect of beginning
and ending with the same information?
Look for parallels and
comparisons in the writing. How does this kind of writing help viewers?
The video is basically the same
in both versions. Can writing alone make a significant difference in television
news stories?
How?
