I listened to a story from NPR's All Things Considered Program about the government shutdown. Right away I noticed a few key differences in how it was written compared to print journalism. First, there is no rigid adherence to the inverted pyramid style. I think that the broadcast writing is more of a narrative, the telling of a story, rather than listing key facts in descending importance. Second, I realized that instead of having direct quotes to add credibility they could interview a source so that everyone can hear their words first hand. At one point during the program there was a recording of a famous speech, which made think about all the ways that broadcast has more freedom to make their stories more interesting (sound effects, music, recordings, interviews, etc).
There are also many similarities to print journalism. Mainly, the word choice and language of the stories is still conversational and common in both mediums. I think it's important that in both forms of journalism, when it's not a story geared to a specific audience niche, to use conversational language. This is done by not making a spectacle out of using longer and harder words, and keeping sentences shorter and simpler. When it comes to attributions, it's important that in broadcast journalism the introduction comes before the quoted material. When we are reading a story in print, we understand that a quote is beginning thanks to the punctuation marks, but it would be confusing if a broadcast just started saying quoted material and then acknowledge that fact at the end of the sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment