Supplementing a magazine article or other kind of news story with video or other visual mediums is a good way reach news consumers who may not like to read and can be the perfect way to tell a story. That being said it isn't always necessary. Video or a photo slide show is great for stories which have a visual aspect to them. I have seen natural disasters such as mud slides covered with jaw-dropping video. People are in awe about the devastation that is caused, and they need to see it for themselves to understand. Most people have never seen a tsunami or tornado and therefore these things make for good visual stories. Sports stories also do well with audio and visual aids. A writer, no matter how good, is not going to be able to write about a slam dunk in a better or more entertaining way than than someone viewing it for themselves.
So when is it not a good idea to use the aforementioned audio and visual components for a story? When they are not necessary. You can cover hundreds of school board meetings and chances are your not going to run into anything that requires people to see it. Video or photos of a council member discussing a budget expansion are not going to add anything to a piece.
A lot of stories can be done using both traditional writing and video to supplement that writing. The way I see it, people want to be informed and entertained. If it is an entertainment piece you are working on like covering a concert you are probably going to want to include art or video. You would certainly want to have audio as well. If you are working on a story that is being written primarily to inform like the council meeting your piece can probably stand on its own.
At the region 4 Society of Profession Journalist conference I recently attended the keynote speaker Wesley Lowery reminded attendees to "Be prepared to be luck" if they want to make good news. So it is important to be prepared to take video even if you don't think its necessary. Former Pennsylvania Treasurer Budd Dwyer committed a public suicide at a press conference in 1987, and I'm certain any station or paper that didn't have visuals was disappointed. This was also a good example of when to choose the right type of visual as many news outlets chose to use still shots of the crowd in panic or of Dwyer with the gun in his rather than showing the video which they considered to be too explicit for their viewerships.
So when is it not a good idea to use the aforementioned audio and visual components for a story? When they are not necessary. You can cover hundreds of school board meetings and chances are your not going to run into anything that requires people to see it. Video or photos of a council member discussing a budget expansion are not going to add anything to a piece.
A lot of stories can be done using both traditional writing and video to supplement that writing. The way I see it, people want to be informed and entertained. If it is an entertainment piece you are working on like covering a concert you are probably going to want to include art or video. You would certainly want to have audio as well. If you are working on a story that is being written primarily to inform like the council meeting your piece can probably stand on its own.
At the region 4 Society of Profession Journalist conference I recently attended the keynote speaker Wesley Lowery reminded attendees to "Be prepared to be luck" if they want to make good news. So it is important to be prepared to take video even if you don't think its necessary. Former Pennsylvania Treasurer Budd Dwyer committed a public suicide at a press conference in 1987, and I'm certain any station or paper that didn't have visuals was disappointed. This was also a good example of when to choose the right type of visual as many news outlets chose to use still shots of the crowd in panic or of Dwyer with the gun in his rather than showing the video which they considered to be too explicit for their viewerships.