On March 22, 2016 around 8:00am there was a terrorist attack in Brussels, Belgium. I analyzed a radio report, a television broadcast, and a print article about the attack, in order to see the different ways these journalism mediums cover a story. I focused in on looking at the time and date the news was released, how well the story was covered, and how each medium impacts different emotions.
The radio broadcast was released approximately eight and a half hours after the Brussel Attack took place and while this was good for immediacy, not enough information had been released and not all questions were able to be answered. There was an host and a counterterrorism correspondent reporting the attack and they did a very good job of reporting what happened, who was involved, where the attacks took place, why brussels was specifically targeted, and what ISIS had planned for the attack. I felt like every time I had a new question about the attack, the host asked it and it was answered to my satisfaction. After summarizing the information they had on the attack, the host went into why ISIS would have motivation to attack Brussels and the counterterrorism correspondent discussed the amount of Belgians going to Syria to fight. It was helpful to the story that they gave more background about the attack since there was not a lot of new information released at the time.
The video I choose to analyze came out two days after the Brussels attack occurred but there were many more broadcasts released earlier. The video was not as informative as the article or the radio broadcast and it left me with many more questions about what had happened. However, the emotional appeal of the video was much more impactful because of the images and sounds of people screaming. Seeing the effects of the explosion and the emotions of the people there, made me care more about the situation. I wanted to know more about what happened because I felt emotion for the people impacted.
The article came out the day after the explosion and had the most information of all the reports on the attack. It is nice to be able to go back through the article without having to listen or watch the entire thing again, however, reading through what happened and what the places look like now is a lot less intriguing than watching actual footage of the damage. I found myself skimming through the article because although it was thorough, it was almost too detailed and not as engaging as the video or the radio. The biggest advantage of the print is that there did not seem to have a limit of information whereas the video and the radio seemed like they needed to be a certain amount of time.
The radio broadcast aired very fast after the attack and covered a lot of background information but not the whole story. The television broadcast was mostly all emotional appeal and it made me want to know more about the story, but there was not a lot of information in the video itself. Finally, the article report had the most information and was very detailed, but not much of an emotional appeal and there were no visuals. Overall, each had its own strengths and weaknesses and it just depends on what the reader wants to get out of the story. In my case I enjoyed watching the video as a hook to pull me into the story and then reading the article because it had all the information needed to get a good picture of the story.