Sunday’s New York Times cover story was a feature about a
young woman that had been entangled with ISIS groomers online. I saw it at first
in print a Starbucks, then went home to finish the story by looking it up
online.
When I searched and found the article, “ISIS and the young
lonely American,” a video popped up, and for the next eight minutes I watched a
young girl talk about her online ‘friends’ and her new found Islamic faith. The
video did not show her face, but it played footage of her recounting some of
her views that were not included in the print article.
The difference was significant: in the print version of the
article the woman was dignified, if simply a little lost. In the video, she
seemed almost childish, yet unbearably lonely in her grandparents house in the
middle of nowhere. The video showed her room, her things, what she wore and
other details that the article had left out.
I was intrigued initially, though, by what had been printed
in the article, and I went on to finish the long feature after watching the
video. Honestly, had I only stumbled across the online version, I may not have
taken the time to read the story in its entirety after watching the video. It
was very well written and I felt very personally involved in the story. Again I
began to wonder about the future of Journalism and how the rising trend toward online
consumption will change the way that we present the news.
This feature was very in depth, uncovered a complicated and
frequently misunderstood subject, and was frankly a bit frightening. The use of
the video footage of the subject of the feature actually enhanced its reality.
When I was reading, I felt distanced from the woman and her issues felt alien
and unrelated. When I watched the video, suddenly the was real. The two mediums
gave completely different tones, yet in a way they complemented one another.
The print story provided much needed storyline and background information,
while the video allowed the subject to tell her version of reality to the
viewer without filter or interpretation.
I’m not sure that the use of video would be effective in
every online story, but for this feature it brought the people and places to
life very effectively. The article can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/world/americas/isis-online-recruiting-american.html?_r=0
Someone I interviewed for my local business homework made the comment, something like, People don't read any more. Video is definitely an easier way to consume information, and I'm guessing that in this case, the ideas in a page of text were summarized in a second of video, that the lonely, childish girl was vulnerable, right?
ReplyDelete