A few weeks after Nancy Cohen reported on Broadwater's place in the overall LNG landscape for WNPR, she wrote an entirely new story, adding new information for National Public Radio's Morning Edition. It's a very different story - written for a different audience. (Image Credit, Wes Rand Hartford Courant)
10 comments:
Okay - feel free to post comments. I'm just looking for your impressions about how this story is differernt than the first Broadwater story we heard. You may have to sign up with Google first. jd
Although Nancy Cohen's first Broadwater piece was factual, informative and well-researched, it made the audience feel somewhat distanced from the story because it did not contain much description or local point of view.
The second story, however, was excellent. Right away, the sound of the water and description of the area drew the listener in, and allowed them to picture the area in their mind.
The first interview from the lady with the New York accent truly summed up how opposed many residents are to this project, whether it will enhance their energy needs or not. As this woman pointed out, the broadwater project would destroy New York's "last vestige of nature and the natural world".
This story truly captured the strong opinions of New Yorkers, as well as the people who support the Broadwater project. The focus on local people and Cohen's detailed descriptions definitely improved the second version of this story. Also, Cohen still included relevant and important facts, making this an all around informative and interesting story.
This second story was much more complete. The choice of interview sound bites really strengthened the piece, who doesn't trust America's Mayor, Rudy Guiliani? The pace of this story flowed much more smoothly in comparison to the first one. I don't know if it was my personal opinion on the issue but I felt the piece had more positive leanings toward Broadwater. I came away from the story thinking, "safe, secure, no threat".
If I had been listening to NPR when Nancy Cohen's first Broadwater story came on the air, I probably would have moved on to another station after 30 seconds or so. The story, while presenting a host of information, was dull and seemed to drag on for a very long time.
The second piece, however, perked my senses immediately with the gentle sound of lapping waves. As someone who loves the beach, I wanted to hear what this was about. Cohen puts in a much more thorough effort in setting the scene for the listener and providing background about Broadwater moreso than the first story. I found it especially effective to put the background voices in as ambience for the local citizens she interviewed. This helped enhance the feeling that this issue is causing a commotion and getting people to make themselves heard. Including the citizens' opinions was a great improvement as well. So many of us who watch/read/listen to the news want to know how what is happening affects us or those around us, and Cohen recognizes that fact more the second time around.
This second version was more appealing, drawing me in with the lappng waves and the yammering of the protesters in the Adrian Espositio sound bite. I found myself wishing that the sounds could continue, but did not hear any more after that.
I think Nancy interviewed five people in all. The picture painting contiinued with the politician describing the gas platform as "a monster out there." And Rudy Giuliani's voice also made me sit up and take notice at a spot where I may have tuned out. By the fifth source, I felt I had a good overview of both sides, and that turned out to be her last source.
I think the editing of the sound bites was crisper in the second version, thus holding my interest. And, her ending summation was appropriately brief and to the point.
Unfortunately, I had trouble listening from home and was only able to open it at work.
There was an overall significant difference in Nancy's second story. Here are some of the reasons why:
The first story presented a great deal of specific information that made it challenging to follow along to understand the main issue and the points of views. The second story clearly and concisely defined the purpose for this initiative, the issue, and why it matters; it also maintained a logical flow. This time the listener could be clear on what this all means and why people either do or do not support Broadwater. Nancy also clarified what to expect next.
The first story left the listner hanging at times - the set up for the soundbite was there, but at times there was no soundbite to follow. The second story was right on point with the soundbites - there was one to go with each set up. Whether for or against Broadwater, the people she chose were believable and credible. They all added value and understanding for the listener. It was great to hear from local folks this time around.
Second time's a charm! Now I get it.
I agree with what most have already posted, which reflects what was discussed in class when we heard the first Broadwater story.
The first Broadwater story seemed to give way too much information in a short amount of time, which left me very confused. One of the big issues I had with the first story is that is appeared that she did not interview anyone from New York, but repeatedly said that Broadwater is a New York project (despite all the protesting from CT). I feel after listening to the second Broadwater story, there is better representation of New York's involvement and why people from CT are so interested in Broadwater. To have a quote from Rudy Guiliani, who is not only America's mayor (as Heather apty put), but is so identifiable with New York, absolutely strengthens the piece.
I liked the pacing of the second Broadwater story; I didn't feel rushed or like I had to play catch-up because I was still distracted by what Cohen said previous. In the second story, there's enough space (in a sense) for the listener to take in what was just said; there's time to process.
The ambient sound in the second story also helped set the tone & mood, and reflected whoever was speaking at the time. For example, at the protest, the background noise behind Esposito: not only is she protesting, but there are many others who share her views.
Overall, the second story just works better all around.
I agree with the previous comments that highlighted how the first broadwater story came off as disjointed and removed.
The second story, with the marvelous use of ambient sound even during those portions where Ms. Cohen is reading her script - captured my attention nicely.
Even better, in vers. 2 she disects what the whole LNG pipeline process would mean and how it would be implemented and where the gas shipments would come from (which adds fuel to the proverbial fire in the argument).
I thought that the Giuliani quote, however, was much too brief. So brief and general, in fact, that his was a message that could've - in theory - been extracted from some random sound bite.
ee
Post a Comment