https://mic.com/articles/191504/snapchat-voter-registration-drive#.q7XOwNmd1
http://time.com/4506506/snapchat-voter-registration/
I read this story because I saw on Snapchat that you could register to vote. Both stories focused on how this election, millennials are highly encouraged to vote, so much so that Snapchat partnered with Turbo Vote for National Voter Registration Day to encourage its users. they both were very short stories, the video on TIME.com was only 30 seconds long, and the article on Mic.com was only a couple of paragraphs.
Both the videos and the articles lead focused on why Snapchat partnered, giving an introduction on the significance of the day. The video was a voice over with pictures and videos, showing the use of snapchat, and what the form looks like to fill out on the app. The article took this story a step further to show a picture of the snapchat filter made for Voter Registration Day, and quotes from Jennifer Stout, Snapchats global head of public policy. The article gives more description from the Snapchat press release, and statistics of the ages of their users.
I really liked the use of a video in the broadcast story, they are able to show more of the typical use of snapchat. I really liked how in part of the video, they split the screen in to make it look like many videos from phones right next to each other, emphasizing the ability and use of snapchat.
It’s hard to tell which is the video and which is the ptint. Time does the more traditional video story. Mic.com always looks like a hybrid of print, video and social media. It’s not a purely print story. Both stories do provide the reader basic info, and links to TurboVote, which seems key.
Is that stepping over a line, do you think?