I looked at a video and print stories for Jose Fernandez. They both really describe what Jose Fernandez was about and talked about how he had a legacy on the sport. In the print story, it talks about what Fernandez did that made him the way he was and that resulted in why so many people loved to watch him play. In the video story, it talked about how he played with such passion and flare, and it also showed him doing some of his best plays or most emotional plays. The best was a video of him catching a line drive that went right to the him hard up the middle and he snagged it and got an exciting look on his face as he stared down Troy Tulowitzki, the man who hit the ball. Tulowitzki looked at Fernandez and said “did you really catch that?” Fernandez looked at him and yelled “yup.” Seeing this side of Fernandez makes the print stories almost useless unless you want to hear all the background of him, like some articles do about his death. Overall I think that video is better for entertainment, but I believe that print is better for knowledge.
Print can tell the same stories as broadcast, but only if they have space for description. Read any good Sports Illustarted or ESPN The Magazine story and you’ll see.
You focus here more on the stories being told rather than HOW the stories are constructed. As I said in class, broadcst stories are generally shorter, more personal, and they let the images carry the weight of the story. Print stores focus on detail and facts.