https://apnews.com/article/sports-europe-italy-milan-215d8ad68ddbfc88a36e06b397f21c57 – article

https://www.cnn.com/audio/podcasts/cnn-breaking-news-alert – broadcasting

Today, a man grabbed a knife from a supermarket shelf and stabbed five people, killing one and wounding four others, including Spanish soccer player Pablo Mari. After arresting a suspect of the crime, it was informed that the man showed signs of being psychologically unstable.

The celebrity from Arsenal, Mari, has been hospitalized but is not seriously hurt.

The two media cover a lot of the same stuff from the story and mentions a lot of the same details. However, there was immediately a thing that stuck out to me; the way CNN presents themselves before telling the story and how their website is mentioned in the end. Another thing I noticed is how the written article from APNews has some more detail to it. For example, the article mentions that the incident happened at a supermarket whereas the audio only mentions it being in Milan. A lot of this small details are covered in the written media compared to the audio, but they both still end up having the same message/purpose.

From what I have seen this seems to be the typical way the two media compares. Written is more detailed than audio, just like books have more details than the movie. Personally, I would probably prefer the written over audio, just because you get that ounce of extra detail.