The lead for the article written about this story was “The 19-year-old gunman who killed two people at a St. Louis high school Monday was armed with an AR-15 style rifle and over 600 rounds of ammunition, and left behind a note referencing mass shootings, police said.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas the lead for the video was “This morning, another community traumatized and heartbroken by a school shooting that killed a teacher and sophomore. A local news chopper capturing the terrifying scene as hundreds of students and staff scramble to safety.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The biggest difference here falls in the fact that the video is telling us much more about the “what happened in that very moment” type of news and the article is stating more information after the fact, such as how many rounds the gun had.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Length wise, the video definitely has much more information. It took me about a minute to read the article, and the video was over 2 minutes long. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The video also had many more sources on the scene such as students, faculty, and parents. The article, on the other hand, uses sources such as the Police Chief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I think seeing the footage on the video definitely made me more interested to keep watching. It allowed me to feel sympathy for those people in St. Louis because I was able to hear their voices and see their faces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Overall, I think the video’s content was much better than the article’s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article:<\/p>\n\n\n\n