After scoping out all my options, Bloggingheads,Short Vlog etc, to write about, I decided I'd stick to what I know is a legitimate and entertaining source, The New York Times. The story I chose was on Boxing in the Philippines. Like many other countries, the Philippines is a very poor country, so boxing ends up being a way to literally fight out of poverty. This story can be characterized as an editorial rather than a feature story because of its controversial nature. Just hearing the term fighting, I believe, stirs negative thoughts, but when you watch the video the fighting perspective becomes much more vivid. The story I chose is an effective video because it displays the reasoning behind boxing and why people partake in the physical action. The video demonstrates how poor the country is and fighting saves families lives. When reading a paper, people can see pictures and people can easily twist the story to make it look like a lush area with no troubles. When video production is present though, nothing can be hidden and the truth can easily be portrayed. The ineffectiveness that could be present with a piece like this, is editors only showing the boxing nature and cropping out what the people must deal with on a daily basis. The video side of this short film is what was effective, so reading the info I would believe to be just another blurb on a page. Fight For Life baby!!
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/11/12/sports/1247465653943/boxing-in-the-shadow-of-pacquiao.html
No comments:
Post a Comment