Pre-Video Assignment, Schorchit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNEJnMVsFD8

Good Example: It does not explicitly explain/or describe the journey for a South/Central American immigrant, especially immigrant children, crossing the Mexican border, but rather it shows the people's plight. The Washington Post uses individual characters like the 12-year-old boy Isaac and the woman named Doris to tell the story and, personally, I feel like that device helps tell the story even better. The Post could have used an interview of someone who speaks English as a voice-over to explain the situation of these caravans, but instead, they choose to keep the video purely in Spanish using English subtitles. This helps make the story more authentic for the audience, almost as if we're vicariously living through these individuals. It also keeps the story concentrated on the travelers and their immigration story. The voice overs in the video are very well done with essential footage that connects us and helps us truly comprehend the experiences of the interviewees.

http://www.wsj.com/video/what-is-gab-and-who-uses-it/9B9A1FBA-DECE-4C4E-BC23-68C9AA62C167.html

Bad Example: Although I wouldn't consider this video terrible, I have chosen it as a bad example. Firstly, the story, or rather the information, that the Wall Street Journal is trying to convey really does not seem suited for a video presentation. For this type of content and style of video, it could have been made shorter in order to keep the audience engaged. There were scenes in the video where there were pictures of documents and such being shown with caption and no audio, and I feel that these could have been incorporated as voice-overs, saving time and making the video more engaging for the audience. There were hasty cuts to the professor's interview towards the end of the video that could have been made much cleaner, and it could have smoother transitions if a voice over was used for those cut parts.