They call it being a visual learner right? The idea that one can better interpret material and retain it by being witness to visual stimuli?
Then why do viewers pay more attention to content with audio? Particularly, natural sound.
This thought has been on my mind a lot lately. As a natural debater, I just could not find myself aligning with these principles…. until now.
This work, done by The New York Times, is titled “Illegal Logging Thrives in Peru, Environmentalists Say.” Now before I even go into the lesson I’ve learned, and ramble on about how this work proved me wrong, that headline… it diminishes their credibility in the sheer fact that they feel they must attribute it so prominently. I understand its purpose, but find it would fit better later on, it does not lure me to the slideshow, which has FANTASTIC SHOTS.
The photographs are unique. The coloring often sets the tone, and no one shot appears similar. The photos’ order, though I am unsure if it is purposeful, tells a story from one angle to the next. A rare, but interesting take from the usual chronological style. The captions are short and for a tough topic to cover, are simplistic enough to allow some take-away. What this story is lacking however, is crucial audio. I cannot say I was satisfied with just images. I wanted to hear that chainsaw tearing down trees and hear the cries of people from the community affected by it. I guess I wanted something real. And just looking through the eyes of a subject, you can tell there is a deeper story than what meets the eye.
That, I’m afraid is what audio is for.
If I were to do this piece as an assignment, I would not change one thing regarding the content and quality of the images, but instead would record and report on the multiple perspectives from the community. It could take a more humanistic angle. Telling viewers over seas, why THEY should care.
But alas, perhaps one day I too will receive the opportunity to report abroad.
Until then —