Image courtesy of Reuters and metro.co.uk
The Eyjafjallajokul volcano in Iceland began erupting just days ago, but has caused billions of dollars to be lost. People have been stranded all of the world trying to leave and return to Europe because the ash and dust create an unsafe environment for planes. A few of my friends were hoping to go to Tanzania for a humanitarian engineering project tomorrow, but they may be delayed a week because of the volcano and the infrequency of flights to Dar es Salaam.I decided to listen to an NPR report from the Morning Edition about the volcano. The transcript to the show is also linked below. After that, I read an article written by the reporter, Joe Palca, of that segment.
The transcript can be found at http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=126089707.
An article written by Palca about the same story can be found at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126089707.
The radio piece is significantly longer than the written article, so it contains some information that is not revealed in the article. For instance, in the radio segment Ilyinskaya mentions that all of the ash that they are collecting is new. The news article is still complete without this bit of information, the knowledge gained from that short statement helps the listener appreciate the magnitude of the volcano. It also makes the listener feel as if the threat posed by the volcano may be increasing, which leads to more ominous undertones to the broadcast.
Usually audio and video sources try to appeal to your emotions more than written text. It is easier for a human voice to affect a listener emotionally simply because it is easier to interpret emotion from a voice than from text. This can allow audio and video sources to force an emotion on you, rather than allowing the viewer to formulate their personal opinions and feelings about the subject.
This text is different than the previous article in the New York Times, which clearly tried to be as objective and factual as possible. The written piece by Palca tells the story much like he gave his report on the radio. This story is quite different from the Pakistani attacks, which are more likely to evoke strong emotions if the writer does not put effort into staying as objective and unemotional as possible. The conversational tone of Palca's article does make it easy for the reader to follow his journeys near the volcano. It was still easier to follow the radio report. It almost felt like a sports event, with Palca giving us a play-by-play of every event that occurred. This was an effective way to help us understand the processes and times involved in studying volcanoes.
One discrepancy between the text and audio surprised me. In the text Palca writes:
In one spot, they could see the sun through the cloud. The view allowed Ilyinskaya to measure the size of the particles in the plume and their density.But when he speaks of the same event on the radio, this exchange takes place:
PALCA: We drive deeper into the dark cloud where Evgenia hops out and set up another gas analyzer. Then she turns the car back toward the sunlight. She's looking for a spot where she can see the sun shining through the plume.The first quotation indicates that Ilyinskaya was successful in measuring the size of the particles, while the second leads us to believe that the attempt was unsuccessful.
Ms. ILYINSKAYA: Yes! This is perfect.
PALCA: She's got an instrument that can tell the size of particles in the plume by seeing how much they affect the sunlight shining through them. After wrestling with the device for 15 minutes, she gets back in the car.
Ms. ILYINSKAYA: The trouble with this piece of equipment, it's very clever, but it wasn't designed for volcanic plumes.
Actually hearing the voices of top volcanologists gave the broadcast a sense of legitimacy lacking in the written article. The article seemed like a good story with some interesting information about the eruption, we knew there were experts, but they didn't have much of an impact on the article. Unlike the article, the volcanologists were giving us information directly. This could have been done in the article by quoting them or at least paraphrasing some of their comments.
Even though neither source was full of statistics, or hard facts and figures, they both gave an interesting and clear recap of Joe Palca's trip to the Eyjafjallajokul volcano and provided some information on the volcano. I enjoyed the radio broadcast more, but if I had been in a hurry, the text would have sufficed. The storytelling prowess of Palca made for an enjoyable and informative experience in both pieces.
In general I find listening to be a very different process from reading. When I read, I control the tempo. I also determine if and when I'm going to skim. When I listen, on the other hand, I have to listen at the speaker's pace. I can't skim. Skimming allows me to glean a sense of what's being talked about, while fast-forwarding (the equivalent of skimming) obliterates sense completely. Put another way, listening empowers the narrator; reading empowers me. An over-simplification, no doubt. But that's how it feels sometimes. That's not to say that listening isn't great -- the NPR story is in fact more engaging than the article. But I agree with you: if I want to be INFORMED rather than ENGAGED, I would read the article.
ReplyDeleteListening, reading and watching are 3 different communication process. Most people are good at one or the other, a few are good at all 3. I can't say that one process is better than the other. A good writer can make experience more engaging than a speaker whose skills are moderate. I once read a writer who wrote beautiful but was disappointed when I heard him speak.
ReplyDeleteIn the volcano case it seems that the volcanologist are decent writers but better speakers. When they were writing, perhaps it is scientific thinking, they were not keen on description as they were when they were speaking. They were keen on providing the facts of the matter. But when they were speaking, they gave more descriptions, which makes the eruption more engaging.
I do not think I could be as focused as I should be when I listen. It seems that you are more likely to multitask when you listen than reading. However, you can always go back to a reading, and reread something, and besides pure absorbing the news, I don't think I could really analyze effectively something I listen.
ReplyDeleteListening to their experience allows me to use my imagination and picture myself with them at the spot of investigation. While reading, however, I am getting an insight into the factual reality of the event. Two completely different experiences. The appeal of these two media will certainly depend from person to person, mostly according to their cognitive ability. To me, however, the recorded version offers more credibility and I am more likely to remember their story. You are right to say that their subjective emotional and observing experiences become translated onto the listener. But, on the other hand, these subjective impressions, expressed also through tone of voice, add to my personal experience of the story. I guess the question also become whether we as readers or listeners prefer the objectivity or subjectivity, especially when it is a story of a giant volcanic eruption.
ReplyDelete