As a print journalist I feel a little unprepared when it comes to handling video, even with my experience in the previous two slices. Video adds another dimension to reporting. In photography you can cut most mistakes out of pictures be it through cropping or color touch-up. In audio you can edit out any superfluous sounds and tighten up the piece with ease without any obvious signs of editing. In print editing and adding information is even easier.

However, in video it seems a mistake can be drastic, perhaps requiring an awkward and noticeable edit to the tape. I’m not use to having a camera on me, I lack any real emotion and have a very monotone voice – all of this, while acceptable as a print journalist, works counter to video journalism. Being as such, chances are the current video you are watching is not the first take, nor the second. Chances also are that I’ll be unintentionally looking downward toward my notes for about 50 percent of this.

Though while I feel unprepared, I’m also excited to try out video journalism. The power of moving images is great, and I would have to say that sometimes video can capture more than words ever could. The video of the Reagan funeral evacuation is a perfect example of this. It showed the confusion that was present, something I feel a written article would have been hard pressed to do. While I see the power of storytelling that video brings with it, I also question how effective it can be at information gathering. I find working with a pen and notepad is much less intrusive than shoving a camera or audio recorder in someone’s face, allowing them to be much more candid with me.

In the end I suppose each medium has its place. Each works better or worse with different stories. Video might be good at chronicling the emotion of a president’s election, while print would be good at analyzing the election results in a more fact-oriented manner. Despite my uneasiness, I plan on having fun with this slice and hopefully emerging as a more well rounded reporter by the end of it.