Sophia Kocur
Winstead, Ed. “Putting It All Together — on Video.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Nov. 2017,
This article titled, “Putting It All Together — on Video,” Members of The New York Times’s video department explain how they use forensic techniques to uncover new information about news stories. On Oct. 26, the United Nations released the findings of an investigation on a lethal sarin gas attack in a Syrian village in April that the Syrian Air Force was responsible for. This was no surprise to the director of news for The New York Times’s video unit, Mark Scheffler, who worked to uncover what really happened in Khan Sheikhoun.
After the attack, two of Mr. Scheffler’s team members, the senior story producer Malachy Browne and the video editor Natalie Reneau, pieced together satellite imagery, photographs and videos of the attack, drone footage and more into a seven-minute video examining the strike. They concluded that “all of the circumstantial evidence points to a chemical weapon being dropped,” as Mr. Browne says in the video, which “put Syria and Russia’s story in serious doubt.”
“We’re increasingly seeing the value in this type of reporting, and The Times has committed to making it a part of how we gather and report the news,” said Marcelle Hopkins, the deputy editor of the video department. “It has been done in the past with human rights organizations and some smaller investigative organizations, but we’ve recognized that this is something that can be extremely useful in reporting.” For Mr. Browne, videos of an event not only provide a sense of what it was like to be there, but are also sources of important information about the location and timing of key moments. “There has to be visual evidence that we can make deductions around, and there have to be discrepancies in the story being told” — by governments, the police or even the news media — “and the one we think we can tell through this sort of evidence-based journalism.”
Overall, Witte’s article is well-written. The information is presented chronologically, and it is easy to follow why video footage is so important to developing cases despite all of the other different elements of the crime being examined. However, I would have preferred if the article mentioned what kind of specific evidence was found while using the new method that they had. I know this was strictly a “report” of what new method they found, but because this was on a forensics publication, explaining what kinds of evidence they were able to obtain would have been more appropriate.
Winstead, Ed. “Putting It All Together - on Video.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/insider/video-forensic-investigations.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic+Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection%E2%80%99%E2%80%99.
ReplyDeleteThis review on "Putting It All Together- On Video", by Sophia Kocur is well written. What strikes me is how efficiently the reviewer is able to summarize the whole article in their first sentence. This allows for clarity and a deeper understanding as the reader will already have a strong sense about the main theme of the article. As well as this, another strong point in this review is the use of direct quotes as they support the reviewer's summary as well as provide an extra depth of knowledge for the reader in fewer sentences. Finally, the reviewer also allowed for the article summary to be easily understood through writing it in chronological order. This allows for the reader to easily follow the flow.
Whilst this article is well written, there are some areas which could be improved. For example, images of the video forensics process could be helpful to the reader to better understand the forensic process. In addition, images could help to keep the readers interest and could also be helpful for different types of learners. Another area of improvement could be in how the reviewer connects video forensics to people's daily lives as some of their quotes allude to how it could be used but it's never directly mentioned. This would help the reader to take something away from the review that they could use in their own lives.
All in all, this review was informative and intriguing as I had never known what video forensics was or how it's used. From this article I promptly looked into other ways video forensics is used in my life and learned that CCTV is used all across the US and can be used against you in court in the US.
Amelia Orth
ReplyDelete9/12/21
https://bhscorechem.blogspot.com/2017/11/sophia-kocur-httpswww.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/insider/video-forensic-investigations.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
One aspect that the blogger discussed is the New York Times using forensic techniques to uncover information and stories in their video department. For example, “On Oct. 26, the United Nations released the findings of an investigation on a lethal sarin gas attack in Syria in April that the Syrian Air Force was responsible for” (Kocur). This uncovers what really happened there. Another aspect is the result of this investigation. “They concluded that ‘all of the circumstantial evidence points to a chemical weapon being dropped’” (Kocur). They discovered this by putting together satellite images. The third aspect the blogger includes is how video footage is significant in solving all kinds of cases. Where the blogger could improve however is including or finding examples of various times when video footage is significant rather than just one. It would have been helpful and understanding to relate to different scenarios. Maybe even explaining the science behind the footage. The impression this review gave was one that showed solving a problem with examples of how this “problem solving” is used in important real life issues. This review was chosen because of its term of “new stories” and uncovering them which appealed interest. It changed my perspective on problem solving and how there are many solutions to a problem.
Matthew Presant 9-13-2021
ReplyDeleteWinstead, Ed. “Putting It All Together — on Video.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Nov. 2017,
Putting It All Together — on Video
Blog Review of Article
The review of the New York Times article, "Putting It All Together -- On Video" by Ed Winstead, written by Sophia Kocur had some good features. One aspect of the review which was well constructed was that there was no shortage of quotes from experts. One such quote included in the review was from Malachy Browne, the senior story producer, who worked in the New York Times Video Unit. '"all of the circumstantial evidence points to a chemical weapon being dropped' as Mr. Browne says in the video, which 'put Syria and Russia's story in serious doubt (Kocur)"'. This information is important to include because it offers the opinion of someone directly involved with the story. Another good aspect of the article which was included was all the information related to why this forensic technique of reporting is very useful. The reviewer included information from the article which explained how creating a video using these forensic techniques can "not only provide a sense of what it was like to be there, but are also sources of important information about the location and timing of key moments" (Kocur). This is critical to include because it makes it clear why reporting would be done using these forensic techniques. A third aspect done fairly well was the critique because it was made up of all original writing, and the reviewer recognized how important that this forensic technique of reporting is.
While there were some good aspects of the review, there were also some areas for improvement. For example, the reviewer didn't properly quote and while they did include expert opinions, they did not properly quote information that they got from the article which wasn't dialogue. To be specific, several sentences taken from the article directly weren't put in quotation marks. Here is an example of a sentence that wasn't given quotes in the review. "After the attack, two of Mr. Scheffler’s team members, the senior story producer Malachy Browne and the video editor Natalie Reneau, pieced together satellite imagery, photographs and videos of the attack, drone footage and more into a seven-minute video examining the strike" (Kocur). This example makes it clear that the reviewer has to improve at quoting properly. In addition, there could've been more original writing in the review. Almost all of this review was made up of quotes or sentences that weren't properly quoted. For instance the second paragraph was made up entirely from writing in the article. "'After the attack, two of Mr. Scheffler’s team members, the senior story producer Malachy Browne and the video editor Natalie Reneau, pieced together satellite imagery, photographs and videos of the attack, drone footage and more into a seven-minute video examining the strike. They concluded that 'all of the circumstantial evidence points to a chemical weapon being dropped,' as Mr. Browne says in the video, which 'put Syria and Russia’s story in serious doubt'" (Kocur). The reviewer should’ve put more of their own thoughts and opinions into the review.
The one part of this review that impressed me the most was all of the quotes from experts. Including quotes from experts adds valuable insight, because they are people really involved in the story.
Jeffrey Colangelo
ReplyDelete9/13/2021
Winstead, Ed. “Putting It All Together - on Video.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Nov. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/insider/video-forensic-investigations.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
https://bhscorechem.blogspot.com/2017/11/sophia-kocur-httpswww.html#comment-form
Many aspects of this review were well written and presented. For example, one part of the review that was good was the summary. This was especially good in my opinion because it was very well written and in only 3 sentences she was able to summarize the whole topic with much understanding. Another aspect of this review that was well done was the real world example she gave in the body paragraphs of the review. For example, “After the attack, two of Mr. Scheffler’s team members, the senior story producer Malachy Browne and the video editor Natalie Reneau, pieced together satellite imagery, photographs and videos of the attack, drone footage and more into a seven-minute video examining the strike.” (Kocur) This helps the reader become more involved and helps them see a real scenario where video helped to be used as evidence. Finally what I think was the best part of this review was Sophia's critique of the report. ”I know this was strictly a “report” of what new method they found, but because this was in a forensics publication, explaining what kinds of evidence they were able to obtain would have been more appropriate.”(Kocur) I think this because in her critique she explained what was wrong with the article but also what would have made it better and what New York Time should have done differently. It is hard to find something Sophia did wrong but one thing I did notice was that maybe she could have explained more in the summary instead of just almost immediately talking about an event that happened. What I think she could have done is for 1 or 2 more sentences explaining the use of videography and how it has affected how we find evidence, and then add the last 2 sentences of the first paragraph to the 2 paragraphs. Another thing that could have been mentioned in this review that I wish was said was how these videos were being used and why they were even being made. This could have helped some readers to fully understand the use of these videos. This review changed my perspective on the use of videography for evidence because although I knew videos were used and how useful they can be. I chose this review to comment on because it seemed like something that is something that everyone knows about but after reading it taught me a lot about the different forms of evidence used like satellite imagery, or drone video.
Zachary Loader
ReplyDelete9/13/2021
Winstead, Ed. “Putting It All Together Video.”The New York Times,6 Nov. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/insider/video-forensic-investigations.htmlrref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
There were many parts of this review that were well written and very well presented. The first example of this is the quotes used to show what professionals think of the new software and how it could be very useful on the future. An example of these quotes are “It has been done in the past with human rights organizations and some smaller investigative organizations, but we’ve recognized that this is something that can be extremely useful in reporting.” Another aspect of the report that was quite well written was the summary. The summary was so well written because it only took a few sentences to clear up and show us the overall situation that this new technology is useful in. An example of the short summary is "the United Nations released the findings of an investigation on a lethal sarin gas attack in a Syrian village in April that the Syrian Air Force was responsible for. This was no surprise to the director of news for The New York Times’s video unit, Mark Scheffler, who worked to uncover what really happened in Khan Sheikhoun." This is a large part of the summary and it shows how short it is cause it is only two sentences. There were also a few parts of this review that could use some work. This includes the summary because the summary just lacks enough description so it is hard to understand some of the information later on in the review. Another part of the review that could use some work is explaining the actual videographic technology and explaining how it worked so we could properly understand how we can actually use the technology and how it can be helpful. But overall, I think this was a very good review and did a good job showing the importance of this technology and why it is going to be very useful in the future.