**I WILL MAKE SURE ANYONE WHO ANSWERS ALL THE QUESTIONS GETS 100 POINTS** **journalism** 1. Do you think that people who read newspapers also watch local news on television or head online for their news? Explain why one form of news might be more appealing than the other for some people.

2.Would a kicker be as effective if it were in the middle of the news broadcast? Explain your answer.

3. Pacing is an important part of any news broadcast, but it does not always work as planned. Why might a news broadcast have to change its pacing? How would this impact the rest of the news?

4.Why would a news broadcast use a reader instead of a live shot? Give an example of a story that would be better suited for a reader in your answer.

5.What is the advantage of using a package instead of a live broadcast?

Explanation:

1. No. Usually people get newspapers delivered to their doorstep so they can quickly pick it up and glance through it while munching on a toast or sipping coffee. With that done, he is able to capture the headlines for the day and he is satisfied that he has a basic knowledge of what's going on. Watching TV or heading online to read more news requires time some people do not have. Glancing through a newspaper is more easier and appealing.

2. Not as effective. By the middle of a news broadcast, people already lost interest because it has been drummed in them that the important stuffs are what the broadcaster discuss first. They quickly change the channel to the TV station, listen to the headlines and the news in full (in regards to the headlines) and then they are back to watching a rerun of a match or a fashion show. It's all about targeting your audience and gaining their interest for a couple of minutes. Few people watch a full broadcast.

3. Depends on the content but the most important part is passing across the message in a considerably short time. If it draws out too much it might lack spunk and become repetitive, but if it is too brief, it might fail to inform and educate. If it's an engaging piece of information then you might have to change the pacing just to capture viewers' attention. If it is absolutely worth it.

4. When a live shot is not efficient in passing the necessary information, it's better to use a reader. There is a difference between a complete book and an abridged version, the same way there is a difference between a story and a movie adaptation. The real story will always be more informative than the adaptation (the live shot in this case).

For example, rather than doing a live shot of a fire outbreak, it's better to have a reader talk about the source, the efforts made in salvaging the situation and then the effects. The live shot might be offensive. So also is the case of a Sect Attack. All forms of violence should be read instead of shown to avoid giving some people unnecessary ideas and to avoid being offensive.

5. The events are pre-recorded. It's just left for the anchor to introduce and then let the action do the talking. It saves time and it takes out unnecessary actions, discussions that might crop up during a live broadcast. It is well organized and detailed, it passes the same message across with less stress.

can you provide the statments?

a and b are the correct answer to what your looking fior