wait...TV/Radio reporting...WHAT?

I'm so used to learning about print journlaism, practicing print journalism, talking print journalism that it felt a bot weird to learn about broadcast journalism. I attended a journalism workshop in 2005. While I was there, I indulged in radion andnewspaper reporting. When I look at my stories today, the difference in the print version of the story and th eradio version of the same is quite obvious. The radio version is simply "pat pat pat"...there was no ink wasted descrining anything. Sentences were short and to the point. And it almost was more fun because I had never quite created a radio report before. While reading this chapter, I recalled all the points that my mentors at the workshop pointed out to me.
The four criteria that defines broadcast journalism is not very much different from the criteria of print journalism, except for the part about audio and visual impact. It was interesting to see how the authors tressed on the use of present tense and the dire need to ensure "the story is happening right now" feel. It seems quite easy to write the way you talk...but it is quite surprising to find the many faults in the way we talk- the slang, the passive voice, the extra punctutatons etc. The most important aspect of both print and broadcast journalism is the need for clarity. It is true that it might be more imperative to be more clear while reporting for the radio and TV because the audience only has one shot to understand the core of the story. I actually quite liked the terms and abbreviations that the a radio/ TV story has : lead ins, wrap-ups, SDT, MOC, etc. The authors did a great job of speeling out what is necessary to successfully report for a radio/TV station. The other aspect of printvs tv/radio that never phased me was the quote attribution...in TV/radio, we attribute the quote in the beginning rather than the end/middle as we do in print.
I still like print.