Its 6 pm on a Tuesday and you’re sitting on your couch reading a script produced from the words said by a news caster recording the Hindenburg tragedy. It is clear the newscaster is upset about the situation, but the script seems dry. There is something missing. It is difficult to get a sense of the emotions felt by those experiencing the tragedy. You finish reading the script, put it down, and move to turn on your radio for some good listening. The content of the script did not leave you shaken up or emotionally unsettled in really any way.

Flash forward, you’ve been listening to the radio for some 20 minutes now. The newscaster recording the Hindenburg incident has just come on the air. He begins speaking. Initially he seems calm, like he can handle the coming storm. As his speech progresses you begin to hear the terror in his voice, the sheer horror in his pitch. “Ladies and gentleman! It’s horrible ladies and gentlemen!” You pick up on the faint whimper in his tone, like hes on the verge of crying. Hairs stand up on the back of your neck. The voice is so close. So identifiable. You’ve been there, been in a state of overwhelming fear and agony and you are reliving those moments through the newscasters voice. You shut it off because you can’t stand to listen any longer.

Flash forward, your watching television now. An emergency broadcast comes on. Its video coverage of the Hindenburg crashing! Alongside the video is the same newscasters voice, narrating the incident. You don’t even make it through half of the footage due to how horrifying it is.

Do you understand the point I am trying to make here? You experienced an account of the same incident through three mediums, but only two of them really moved you, and only one of them was absolutely terrifying. The medium through which a message is propagated molds the message interpreted by readers, listeners, viewers. When you are trying to convey a message, be aware of this phenomenon and use it to your advantage. Don’t make an elephant swing from a vine.