Editorial Report a)

The following is a come to life version of one of my rough cut sections.

“Selection from ‘Rough Cut’” 

TRANSITION INTO NEXT SECTION

CARD: "U.S. Men v. Women past 3 years"

Demonstrate side by side comparison of both teams performances in the following order: Olympics, World cup...

GO INTO SPECIFICS OF WORLD CUP 2014 AND 2015 WOMEN'S

SHOW GROUP STAGE GAMES OF BOTH TEAMS SIDE BY SIDE

GO TO ROUND OF 16..STILL SIDE BY SIDE

GO TO QUARTER FINALS...AT THIS POINT, THE SIDE SHOWING THE MEN'S CUP RUN IS BLANK BECAUSE THEY NEVER MADE IT TO THAT ROUND IN BRAZIL 2014...
THEN SHOW SEMI FINALS.....THEN FINAL...THEN SHOW WOMEN LIFTING TROPHY AND MEN DEFEATED ON THE FIELD

Head to next competition.....OFFICIAL FRIENDLIES....
SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON AGAIN.... SHOW HIGHLIGHTS OF MATCHES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR OF BOTH TEAMS THEN TALLY UP TOTAL RESULTS OF BOTH TEAMS ON FRIENDLIES...

next comparison....OLYMPICS LONDON 2012

SIDE BY SIDE SHOT OF BOTH MEN AND WOMEN PROGRESSION IN CUP RUN....
.....WITH WOMEN HOLDING GOLD ON THEIR SIDE AND MEN'S SIDE LEFT BLANK AS THEY DID NOT QUALIFY AT ALL

“Re-edited Selection”

The re-edited section can be found here.

Questions

1)How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

For starters the re-edited version is finally brought to life on video. This definitely helps the audience immerse themselves into the public argument more profusely.


2)How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

I may have demonstrated the comparison in a different form than side by side.