Response to muted newscast

The particular newscast I selected was about a tiger who managed to escape the San Fransisco zoo and attacked three people killing one and badly wounding the other two. I listened to the video with audio first to really try and absorb all of the details they verbally projected, then i proceeded to listen to the video on mute. For this particular report they used many subtitles to assist in delivering the newscast, however as the video goes along it is very evident that you miss out on crucial details to the story. For example, at one point they show a clip of a tiger being fed raw meat in its domestic cage and as that is shown they discuss the age of the tiger and where it had come from. Later in the video they show a loop of the same exact clip except this time a reporter is explaining how almost a year to date prior, this particular tiger showed a vast amount of aggression by attacking its trainer in a public display. After watching it the second time with no audio it almost seemed as though I missed out on about seventy five percent of the story. While it is relatively easy to grasp the overall report due to their occasional subtitles, it really goes to show how crucial the audio is, at least for this particular network. The basic understandings that i got from the muted video was that a tiger had escaped and killed a man, nobody knows how it escaped, and the police eventually had to shoot it dead before it attacked anyone else. When watched with the audio you learn that not only did the tiger kill a man, but he also wounded two others, had a history of being aggressive, was named Tatiyana, and was transferred from the Denver zoo. Now, while all of these details may not necessarily be needed to fully grasp the overall story, it can help people to understand the situation more and even accumulate their own opinion better. Overall, the story was still easily conveyed, however their could have been a lot more done to help visually explain what happened as well.