In a CNN.com story about the death of journalist Marie Colvin, they supplement the article with two videos that are located in the middle of the text. The first video is a discussion between experts on the significance of what Colvin was doing in Syria in terms of reporting on deaths of civilians. They draw comparisons to the 1994 Bosnian civil war and attempt to project what will happen in Syria in the near future and whether or not it will be different than Sarajevo. The video overall is a very strong video that captures the true issues of the violence in Syria so that readers understand what is going on there.
The second video that CNN.com shows in the article is one that remembers Colvin, including reports that she gave about both Syria and Libya. She discusses with Anderson Cooper how this war in Syria is the worst she has worked in due to the fact that there is no where for her to escape to, as the government has the entire perimeter of the city.
The two videos are vital to giving the whole story because they provide images of the war that would not be replicated in a general article. The videos showed where exactly she was living and the ruins that were left after the shelling, giving the viewers a sense of the realness of war. The writing in the remembrance of Colvin was more storytelling than hard news. It was chronological in terms of the wars she has covered and the reports she gave in Syria, as opposed to necessarily the most important information first.
In the other video it was simply discussion between a host and two experts, so there was little if any script besides the questions the host was asking. It was effective because CNN used two very different viewpoints, a British female reporter and a Middle Eastern male reporter. It was useful that they gave their opinions on what we should expect to happen in the near future. We have enough information from reports that Colvin and other journalists did that it is now up to the world to decide what to do about it.