To me, motion graphics is a combination of graphics with video, and they are for sure a good couple together, as there are limitations for videos as well as graphics. For video, it is impossible to film everything from every angle, and with the help of graphics, 2D and 3D images and stimulations can add to the video to tell a more accurate story. Before integrating with video, graphics can only appear in newspaper or online. And as the readers are getting more custom to animation, video brings a new platform for the graphics.
New York Times has done a great job adding motion graphics in their online version, and one of my favorite is How Mariano Rivera Dominates Hitters. When The New York Times Graphics Department visited the campus and Kevin Quealy talked about their innovations in the newsroom, he used it as an example in the lecture.
I love it because it tells the story that could not be told through other media. Sports is a moving activity, and compared to the static graphics, the motion graphics can stimulate the movement in the game and give a better explanation than their counterparts in print. One of the examples is to show the spinning of the balls, which you can’t really show in traditional video packages or print graphics.
I do not think that motion graphics will entirely replace other forms of graphics. One reason is that it requires a lot of time and skills, and most median and small sized media can not afford it yet today. And motion graphics is not for every story either. Some in depth stories are still better in prints because readers can view it for a longer time compared to videos. At last, interactive graphics is also a big player in the innovative journalism, and interactive graphics is also getting increasingly important in the arena.