This blogpost was intended to analyze the editing process of different sections of my podcast.
Revised transcript for Intro:
"Hi, PJ Noghrehchi here... freshman at the University of Arizona Honors college studying Pre-Business and Pre-Health. This is a podcast designed for my English 109 Honors course with the intention of exploring the different types of writing genres used by professionals in my major. For this project I interviewed two professionals from the Eller College of Management, both in the Department of Management and Organizations. The genre examples that I have decided to explore are Twitter, Email, Powerpoint, as well as, scholarly articles. Although each of these writing styles are vastly different from each each other. They each play an important role in shaping the academic and professional environment for those in business management."
How did the content change when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
Content-wise, I took out information about the different professors because I realized I was reiterating all of it in later sections of my podcast. I decided to give my intro a cleaner and professional tone to it. I did this by removing extraneous words and taking out examples of my writing genres. I took the advice from Professor Bottai, that you want to make your podcast sound credible, and your audience will determine this within the first 15 seconds. I feel like I accomplished this by properly introducing myself and explaining what the project is for and why it is important. Before I edited it, I included some of these features, but I wasn't completely satisfied with how it came out.
How did the form change when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
The form changed by making my podcast start of strong and sound professional, with the intention of keeping the audience engaged. It provided the credibility I needed to make the audience "trust" what I had to say and it was the perfect length, not short enough to where an adequate amount of info was provided, and not too long to where I lost the conventions of a decent introduction. It may have been beneficial to include the names of my interviewees in the intro (like I initially had) but this way it keeps the readers interested in listening more to see who I interviewed. I wouldn't say that my edited version is drastically different, but it was cleaned up and polished nicely.
No comments:
Post a Comment