Sunday, April 17, 2016

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

Hello peer reviewers!!  Here is what I'd like to you to know about my draft so far.

  • I'd like peer reviewer to know that not all my audio clips flow well with my voice recorded audio yet.  There is one that sounds a little redundant (the one talking about Boone Pickens), and I am deciding what to do with it exactly. 

  • As of now, I feel as though of my major weakness might be that I am too neutral.  I feel like I do have an opinion on the issue and that I do include it, but I don't, perhaps, present if as strongly as others might.
 
  • I think one of my strengths is the fact that I pulled from both audio and textual sources.  This was it sounds more like an actual report rather than a slue of audio clips.  Another strength is that I believe my report possess is good spacing of audio sources and background music clip.  I think they are spaced just enough to keep the reader's attention.
***Since posting this I realized that there was a clip that I omitted that involved Boone Pickens talking about how fracking has nothing to do with earthquakes.  It is not incredibly pertinent to the audio, so I might leave it out, but I thought I'd say this just to let peer reviewers know.

Here is the rough draft of podcast project.

2 comments:

  1. Hey Michaela, I really enjoyed your project. I didn't know anything about fracking or that there were earthquakes in Oklahoma. So naturally, the beginning of your podcast, with all of the sound effects and the background noise, I was instantly intrigued with your podcast. I really don't have anything negative to say about your podcast. I think that the amount of information you included was just right and I think that your way of presenting the information was well done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Michaela! Your project was really enthralling because of your use of sound effects, and very informative. But like you said, I do worry that you might be a little on the neutral side. I don't really strongly hear your opinion until the very end, when you say they need to stop fracking altogether. If there was any way you could add parts where you try to really intentionally gear your evidence to back your argument, it would really achieve the purpose of the project. Does that make sense? Like you presented both sides of the argument, but you didn't exactly stand with one. I think by tweaking the way you introduce evidence, maybe by saying "those for fracking argue this, but what they aren't accounting for is this.." just that subtle word choice can suddenly place you on a side. I don't know if this makes sense, if you have any questions I can try to explain what I mean, but I definitely want to challenge you to try to find some way to make your argument dominate. As it sounds, it's more informative than argumentative. Good luck with your project, I'm sure it's going to stay great!

    ReplyDelete