Podcast 4 Class Review

Group #1: Spring Cleaning: Jacqui, Chelsea, Bill, Prateik

1. What is interesting?

i. Communication: Very conversational

ii. The source didn’t want to reveal his real name in the podcast

iii. A brief conversation and different opinion at the end about Boiler blast

2. What is newsworthy?

i. New information: a brief introduction of what people do in Boilerblast and the keynote speaker: President Cordova.

ii. At the end of the podcast: statistics of the volunteer numbers

3. How is technical quality?

i. Sometimes the voice got louder than others.

ii. But overall, good quality of sound.

4. What was missing?

i. I wish there was more introduction of what Boilerblast was.

Group #2: Slate Gabfest: Valerie, Cathleen, Ty, and Rachael.

1. What is interesting?

a. Facts that Slate speakers didn’t reveal too much about their personal information and their personal opinions about certain topics.

b. They met a few days later to record a more thorough reflection.

c. Conversation flows very well

d. They covered the story while giving their personal reflection

e. Interesting ending

2. What is newsworthy?

a.

3. How is technical quality?

a. The quality was very good.

b. Almost professional sound

4. What was missing?

a. I wish they had more description of the political gabfest because not everyone went to the event

b. I wish they recorded some audio from Slate podcast to add variety

Group #3: Kara, Kaitlin, Sara: Rituals

1. What is interesting?

a. Super girly conversation

b. The conversation flows very well.

c. Good talk about alcohol and their preparation before going to Cactus on Thursday.

d. Very descriptive of what girls’ do before going to Cactus.

2. What is newsworthy?

a. They did a good job introducing this special ritual belongs to Purdue culture and its students.

3. How is technical quality?

a. Quality was pretty good.

4. What was missing?

a. They didn’t introduce themselves at the beginning. Who are you?

b. Too many people speaking at the same time: Hard to hear sometimes.

c. I wish they interviewed someone at Cactus or someone else outside of the group to add more variety. Don’t be just like a casual conversation among 3 girls. They should also be reporting something.

Group #4: Camille, Patrick, and Antoinette (Spring Training.)

1. What is interesting?

a. Very descriptive of what’s going on at the field.

2. What is newsworthy?

a. New information about the history of the team.

b. New information about what the team does during spring training.

3. How is technical quality?

a. Some pauses in between, should have cut it off.

b. Should have cut off their parts when asking questions.

c. Sound very clear.

4. What was missing?

a. The whole piece doesn’t sound edited. It sounds like raw footage.

b. I wish I heard some more quotes from the student players.

c. They didn’t sound very clear at the end. They were murmuring.

Group #5: Amy, Chrystal, and Ken (Spring Training.)

1. What is interesting?

a. It sounds very real because of the background sound of team practicing.

b. Interesting insights from student athletes and the coach.

c.

2. What is newsworthy?

a. New information of what the team does during spring training.

b. New information of how students manage their time.

3. How is the sound quality?

a. Good background sound of team practicing and cheering for teammates.

b. Everyone sounds clear in the voiceover.

4. What was missing?

a. I wish they were more conversational when doing the voiceover.

b. Ken should speak up more.