Reading Response 1

Submit using this form

Write a minimum 250 word response on one of the options provided below. Please note that you’re not going to be judged on your writing, this is not a writing class. Instead, I’m looking for you to share original ideas about what you’re reading. These reading responses are meant to demonstrate that you are engaging with the general scope of the material we’re covering in class as a critical media maker.

Make a comparative analysis of the form, style, and content of 2 different podcasts of your choice. Start by being descriptive — is it a narrator/host format, or host and interview panel, host and solo guest, monologue, etc; is the tone serious, funny, a combination; what is the scope of the content. Then go on to provide your arguments for what you think is effective, and what doesn’t work. Try to focus on how the formal and stylistic choices are connected to the content of the show. OR
Write your reading response on any one of the following articles. It’s less important whether you agree or disagree, but that you make original connections and arguments. For eg. if a piece argues that corporate funding comes at the cost of creative freedom, can you give us other ways to think about that idea? Do your research, read around the topic, and look for unlikely examples to prove your point. Maybe something similar happened in the sports industry? Maybe there are academic studies that have investigated the connection between funding and autonomy, etc. Or in the case of the second article, it is a huge collection of links all proclaiming the dawn of the podcast age. Instead of summarizing the articles themselves, you could attempt a meta-analysis of what to make of such speculative writing. Should we be skeptical of the tone of self-styled podcast evangelists? Do the media outlets making such claims have a vested interest? Can podcast creators use the hype to their advantage?
Why Podcasts Are Becoming Netflix
Podcasts Are Always the Next Big Thing
Hey journalists, be human
From Upspeak To Vocal Fry: Are We 'Policing' Young Women's Voices?
How Podcasts Became a Seductive—and Sometimes Slippery—Mode of Storytelling

PreviousWeek 4 Feb 22nd NextReading Response 2

Last updated 1 year ago

Submit using this form

Make a comparative analysis of the form, style, and content of 2 different podcasts of your choice. Start by being descriptive — is it a narrator/host format, or host and interview panel, host and solo guest, monologue, etc; is the tone serious, funny, a combination; what is the scope of the content. Then go on to provide your arguments for what you think is effective, and what doesn’t work. Try to focus on how the formal and stylistic choices are connected to the content of the show. OR

Write your reading response on any one of the following articles. It’s less important whether you agree or disagree, but that you make original connections and arguments. For eg. if a piece argues that corporate funding comes at the cost of creative freedom, can you give us other ways to think about that idea? Do your research, read around the topic, and look for unlikely examples to prove your point. Maybe something similar happened in the sports industry? Maybe there are academic studies that have investigated the connection between funding and autonomy, etc. Or in the case of the second article, it is a huge collection of links all proclaiming the dawn of the podcast age. Instead of summarizing the articles themselves, you could attempt a meta-analysis of what to make of such speculative writing. Should we be skeptical of the tone of self-styled podcast evangelists? Do the media outlets making such claims have a vested interest? Can podcast creators use the hype to their advantage?

Why Podcasts Are Becoming Netflix

Podcasts Are Always the Next Big Thing

Hey journalists, be human

From Upspeak To Vocal Fry: Are We 'Policing' Young Women's Voices?

How Podcasts Became a Seductive—and Sometimes Slippery—Mode of Storytelling