David Wallace managed to turn an ordinary lobster food festival into an extraordinary and captivating essay. He did this by taking a twist on the common love for food festivals and lobster. Wallace opened a new realm to food festivals and described how actually terrible they are and how much of a rip off they are, including the $20 you have to pay just for a seat to watch live music. However, he did not just rip on food festivals, he took all different twists and turns throughout which I really enjoyed. He explained the history of lobster and how it was nothing like the delicacy it is today but instead it was a food for the poor and was basically “chewable fuel” because of its protein. This is most definitely not common knowledge to the average person and it adds an interesting support to his entire argument. He even explains the taxonomy of a lobster and proper way to cook one. 

Another interesting topic he covers is whether or not it is all right to boil a live lobster. Most people just see this as a normal thing because lobster is meant to be eaten as fresh as possible, so they disregard the actual humaneness of this practice. Some say that lobsters do not have the nervous system that humans do to feel pain; however, when you throw a live lobster into boiling water they react as if they do feel it. They try to get out and they sound as if they are yelling for help. Wallace also mentions how sad it is to see the live lobsters in the glass containers all stacked up. Overall, Wallace covered all different areas of a lobster food festival that not all people would ever really consider. He took an event where people are happy and having fun into something rather morbid and also quite a rip off. I think this essay made me open my eyes more and made me want to think more about events that I attend and what they really consist of. By this I do not mean to be a negative nellie about every event, but just aware. I now think that is an important thing to do.

Elizabeth Royte takes advantage of the Medium platform to make a more effective essay in multiple ways. However one way that stood out to me most was her use of images and placement of the imagery. For example, the first image you see is a stairway through the woods with shadows of humans. This edited picture allowed readers to think more of the message that Royte is trying to get across. The meaning behind having these shadows in the picture is that there are many people in today’s society that are overlooked and not noticed because they are living in the shadows, very similarly to the people Royte talks about in her essay. Some of the other images used were strategically placed throughout to strengthen the points she was making. There were some images with statistics which further supported her points whereas some images were simply placed in spots to give a visual of what she actually found in the woods to show how real everything she talked about was. Not only do the pictures strengthen her argument, but they simply make the essay overall more welcoming and appealing to read. Oftentimes when an essay is entirely just composed of a whole lot of words, it can seem intimidating and push some readers away (maybe this is just a me thing, I’m not a huge reader so pictures make reading a little bit more enjoyable and make long writing pieces seem less scary). 

From Longform’s “Best of” list, I read Rebecca Onion’s essay called “Against Generations.” This essay was about how she and many others are against the idea of generations and how your generation tells something about you as a group. I think what the users of Longform liked so much about this essay was how all encompassing it was. Rececca Onion used research from all different parts of time and history to support her argument. She really was able to be inclusive towards many people by doing this as well. The research she included was very effective and clear while she also used her own input and thoughts which made it more enjoyable to read and feel more relatable and welcoming. What also was particularly captivating was the idea that she altered the idea of something that so many people just commonly look at as normal. People are just generally grouped into these generations and are expected to be similar just because of the date they were born when really there are so many other things that make a person who they are. Onion brought in interesting ideas on this topic that you typically would not really consider. She included politics and how millennials are stereotyped to have certain political views compared to those of later generations.

Jay Rosen’s idea of how new journalists should “know everything about something” relates to our group project a lot. In her article she speaks a great deal on having a niche blog which is a blog on only one thing and that is basically what this group project is. We are creating a very specific blog style website and podcast on a specific topic- phobias. When you know everything about the thing your blog is about, you are more well rounded on the subject and can be trusted much more. You are able to focus on that one topic and can be relied on for the information or updated news on your topic from the people who trust you. With our group project, by knowing everything about phobias, we will be able to produce a fluent, well rounded podcast along with a very informative website. Having all of this knowledge will also help us reach the requirements for the assignment and produce quality work. Also knowing everything about something can allow you to start small and work your way up. Niche blogs are a great way to start up your name and can eventually turn into a business with a lot of consistency and hard work. However, the more you know, the better your work will be. Although this is just a class project and we are not trying to start a business on phobias or anything of the sort,the general premise of Jay Rosen’s article is really beneficial to consider. 

Only using interviews are simply not enough for a niche blog or really any informative piece of work because it does not demonstrate your own knowledge on the topic. People will just view you as a host or something rather than actually being intelligent on the subject and providing useful and reliable research. Although interviews are a great source to include in blogs and podcasts because it brings in real life examples and outside knowledge, they are not enough to show your credibility. They are a great complement to your work and research but cannot just stand alone. You cannot expect an interview to do the best for your work as it possibly could with other forms of research. Because interviews are not enough, we used other forms of research in addition to interviews. Our group conducted our own research by sending out a survey to 65 college students. We also found research done by other people with the use of our college’s library and the internet. These were in the form of articles, books or video. 

Beth:

I listened to the podcast on Heyoon and it was actually very interesting. The style of it really helped keep my attention because it started off in a story format. The main speaker, Alex Goldman, is telling the story of going to Heyoon, a pavilion in the middle of a random field in Michigan, as a teenager. While he tells this story, it switches on and off to a narrator along with sound recordings of a group of people going to Heyoon. Goldman later goes on to speak to the actual owners and creators of Heyoon which was really interesting. What were the rest of your podcasts like?

Stefano:

The Every Little Thing’s podcast where they discussed Winnie the Pooh’s age was very interesting and fun to learn about. The overall atmosphere was light-hearted and had a child-like sense of curiosity throughout the age discovery. What about you guys?

Breanna:

The podcast I listened to was You’re Wrong About: Kitty Genovese and “Bystander Apathy where they discuss the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. The style of the podcast was set up like a book or a magazine article telling the story of Genovese and her life that led up to her death and what happened after her death too. The two hosts’ names were called Sarah Marshall and Michael Hobbes and they went back n’ forth talking about Genovese. While Marshall tells the story more, Hobbes reacts to the insane things that took place in how she was murdered and how 38 bystanders almost did not do anything about it. What was your podcast like Ruby?

Ruby: Serial produced the podcast I listened to about the murder of Hae Min Lee in 1999. “The Alibi” follows Sarah Koenig, a woman who took interest in the murder case as she believes the alleged murderer is innocent.  Adnan Syed, who is currently in prison for the murder, claims to be innocent so Koenig goes through the process of figuring out a normal day 16 years later to prove this alleged innocence. Through a series of interviews dated back in 1999, when the case occurred, Koenig acts as a narrator while incorporating these discussions in place of her storytelling. Her style is informative while keeping a constant entertaining progression towards the truth. Her pathos is clearly shown throughout as she became emotionally involved in what was intentionally a truth-finding process. Beth for your podcast, how did they use their research?

Beth: The research used comes straight from Peter Hayden, the owner. Because this was such a mysterious and unknown place, there was no real research the producers could have done themselves. The organization of first telling the details of Heyoon and what the place was like and then going on to the interviews made the podcast easier to follow along. Stefano, how would you explain your research for the podcast you listened to?

Stefano: The research began with a professional age guesser to see what human characteristics helped him guess an age. From there, the discussion shifts to a wildlife ecologist who knows about bears and their characteristics. Lastly, a pediatrician was introduced, who wrote an academic essay about Winnie the Pooh, specifically about the book The House at Pooh Corner. Herein lies the answer to the driving question of this episode. Each piece of evidence made the audience more engaged to find out more and the level of professionalism on the main topic increased over time. Overall, I really enjoyed listening to this podcast and even found myself wondering what other random things do people not really know the answer to. Breanna, how did your podcast use their research?

Breanna: The research used to help Marshall explain the story comes from news articles and New York Times stories taken from before and after the murder took place. She also uses historical research, data, and articles to explain the “gay culture” from the time too because Genovese was also a lesbian. There was a lot to account for in her murder more because of all the things that got invented or started due to her murder. Better street lights were put into place, bystanders learned the true cost of not helping or asking for help, and telephone number 911 was started four years later. What I liked about how the podcast sums her story up as it is said that this woman had this happened to her and how even sadder that people’s lazy or “1960’s brains” reacted to her murder because this would never happen in today’s world. But her murder got coined as the “Genovese effect” meaning the only reason this would not happen in today’s world is that this awful event occurred. Ruby, did Koenig use her own research?

Ruby: The research was conducted by Koenig herself, as she used court recordings and self-conducted interviews. She dispersed the information in the order of the case, giving researched details as the story went on. This led the story along, eventually going past the horrific event, court appearances and family interviews to a modern search for the truth using the same type of research. 

Two stylisitic elements I would like to take for inspiration from the podcast “Space” are:

1. The separation of segments within the podcast.
2. The use of bringing in other audio clips and background music.

Two research elements I would like to take for inspiration from the podcast “Space” are:

1. The use of interviews.
2. Providing information on the topic from other sources.

In order to lay out the vision of the show, Megan Han tells a story about her life as a millennial. She tells relatable stories about her high school, college and family life. From doing this, listeners are able to get an understanding of the host and what to expect in the future. She convinces listeners to come back by leaving the podcast off with a cliff hanger. Also showing her relatability to others her age can convince people to come back for more.

The men in the podcast “The Giant Pool of Money” do a very great job at presenting their research to their audience in a cohesive and organized way. The most important thing they do is stay on topic. They never stray away from the topic they are discussing. Another beneficial thing they do is they have segments of narration and this helps the listeners know and understand what they are talking about. The usage of bringing in guest speakers makes listeners feel more engaged and not get bored. Instead of just giving facts on the money pool, they bring in people with personal experience and this serves as a piece of research that may come across as more appealing to their audience and puts it into a real life perspective. As a whole, the men in the podcast were able to create a podcast that teaches as well as reports on the complex topic of the money pool. 
When comparing this to the podcast Stuff Your Mom Never Told You, “The Cost of Fast Fashion,” they did a much better job at staying organized and providing nothing but legitimate and trustworthy research. Whereas in the fast fashion podcast, the women often got off track and were extremely hard to follow. Also the research they did was minimal and their sources should be checked if anyone were to use it as a legitmate source. The main purpose of the pool of money podcast was to inform in which they did well and the fast fashion podcast was more for entertainment. From a source for research standpoint, the money pool could absolutely be trusted and used; however, the fast fashion would be tricky to use and would require much more extra work by having to check their sources.

Deciding which of the three cases, Zakaria, Lehrer or Anderson, I thought was the worst was rather difficult. However, after a lot of thought, I concluded that Anderson’s case was the worst and Zakaria’s was the least objectionable. I chose Anderson’s case as the worst because he blatantly copied from other sources and used sentences verbatim. I don’t see how this could have been a genuine mistake. If he knew that he used so much information word for word from other sources and was trying to be professional about using it, he would have made sure to have gone back and cited them correctly. There is no way he could have read over his piece and not realize they were not his own words after “deleting the footnotes.” Whether it was a mistake or not, he had a great deal of obvious plagiarism in his writing. 

Although I chose Anderson for the worst case, Lehrer was close to being chosen for the fact that he faked quotes which is a very big deal. I do not think that plagiarizing your own work should be considered plagiarizing because they are your own words. The fake quotes are what makes his scenario pretty serious. Even if the quotes he made up were not putting the other person in harm’s way, he is still putting words into that person’s mouth which is a big no-no in journalism. He also had originally lied about having fake quotes by saying they were from an archival interview. I can understand that he panicked and lied, but he did still lie originally. Still by explaining the severity of this case, I am unsure whether his or Anderson’s was the worst.

Lastly, I think Zakaria’s was the least objectionable because although he did plagiarize, he did not have anything word for word from the source. He did however, come clean and apologized with no excuses which I found respectable, compared to Anderson who just made excuses as to why he did it or Lehrer originally lying about it. Overall, I do believe that Zakaria and Anderson plagiarized based off of my understanding of the concept of plagiarism. I do not believe Lehrer plagiarized, but he did do something seriously bad by using fake quotes in his writing.