Editorial Report 9A

Here comes a comparison between the introduction from my rough draft and the final introduction that was turned in with my podcast!

1. So to be completely honest, I canned the whole first draft and started fresh. I didn't like where the project was going, and the content I was producing while I wasn't comfortable in the genre wasn't really very good content. So while main ideas stayed the same, I elaborated more on why the subject was important, to make sure that my content would be interesting for individuals from any background. I also included general information about genre in the introduction (not included in the posted snippet because I forgot that the track that included that content was also part of the intro), but saved the identification of each genre until I actually talk about it in the body. I also added music to the intro, which may be more of a form thing because it's a convention, but it also added content, so I'm talking about it here too. I think these things fit much more with what was expected from the rubric, and it seems like a much more cohesive introduction that actually leads to something that matters.
2.  As form goes, I think I spoke much more conversationally in the re-worked version, which is definitely a podcast convention. No one wants to hear someone yammering on for ten minutes reading a boring script, so my voice was improved by my new approach of not reading directly from a script but adapting bullet points into natural sentences. I also added the intro music as mentioned above, as well as sound effects to paint a mental picture that hopefully intrigues the listener. I think these changes to form made my podcast much more digestable. When I listened to the original, I wanted to punch myself in the face for putting peer reviewers through that. It just wasn't very appealing as a podcast compared to the final version, from what I can tell.