Editorial Report 9B

So now we've got a comparison between my first feeble attempt at body text and an actually effective attempt that was turned in as part of my final Project 2. From that first feeble attempt, I'm only comparing the second half, the part about the introductions from 1:06 to the end. This is because if I compared the whole thing, my re-worked version would have exceeded the 2 minute limit.

1. In this improved version, I actually included a direct quote from the paper as an example, rather than vaguely discussing element without showing the listener exactly what I was talking about. This makes my content stronger, as I have specific evidence to back up my claims. Content-wise, I also added the voice of Dr. Rebecca Mosher, who gives her thoughts on how even scientists might need more information and proof of credibility. Funny, it's rhetoric within rhetoric because adding her thoughts on credibility boosts my credibility. But the addition of these two elements (and a bit more elaboration on what credibility does for a reader) does wonders for improving the effectiveness of my content. I also added closing thoughts so that the thought doesn't just cut off and end without closure.
2. As for form, similar things can be applied here. I think I sound much more appealing and less fake in the re-worked version. This improves the delivery of my content within the genre and makes the project sound more interesting. I also integrated audio from one of my interviews, which definitely fits within a podcast genre and improves my project. A monologue of just me talking for ten minutes would be boring, so adding this new voice re-engages the listener. There's also a sound effect clipped to the end of it (that isn't included in this snippet, so I apologize that acts as a transition into the next genre, which is the addition of another effective podcast convention.