The purpose of this assignment was to force myself to do interviews and all the work myself. I chose to do my topic on hunting because it’s always interested me, and chose Casey because his knowledge and passion about hunting is incredible. I also chose not to interview anyone else because I really wanted to be the second voice, I wanted it to seem like a real interview where the reporter summarizes it. Working alone on this wasn’t bad, having done it before with John, made it easier. Seemed to go quicker though this time, because I didn’t have to wait for any approval or anything of that sort. So, I suppose I enjoyed doing this by myself more, even though I can’t ever complain about working with John. The photography was easy, as I had already taken the photos on a previous trip to the ranch this summer. I’ve always heard about Casey’s hunting stories while at work but sitting down and asking him questions was even more interesting and worthwhile. I had no problems or difficulties with this project which was a relief since when John and I did it, we could get the SoundSlides to work! The only thing I would change is maybe better pictures, including actual animals.
- Comparison of current Wyoming football program to the program in the late 80’s.
- John and I will get the details on how the program has changed not only talent wise, but that state of college football today compared to 20 years ago.
- This story is important as the scene of college football is changing as we speak with teams leaving and joining different conferences, and also because football is the number one money maker in college athletics.
- The three sources that will be used are Tashaun Gipson (current DB), Randy Welniak (former QB), MadDog (current Equipment Manager).
- The current and ever changing state of college athletics.
- John and I would get information and opinions on how college athletics has evolved throughout the years. We would go to the top of the athletic department to do so.
- The story is interesting because college athletics has changed drastically in the past ten years.
- The sources we would use are Tom Burman (Director of Athletics) and Kevin McKinney (Sr. Associate Athletic Director for External Relations).
- Joakim Noah and Jeff Van Gundy come to Wyoming.
- John and I would use soundbites from interviews conducted last Saturday at the Night of Madness here at the university with Joakim and Jeff. We would discuss their motives for attending.
- This story is very newsworthy because of the high profiles these two men honor. Jeff being an ex-NBA coach and current ESPN analyst, while Joakim is a former two-time NCAA men’s basketball National Champion and current Chicago Bull.
- The sources would be The Mtn. (Brett Brown) and Coach Larry Shyatt.
Both girls did a good job with their interviews. They both made it easy to understand the point of the interview and definitely took some time to carefully edit their audio.
Bridget did a great job with editing her audio. She truly made it sound like there wasn’t any editing done. The transitions were good and smooth. I would tell Bridget that the only thing she could really improve is the background buzzing noise. It was sort of distracting to me, but fairly subtle. I’m not quite sure if the noise was caused by the recorder, or maybe the environment they were recording in. Either way, that is the only complaint I have. Bridget’s Blog
Sarah’s interview was more quiet than Bridget’s. To me, I thought it was probably the recorder, which I understand that we all don’t have good one’s! The interview was good and interesting, however Megan seemed to talk really fast, she could have talked more slowly and clearer. The editing was good with this one as well, but again, there was some background white noise. Since I had to turn the volume up with the interview to hear Megan, that made the white noise louder. Just like Bridget’s blog, the only gripe I have with this interview would be to mute out the white noise in the background. Sarah’s Blog
In doing this assignment, I learned how to correctly edit a story to make the audience understand it better. Obviously I understood every aspect since I did the actual interview, but when the questions aren’t posted, the reader may have a more difficult time understanding it unless it’s edited in a friendly manner. I would definitely tell myself next time to ask questions differently, so that the interviewee doesn’t use filler words and such. That can really diminish an interview.
I do have one wish about changing my post, and that would be to eliminate the “uh’s” from John’s responses. Maybe better preparation could have helped, but I feel as if it was more real this way. I was also very surprised to how easy it was to edit the audio with the use of GarageBand. I definitely recommend that program if available.
This exercise was actually very entertaining. I definitely had fun editing and creating this interview and shaping it the way I wanted. Because I used GarageBand, it seemed to be a million times easier. I tried using Audacity and really didn’t like it. GarageBand was more simple and easier to just cut and drag. There is no way I could have gotten the quality project I finished with by using Audacity, it took much less time. I learned a lot about how difficult it truly is to get a perfect interview. There are so many little things that come into play while interviewing somebody. Outside noise, clarity of speech, quality of questions, everything. The questions can either hurt your interviewee by trapping them or surprising them, or they can transition nicely. I learned that a quiet room is integral to getting a clear sounding response. I also learned that filler words such as “uh”, can diminish the quality and clarity of an interview, even as subtle as they seem. I enjoyed the process of editing my interview with John. When I was done, I felt accomplished as if I created something, almost like I feel when I finish an art project or something of the sort. I didn’t enjoy answering the questions while being interviewed, as I was nervous and probably stuttered a little bit, creating a not so good interview. I felt the pressure! I was surprised at how good my interview with John sounded honestly. The study room at Coe we got was a perfect environment, no white noise or anything. We thought about doing it at one of our houses, but between our roommates and other noises going on, this was our best option. I was happily surprised by how well our iPhones’ Voice Memo option worked for these interviews. The sound was great. My one wish for the project was that I could have answered the questions for John better.
Interviewing John like this was interesting, it wasn’t as weird as I thought it would be at first, with the recorder in between us. Being able to set the recorder down and to still be able to get the quality sound was huge to me, as if I had to hold it up to his face it would have been more uncomfortable for both of us. It still seemed to sound real and genuine, not practiced. I was definitely worried it would sound rehearsed. This was a good learning experience in a way that I feel as if I could do this with a complete stranger and push aside the awkward feelings. Because we got a private study room in the library to do this, we were both able to get a genuine silence that would help our interviews out immensely. That was a big step for both of us. I enjoyed hearing John’s answers to questions I really wanted to know, while there wasn’t anything I particularly did not enjoy about this. I wish I could have been able to talk more smoothly, my voice was a tad bit shaky. I did have to start over asking the first question once because I was talking to quickly. I didn’t expect to feel pressure when asking questions, but I did for some odd reason! Other than that, it all went well I thought.
Here is my first go at the numbers recording:
Here is my edited recording of numbers 1 through 10:
My favorite noise I chose to record was my dryer rumbling in my laundry room, for some reason the noise is soothing:
My other noises were; a fan, the shower, vacuum, shoes at work on tiled floor, the wind rustling aspen leaves:
1.The first thing I noticed about Ashlee’s blog was the color scheme. The pinkish color really popped and was easy on the eyes, yet attractive. Her photos were well taken, especially the photos from her “Creative Devices” album. Those nature photos were great. Her sports photos were good too, they really looked nice with the minimal lighting from the night football game. For some reason I’m really attracted to sports pictures from night games, they give off a different feel. Her feature picture of the older gentleman and the lady dressed in 30’s saloon attire was interesting. The man seemed to be sharing a laugh with the lady and looked to be a funny moment.
2. The font used in her post “My hand in journalism” was very small and sort of hard to read. Her descriptions were good for her previous post, but the small font truly deterred me away from reading the assigned post.
1. I really enjoyed the simplicity of Rhanden’s blog. The white background and sharp black font was easy to read, and overally was just a clean looking blog. There wasn’t too much going on or many distractions. The action pictures were cool, I haven’t seen photos of frisbee like that before. In class Rhanden chose to look at his action picture of him diving for the frisbee, but that wasn’t my favorite. My favorite was either the shot looking straight down the guitar strings or the frshly squeezed lime. Both were interesting takes on the particular subjects. His captions were great, they definitely had character which is important to me.
2. I feel like Rhanden could have gone out and been a little more creative. He seemed to have just used what was around him. However, from what he used, he did well. The subject of photographing frisbee seems like there is a limit to how creative you can get with it, maybe it’s not that inetresting to me but a different sportssubject would have been better in my opinion. I truly don’t think the pasta picture should be in his top 5, I feel like he could have gotten a more interesting candid photo.