Topic Selection

Daniel Calabretta

Student# 211059219

W14

Topic Selection

I have chosen to recreate a Freakonomics podcast, as it critically analyzes topics the most efficiently as opposed to the other podcasts available. Freakonomics looks at and analyzes various types of subject matter in a unique manner. Freakonomics offers more variety and diversity in comparison to the other podcasts. For example, ‘Grammar Girl’ focuses strictly on writing and grammatical elements whereas ‘Spark’ directs its attention to technological innovations and how they work. Being a political science minor, I am intrigued by Freakonomics, given the many political issues it covers. For example, in the latest podcast section of the website, Freakonomics discussed the contentious issue of whether or not to legalize drugs in more US states, in light of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. 

            For my podcast, I will attempt to emulate the style and the topics that are similar to those found in Freakonomics. For instance, Freakonomics recently published a podcast entitled ‘Fear Thy Nature’. Stephen Dubner, journalist and author, examines this play (where the audience participates), called ‘Sleep No More’, by applying a social scientific approach used by Philip Zimbardo in his Stanford Prison experiment. I find it intriguing and, indeed fascinating, to see the application of a credible and academic method to a case study. I would like to mimic this podcast in particular, as it interviews an expert in the area of discussion and then receives feedback from non-experts who attended the interactive-play. The one element that I will try to imitate is examining a topic through the lens of a particular discipline of study. Similar to Freakonomics, I will also input archival audio in my podcast and play segments of individuals I have interviewed.

            I will be creating a podcast on the topic of the incumbent Harper government as to the manner in which it has attempted to undermine and, in large measure, effectively discourage the work of independent and peer-reviewed scientific work conducted by scientists employed within the federal civil service because there findings and research do not always accord with the political and policy agenda of the Harper government. The deleterious environmental impacts and substantial carbon footprint caused by tar sands’ extraction and development in Western Canada are issues that these scientists have analyzed thoroughly, but whose findings and recommendations have not resonated appealingly to the Harper government. The dichotomy in respect to this issue is that science is based primarily on fact whereas politics are largely based on “spin”. In terms of interviews for the podcast, I may consult with Jessica Vaisica who is a research officer in the Faculty of Science at York, along with students in my class in an attempt to get multiple and varied perspectives on this issue. I will be analyzing the political, societal and economic ramifications of the discontinuance of federal research centers and the implications and consequences that this political agenda can have to the scientific community in particular and to all Canadians in general.