My podcast titled "Snapchat Sensation" follows the "tree branch method".
It primarily starts off as a straight line, as shown in the diagram below, with an interaction of the radio host and the other person on the line going back and forth question and answer style. After that, they introduce the issue at hand and the main point of what the podcast will prove.
A few lines later, the tree branches out into the background information of the Snapchat hack. After the information was presented, the podcast went back to going on about the main point, which was whether or not the application is safe. A few minutes later, the podcast will then branch off again into explanations of why the hacking occurred. This includes several quotes from different sources. After that, the podcast goes back to the main idea of how safe Snapchat is. It branches off later one last time to focus on the macro. The macro of this podcast is the grand scheme of things. In this case, it focuses on the safety of smartphone applications itself, as opposed to just focusing on one singular application.
The conclusion brings the podcast together as there is about a minute of conversation concluding the final point and bringing the tree branch to an end.
This structure is similar to that of Freakonomics to an extent. On this station, there are many podcasts that explain how things work or why things work the way they do. In this case, they usually begin the podcast presenting "tree branches" of information, including background knowledge, the explanation, and the macro (the grand scheme of things). The reason why Freakonomics differs at times from the tree branch method is because sometimes, some of their episodes takes a turn and goes down an unexpected route. For example, I have heard podcasts that end up bringing up the real question of the podcast at the end of the episode as opposed to the start.
In the "Icon For Access", I counted 22 citations overall.
No comments:
Post a Comment