This is the End, My Friends

Wow, so here it is: my actual last post of the semester. Huh.

In all, I'd say I'm definitely happy with how my podcast turned out (and kind of ridiculously proud that I managed to wrestle Audacity into submission... I know, doesn't seem like a hard thing to do since it's supposed to be the Microsoft Word of recording software, but me and technology don't often get along, so I take my victories where I can get them). Probably if I had had the time to go back and do something differently, it would've been to try and sound a bit more lively in the podcast recording. I think I was so caught up in concentrating on enunciating all my words properly and speaking slow enough that it wouldn't all mesh together when played back that I didn't pay enough attention to my tone. I don't think it was too bad, but it probably could've stood to have a bit more pep in it.

One piece of advice for the newbies coming in: DO NOT PROCRASTINATE IN THIS COURSE. If it's the same next year as this year, there is a lot that needs to go into this final podcast, for the whole process. Research and nail down your topic early, figure out how to use the software as soon as possible, and tackle it head on. Just, keep on top of things from the get-go, and you'll do fine.

So I guess this is it for me, then - best of luck to everyone finishing up, and adios. It's certainly been an experience.

Humanity 2.0

Welcome to "Humanity 2.0"! In this one-time airing of my podcast, I discuss the topic of human bionics, which have been rapidly moving from science fiction to fact in recent decades and are well on their way to reaching incredible heights. In a combination of research and deductive theorizing, I explore the current level of human bionics in development and the possibilities it may hold in the future. Also, through recordings of brief interviews with randomly selected members of the general public, I delve into just how welcome such developments might be with the average citizen and the kinds of positive and negative results that might come from humankind's possible bionic evolution. Enjoy!


Image courtesy of SalvatoreVuono-FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Testing, 1-2-3

Wow, look at this! I'm actually doing a blog post ahead of time, rather than Sunday night at 11:30... I think I might go into shock :)

Anyway, the software I'm using for my podcast is called Audacity. I've tested it out a few times, between recording my audio segments with it from my phone and testing out recording my own voice to see how it comes out, and so far the sound is great and it's relatively easy(ish) to use (and, surprisingly, my voice doesn't sound that bad - it seems as long as I make an effort to enunciate and speak a few octaves higher than I would do naturally, my voice comes out clear and sounding at least half decent).

As for advice on using the software, there seems to be an overabundance of tutorial videos about it on Youtube, a few of which are found at the following links:

Audacity - Audio Editing
Basic tips on Audacity

Also, Audacity has a great user manual that answers pretty much any questions about the software that you can think of, found at this link:

Audacity Manual

There is also a helpful page found at this other link that details things you need to know to use the software more easily:

Audacity Tutorial - Record and Edit Audio

An important thing to note in addition is something I just found out from that link I just included: apparently if you want to be able to export your podcast recording as an MP3 file from Audacity so that you can post it, you need to download an additional thing called "LAME MP3 encoder" (I love ironic names for things, as a side note). You can access the download page through the following page on the Audacity site:

Installation, Startup and Plug-ins - Audacity Manual

It only takes a second to do, and so far my computer hasn't melted, so it appears to be safe.

That's all for now though - until next week... off to Fact Checking.

A Blueprint for (semi) Rambling

I'll admit, when I wrote that first draft of my podcast transcript, I really only did so with a vague pre-planned idea of generally where I wanted bits of my research to go, and roughly of where I wanted the podcast to finish. As I wrote it though, it started to take an actual sort of direction, and now that I've had to go through to find a way to illustrate its structure, it does seem to have taken on a (semi) coherent structure, which is pictured below.

This structure is called "The Castle" (pretty well simply due to the fact that the way the drawing came out, it looks like castle walls and a main gate... if you kind of squint at it... which I've spent a lot of time doing while trying to figure out a way to describe it that makes even a scrap of sense).

It starts with the first main point of reflection (the exclamation point) followed by the straight line, in which the focus of the podcast is introduced in an opening scene story of sorts and in the main points for later reflection. Next, there are the three horizontal lines and another exclamation point, signifying the three random interviewees selected from the general public and their reflections given for the point made at that moment. Then, after the "V" dip (which establishes additional context) and another brief discussion of the the podcast's key focus, it dips down into the "trough", where the bulk of the research on the topic is brought up and discussed. Within the trough, there is another "V" dip to further establish context, and within that is an "e" loop where the narrative goes back in time for a bit, briefly exploring the topic's history and widening the context. By the end of the "e", it comes back to the present, and by the end of the trough, there are the dashes going from one end to the other over it to signify four key developments (or events) that were touched upon in the trough. Following that, there is another "V" dip for further context, and another exclamation point for reflection, followed then two more repeats of the three horizontal lines and the exclamation point which signify the general public interviewee's opinions on two additional mentioned points. Finally, finishing it off is a single horizontal line and an exclamation point (which signifies additional reflection, though this time based on one individual's opinion on a point), and then there is a straight line and an exclamation point, which conclude the podcast with the narrator's closing statements and reflections on the overall podcast.

After all of that... safe to say that my podcast does indeed differ, a lot, from the structure of the podcast I'm emulating. I don't even need to check; I listened to several episodes of "Spark", and they were mercifully much more clear cut, based almost entirely on information mentioned within recorded and included interviews, with some general reflections given throughout the episodes' duration.

Oh, and last but not least: I counted 23 citations for 'Icon for Access'. I'm crossing my fingers, and hoping I'm close enough for chips :)

The Boolean Trim

Boolean. Boolean Logic. Oy.

Sounds like a good way to go in principle: adding "AND" (for words and word combinations you want included together in articles), "OR" (for words that you'd want at least one or the other in articles) and "NOT" (for things you don't want in your articles at all) to your key search words in order to narrow and focus your search results down to the most relevant possible selection. The concept behind it definitely seems like it would cut down on research time and also get you the most useful articles for answering whatever your research question is. Of course... things are never as simple as they seem at first glance.

Myself, I've never really used it before this class, but this attempt at using it for my podcast was entirely unsuccessful. It could just be because it took some chipping away at my research question to get it as tight as it needed to be while still leaving room to explore, but all that Boolean Logic did for me was trim down article content to unhelpfully tiny selections of information, and largely not even in the direction I was looking to go. No number of "AND"s, "OR"s, or "NOT"s could steer my searches to the right information stream, and I only made real progress after I abandoned using them all together, and stuck with broad-concept searches.

Will I use it again?...Yikes. Maybe, but only if I can find someone who's good at it who's willing to give me some sort of tutorial on how to use it productively.

Oh, the Joy Digging and Information Landslides

So. Today was my originally hoped-for date to finish the bulk of my research by.

Actual outcome: not so much. As it turns out, what I'd hoped was my narrowed topic was actually still too broad, and resulted in a lot of overflow of possible research avenues and informational black holes from which there would likely be no return (*cue danger music*). Long story short... back to the drawing board.

For today's post though, here's what I can safely say I've got so far:

In the area of scholarly sources, I haven't yet pinned down the sources I'll be drawing from. But what I'm hoping for is a mix of published theoretical research in the area of android development projects (to get a feel for what's theoretically possible in the area of blending human characteristics, even independent thoughts and emotions and personalities, with a mechanized body), and published experiment/prototype results in the area of mechanized/artificially engineered human limb and organ transplants (to gauge the potential progress from what's currently being achieved to what's theorized as achievable).

For popular sources, so far I have a variety of website articles and youtube videos I'm considering using in some way, some of the most promising of which are found at the following links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hGXnIu_A7yg (a video on the human-interfacing bionic man named Rex)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1G1evlXfKE&list=PL6131F72B3C33A8A9 (a video on the first artificial body part transplant, performed two years ago)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-20084885-76/researchers-build-dna-neural-network-that-thinks/ (an article about artificially built neural network)
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=19690 (a two-year old article about the US military's plans for bionic medical implants in soldiers, designed to combat infections and resist bio/chemical warfare)
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=21602 (article discussing the growing possibility of engineered/bionic "upgrades" becoming fashionable, regardless of the lack of actual need for them)

Within my popular sources, I'm hoping especially to highlight where bionics currently stand in the public eye, both in popularity as well as in actual use. What I think I'll end up doing (and writing up, for my revised research plan) is cutting down sci-fi comparisons to the briefest of references in order to dedicate more time in the podcast to exploring current and future realities.

Ahhh, Saved by the Process of Elimination

More so than I even thought to expect, the pitching process really did help narrow down my topic for me - I was forced to look at my broad interest in terms of what could possibly be summed up in the short span of four minutes, and it made me zero in on the three main areas that I'd most like to cover, and that would work best together to present a coherent, yet exploratory narrative.

With other assignments, certainly, the act of formulating a sort of pitch for them would be useful for the same reason: being forced to find a refined, to-the-point and brief way of summarizing the topic and what you want to do with it, and how forces your mind onto a clear track in order to accomplish it. Honestly, without having to do the pitch for this, I don't know if I ever would've really made up my mind, right up until I had to record the thing!

As for my refined topic, in a nutshell, it's as follows - my podcast, titled "Humanity 2.0: The Bionic Evolution", is going to track (in brief) the progression of health-related nanotechnology, engineered organs and full-body transplants from science fiction to reality, and hear comments from the general student body and a robotics professor on the York University campus in order to answer these basic questions:  What happens to humankind if and when the science fiction of a bionic human becomes reality, and mortality becomes more of an option than a fact? Is there, or should there be a line drawn on these kinds of scientific advancements?

Tune in to find out!

Of Tension Headaches and Podcast Pitching Tips

Ugh. So. The frustration of trying to figure out a way to narrow my topic into a specific, 15 minute-long cohesive presentation continues, with my computer keyboard suffering the brunt of things under irately harsh Google-search typing, and my shoulders now locked in fresh disgruntled-hunch knots... but more to the point (and away from very caffeinated grumblings), here's what I've come up with for this week's post, specifically.

The following are the sources I gathered for pitch-writing, and the highlights of the advice they provided:

1) "BBC Academy - Production":
              i) "Know the market -- Research and understand the network and slots that you're writing for." In                   other words, in the context of this assignment: do enough research to know exactly the type of                       show you're emulating, and the audience you're meant to be broadcasting it to.
             ii) "Build a character -- If you have a great idea for a character, rather than a situation, then you                        could be onto a winner." Meaning for us that focusing on a specific point rather than a broad                          topic will give the show clear focus and interest for whoever you're pitching it to.
            iii) "Know what's already out there -- Be aware of what's already on radio and tv and don't pitch for                  similar ideas." This one will certainly be more challenging, but the importance of it is clear in that                    while we're emulating a specific show using topics likely already explored in other such podcasts                    or via radio/tv, our own podcast's ability to be successfully pitched, not to mention successfully                      produced, relies on it being a fresh and (at least in some ways) new take on whatever topic we've                  picked.

2) "How to Write a Business Pitch" (Not strictly speaking dedicated to podcasting pitching, but upon reading it, the principles apply very well nonetheless):
            i) "Get to the Point" -- In your pitch, don't save the core idea of what you're really talking about for                   the middle of your presentation or the end; get to the heart of the matter quickly to allow for                           immediate understanding of your idea, and the chance for interest to build.
           ii) "Pay Attention to Details" -- Once the idea is established, hammer out the specifics of what makes                it such a good idea, such as with the ways which you plan to develop it so that it comes to a good                  and complete payoff of the core idea.
           iii) "Do Your Research" -- Having a range of information (from reliable sources) that you can draw on                 to fortify and/or validate your idea and the direction you want to take with it goes a long way to                     making the core idea and principle development of it as concrete and appealing as it can be.

3) "How to Pitch a Podcast" (Written more towards a podcast doing self-promotion for authors, but once again, with applicable core principles):
           *This article primarily discusses the physical format of a type-written pitch, but it also discusses the                  importance of quickly stating the idea and its relevance and making the connection to the target                      market/audience. It makes the point that you need to catch the attention of whoever you're pitching                to, and quickly convince them of the interest and relevance of whatever you're bringing to the table.

Based on the "CRAAP" test mentioned in lecture, I determined these sources were reliable because: the sites are current, with recent copyrights and functioning links; the authors of the articles/sites are authoritative in their credentials and affiliations; the information presented appears reliable and accurate; and the purpose of the sites and articles are not to sell anything or promote any real bias, but are instead meant to be informative.

With all of the information contained in the above three sources, the common line of reasoning going through each seems to determine that for my own podcast pitch, the most important things I can have are a direct purpose and audience, a quick and focused description of what the concept is for my podcast, a fresh take on whatever topic I want to explore, and plenty of research to back it up in order to be confident and informed in the direction I'm presenting in the pitch.


Work Cited

"Tips: Writing Radio Comedy." BBC Academy. BBC, 2014. Web. 26 Jan 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/production/article/art20130702112136343>

"How to Write a Business Pitch." Scribendi. Scribendi.com, 2014. Web. 26 Jan 2014.
<http://www.scribendi.com/advice/how_to_write_a_business_pitch.en.html>

Barko, Stephanie. "How to Pitch a Podcast." San Francisco Book Review. San Francisco Book Review, 13 Feb 2013. Web. 26 Jan 2014.
<http://sanfranciscobookreview.com/2013/02/how-to-pitch-a-podcast/>

Attack of the Podcast

Narrowing down a topic for this assignment seems to have been an exercise in hair-pulling and second-guessing for the past two weeks, but I think I've finally made up my mind! Hopefully.

The podcast I've chosen to emulate is the one called Spark. I chose this one from the list because the idea of exploring a technological innovation and its implications/consequences immediately appealed to my love of analysis and narrative. From there, I greatly enjoyed browsing through some of Spark's episodes for their investigative nature, with the tone and methods used to question technological developments, trends and possibilities. Listening to each one led to a great deal of interest and inspiration for my own assigned podcast, and a little research further along cemented my topic for me.

Of the elements that make up Spark, I especially want to capture its investigative nature. I would also be greatly interested in - though admittedly equally intimidated by - the prospect of including brief interviews (from the general public, as well as from an intellect in the field) in order to explore the popular opinion of my topic and its scientific feasibility and benefits/consequences. Overall, I'd very much like to see my finished product emulate Spark's ability to incorporate an exploration of a technology's origins along with its current manifestation. Though, I'd perhaps like to spend a bit more time discussing future possibilities as well (depending on the direction my research ends up taking from here).

The specific topic that I will be creating a show about is the humanoid AI (artificial intelligence), and our bionic present and potential future. In recent years, amazing and even unnerving breakthroughs have been made in the area of creating machines that are able to perform tasks on their own and even learn from their environment and adapt. Further to that, there have been equally stunning breakthroughs in human-technology blending, integrating one with the other for specific tasks, with far-reaching possibilities for future potential enhancements to one's quality of life and even life expectancy. An underlying theme tying it all together will be this kind of technology's depictions in science fiction, leading into interview-source material to progress a debate as to its positive and/or negative ramifications.

For podcasting advice, the Spark site suggested wasn't too much help (assuming I was on the right one), so after some browsing I found a pretty helpful source of tips for subject matter and podcast script writing techniques at this link to the New Mexico State University website: http://aces.nmsu.edu/employee/podcasting/parts-of-a-podcast.html. Another good source for the podcast script writing was at this link, for the CDC website: http://www2c.cdc.gov/podcasts/AudioScriptWritingGuide.pdf. The advice written out on both of the above websites definitely proved helpful in topic selection, with such points as the benefits of picking a topic of personal interest as well as of interest within current events/debates. It also had some very good points to make on the writing style for the podcast, in sentence structures and conversational tones to aim for. To make them even more useful for students in my position, maybe I would add more details on ways to take a topic of interest and narrow it into a conversational topic that may suit the radio station structuring that makes up a podcast.

So this is the part where I say: Hello! My name is...

...Celeste Dube, and I'm on my second year of my undergraduate degree in English and Professional Writing, in the Book Stream. My overall interest in my studies is to focus on the editing and production process in literature, and work towards being involved in publishing books, likely focusing either on stylistic or structural editing. To help get experience towards these ends, I've been volunteering with the York U-based literature and arts journal Existere for the past year and a half in several different capacities. I've also started a blog of my own to make my attempt at being involved (ish) in social media, but the jury's still out on how that's going.

In research, with the overwhelming amount of information at our fingertips on a daily basis, I would like to learn effective ways of searching out information I actually want from it all, and I would like to learn more concrete methods of determining which sources are actually reliable and appropriate for any given use. In a nutshell, whether it's my own writing or if I am responsible for someone else's, I want to be confident that the information contained in it is truly as credible as it should be.

I've never heard of Zotero, but (if I'm thinking of the right program) I've used RefWorks several times over the last couple of years, and have a small working knowledge of it, and remember it being pretty useful in the process of sorting scholarly articles for essays whenever I could find an article online in York U's databases.

Largely, my research experience for school-related inquiries has all been conducted through links to online databases through the Scott Library system or book searches in person. On personal matters (for writing, or plain old curiosity's sake), my research has been Google searches, relying largely on hits from Wikipedia (I know, I know - shame on me), as well as The Globe and Mail, CBC, CTV and BBC site updates and archives. Lately as well, whenever there's a broad topic I want to learn about, I've started streaming documentaries whenever I come across one from a reputable-sounding source (though again, I'd like to narrow down the definition of "reputable" over the course of this semester).

When it comes to podcasting, I have even less experience with it than I do blogging, which is to say I have no experience whatsoever, not in hearing about them, not in listening to them, and needless to say not in making one myself. As for the prospect of making one, I'm not necessarily intimidated, but I couldn't say I'm excited to do it either; I know nothing about recording or sound editing, my recorded voice is awful (I sound like I have a permanent cold), and I've never enjoyed having to do presentations, always preferring being creative on paper rather than out loud. From the description in class though, it basically sounds like a radio show, just put in the online format, so it seems interesting. And as a further silver lining, recording and posting it means no in-person presentation jitters (aside from the in-class pitch), so all in all... I'm tentatively optimistic about how this'll turn out.

Last but not least, after looking at the list of podcast-emulation possibilities, I'm most interested in doing Spark, Everyday Einstein or Stuff You Missed in History Class. I love the idea of dissecting an innovation or historical event and taking a look at what it meant, means or will mean in the scope of society as a whole. Writing has me addicted to getting to tell a good story, and I feel like with any of these three topics, the mix of narrative and social relevancy could allow for a really interesting finished product.