My Radio Story

They thought he was dead. Indeed many were hoping that was the case. But this morning the infamous Barry Gordemer was spotted in a tanning salon in Washington D.C.

Buck Widemouth reports

--------------------------------------------

This is the most wonderful story ever written in the history of mankind. It's about a puppeteer who turned to a life of crime but was redeemed when he taught a class at American University.

Barry Gordemer describes himself as a small cog in the great wheel of nothingness.


President Obama says he would like to have Gordemer obliterated by a drone. In fact he's already given the order to attack at dawn.  But Gordemer says he's not worried.

Gordemer has hidden himself in a bunker with Slim Jims and Red Bull. He will make a guest appearance on tonight on "Dancing With The Stars."
Gordmer was kicked off the show last year when he showed up wearing only a purple thong and a smile.

Buck Widemouth, Comm 200 News.

Berling NPR blog post

Zoe Berling

Why College Students May Feel Like Imposters On Campus

I went on NPR and found a quick scientific segment on the effect of the psychological state of freshman students on their success in college.  The interview Psychologist Greg Walton was summarized by the NPR correspondent Shankar Vedantam.  Vedantam collaborated with Steve Inskeep from the Morning Edition to create a concise depiction of Walton’s research. The style differs from a print story because multiple people contribute to creating the narrative.  The information was delivered through a series of comments, each one clarifying the other person’s point.  It was more of a discussion, rather than a revealing of facts.  

The language was pretty informal because the segment was only about four minutes and the audience was parents with college age students. I didn’t have any problems with the sentence structure; it sounded colloquial and easy to understand.  There were points where the conversation was difficult to follow.  I think that the reason is that the conversation was really condensed.  The analogy to the car oil was stupid.  Because of the brevity of the segment, there wasn’t enough lead up.

Attribution in radio stories is different than attribution in written news in that it’s easier to get away with informal language.  Looking at the transcript of the story made Vedantam’s introduction of Greg Walton look awkward, but it sounded relatively natural when I was just listening.

I wonder if these kinds of stories follow a script or if the commentators are just following notes.  It doesn’t read like a script.  However, there are some lines that sound scripted, like “and that’s interesting” and “that’s right.”  These transitions sound natural, but look corny.  

The segment was generally ok.  There were no major stylistic problems. Even though the content wasn’t mind blowing, the points were gracefully conveyed.  The biggest problem was the car analogy, which sucked.  Honestly, it ruined the segment for me.

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/16/235188760/why-college-freshman-may-feel-like-imposters-on-campus

Print vs. Broadcast - Mina Younossi

This story on NPR’s morning edition was addressing Secretary of State, John Kerry in the United States’ military involvement in Afghanistan as well as President of Syria, Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons and the abilities of the U.S. to remove them. I found this broadcast to be very interesting. I prefer listening to the broadcast instead of reading a print story, mostly because I enjoy the interview style that radio broadcast offers. It seems to be less calculated and I find it to be seemingly more trustworthy because of that. Especially since trust in the source that is providing the information is something I believe audiences look for when hearing news stories. The person being interviewed thinks of replies, or answers to the questions given, off the top of their heads.

I also think that listening to a broadcast is more efficient rather than reading a print story because you are able to listen while doing other things such as driving or cooking, whereas print you much focus all your attention on reading the story. Therefore, I think people are more likely to stay engaged while listening to broadcast news and less likely to get bored and move on to the next task. Also, I noticed that the speaker or interviewer is able to say things such as “this past weekend” as oppose to big print stories, that can be read within days of being published that say exact dates. I assume this is because the broadcasts are given as well as heard by audiences the day they were written. 

Mina Younossi

NPR Critique - Print vs. Broadcast Journalism

  This NPR article provides some perspective on just how different print journalism and broadcast journalism are. There are several notable differences. The first being the lead paragraph. I found the lead sentence to be similar to print journalism in the sense that it captures the readers attention. However, it doesn't really tell the reader the most important part of the article: the fact that Arkansas wants to become the edamame capital of the USA. Furthermore, the lead paragraph seems very choppy and even has an incomplete sentence. These are both qualities a print article wouldn't have. Listening to the broadcast, though, you realize that it just sounds like how people talk and isn't very noticeable. 

  This leads me to my next point. The language and structure is very conversational. The structure entails short comments by the host followed by interview quotes from other people. This style is just like a group of people having a conversation: one person talks, then someone else, then the first person says something again, etc. This set-up would not work in print journalism and doesn't quite mesh with the inverted style of writing. In fact, the main point of the article doesn't even get mentioned until almost the end of the article. 

  Finally, quotes are given a lot more importance in broadcast writing. In print, a quote may be used to liven up the story and takes up a line or two. However, in broadcast, the quotes are large part of the story. The quotes do not only serve to liven up the story, but also help progress the story. 

Broadcast vs Print - Brian Rhoades

I listened to a story from NPR's All Things Considered Program about the government shutdown. Right away I noticed a few key differences in how it was written compared to print journalism. First, there is no rigid adherence to the inverted pyramid style. I think that the broadcast writing is more of a narrative, the telling of a story, rather than listing key facts in descending importance. Second, I realized that instead of having direct quotes to add credibility they could interview a source so that everyone can hear their words first hand. At one point during the program there was a recording of a famous speech, which made think about all the ways that broadcast has more freedom to make their stories more interesting (sound effects, music, recordings, interviews, etc).

There are also many similarities to print journalism. Mainly, the word choice and language of the stories is still conversational and common in both mediums. I think it's important that in both forms of journalism, when it's not a story geared to a specific audience niche, to use conversational language. This is done by not making a spectacle out of using longer and harder words, and keeping sentences shorter and simpler. When it comes to attributions, it's important that in broadcast journalism the introduction comes before the quoted material. When we are reading a story in print, we understand that a quote is beginning thanks to the punctuation marks, but it would be confusing if a broadcast just started saying quoted material and then acknowledge that fact at the end of the sentence.

Broadcast Story Critique: Cyber-Bullying

In this NPR transcript, there are many differences compared to print journalism that stuck out to me.  The title of this broadcast in transcript form is, "Girl Charged For Cyber-Bullying Girl Who Committed Suicide."  This is lengthy, and quite confusing but since most people listen to the broadcast and do not read the transcript, it was not necessary for the title to catch the viewers attention.  In fact, the broadcast does not even mention the title, but rather starts off with the lead sentence.

The lead sentence also does not take the inverted pyramid format that we usually use for print journalism.  The subject of this broadcast was about a girl who committed suicide due to cyber bullying, but the lead sentence says, "In Florida the arrest of two middle-school girls has shaken the community."  The two girls arrested were the ones who bullied the 12 year old girl, but the lead does not suggest that is the most important part.  However, that would only be the case if this was written as a newspaper article, but as a broadcast story, the announcer catches the listeners attention.  I think this is so once the listener hears this, they will then pay attention to the story and that is where the announcer will begin to dive into the real details.

I also think that the transcript of the broadcast is not well-written, but when you listen to it, the words flow nicely.  The broadcast uses a lot of quotes where you can hear the actual people speak, which helps add validity and an emotional aspect to listening.  In this story, when you hear what the sheriff said about the girl who committed suicide, it really adds to the story compared to a news article where you do not get the same type of personal connection.

Critique on NPR

            In NPR’s Morning Edition “Columnist Doubts Parties Can Resolve Fundamental Differences” the radio clip is less specific compared to print journalism. When speaking of people doing things specific people aren’t given as much as they are in print. Instead they just refer to the president or the parties. It is assumed that the listener already knows who these people are. On the other hand, other parts are explained because they are not specific enough. During the interview the interviewer explains that the interviewees use of the word “Democratic Position” means Obama’s position. In referring to the parties and one sides position the speaker just says, “the Democrats.”

 The interviewer also summarizes what the interviewee said in simpler terms so the listeners can understand what they were just told. This will make it easier for the listeners to properly remember what was just said, since unlike print it is more difficult to look back at what you were just told.

Compared to print journalism, the radio clip still sites people, but quotes less. An article in print would have used more direct quotes from authority figures. This clip though sites barely any quotes. If they were to use quotes they would probably prefer to use a recording of a quote from someone. It creates more drama in the broadcast and greater clarification.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=234586988&m=234586951

NPR-All Things Considered, Story on College Admissions

After reading the transcript for this NPR story, one of the biggest things that struck me about the writing was the differences in the inverted pyramid. The story does not begin with a lead sentence that states the what and when. Instead, the lead sentences kind of sets the stage for the story. It introduces the kind of topic that is going to be discussed. Only then, does it introduce the problem that the Common Application for colleges is having extreme technical difficulties.

Another difference that struck me was the way that quotes are used in the story. First of all, the quotes in this story aren't being used as additional nuggets of thoughts and observations from witnesses like the way that print articles uses quotes. Instead, the quotes in this radio broadcast seem to be the primary way that the story progresses. The quotes explain all of the issues in depth, and they explain all of the reactions in depth. Instead of the author just explaining the full scope of the story, he lets his expert and character witnesses tell the story. Overall, it gives them more of a role in the story. In addition, the way that quotes are introduced is also different. The story will first introduce the person in one or two sentences by explaining who they are and why they are relevant. Their quote is then played in the audio. A print story would have used a lot more paraphrasing, and it would have introduced witnesses within the text and embedded within a sentence

One final key difference I noticed was the tone. I found this radio broadcast to have a lighter tone that allowed for more reflection on the story. The broadcast was able to put the story into the larger context of why it matters. It could go into more detail about how both students and colleges are frustrated with this mess and struggling to cope. A print story would have been dryer. It would have stated the facts and the facts only. Quotes with reflective opinions would have been kept to a minimum.

Broadcast Journalism vs. Print Journalism - Nicole Russo

While reading the transcript for an NPR broadcast, More Angst For College Applicants: A Glitchy Common App, I realized that broadcast journalism and print journalism are vastly different. Before even reading the transcript, I noticed that the title of the broadcast was a bit lengthy and would probably be written in a more concise manner if written for a print publication.

            The first paragraph also seemed awkward due to the sentence structure. When reading the second sentence that begins with “but”, there was a lack of fluidity because conjunctions aren’t typically used to start sentences in print. However, when I listened to the broadcast, I didn’t pick-up on the awkwardness because it’s common for conjunctions to be used in speech. Additionally, I noticed that the lead was at the end of the first paragraph, whereas if this story was a journal article, it would most likely be the first sentence.

            Some of the word choices in the article were also different from those that would be used in print. Much of the language was conversational, but also at times redundant. For example, Lisa Meyer ends one part by saying “those kind of things” and then Eric Westervelt repeats “those are big things…”, only for Meyer to reply, “those are very big things.” Not only are these choice of words redundant, but they are vague and confusing. If this part of the broadcast was to be written for print media, I think the dialogue would be paraphrased for understanding and concision.

            Finally, I noticed that AP rules for writing are not as closely followed. For example, the age of one of the students is spelt out when AP style states that numerical values should be used for any number greater than nine. Seeing as how the broadcast was made with the intent of being listened to and not read, the AP style rules are not as important as in print journalism.

Comparing Print vs. Radio/ Broadcast Writing (Using NPR)

Broadcast and print are two very different genres of writing, and thus it is important to understand and notice their differences. For example, when reading NPR’s story on politics, I was very surprised to find that it did not have a catchy and engaging lead, like most print stories. Instead, it was straight to the point and led me wanting to read more of the story but in a subtle way. In addition, another difference I noticed was that the radio story’s writing was much more conversational than any print piece. It was much more relaxed, and thus I felt that it could be read easily out loud, which makes sense since it is a radio piece. Another difference that I picked up on was the quotes used in this story were used more for impact, rather than paraphrasing. There were also a lot of quotes in order to clearly tell the story, which I found beneficial.  Attribution for quotes, however, was similar to print stories.

            All in all, I really enjoyed reading NPR’s piece on whether or not the U.S. would be better off developing a Parliament because this story flowed really well. Although the lead was not as enticing, I still continued to read the story and was glad I did because it was so easy to read and was easy to understand! The quotes also made the story come to life and added credibility to the piece of writing as well. Overall, I am very pleased with the radio article I read, and I might even start listening to NPR just a little more now. 

-Carly Ferreira-

NPR Story Critique

Immediately after reading the title of this radio story, which discusses the recent nominees for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, I knew that the broadcast aspect would add a much needed dimension of sound to the story.  This type of story is enhanced by actually being able to play the music of the nominees being discussed, and that is something that can't be done in print journalism.  In addition, there is a very conversational tone to the writing in this story, even more so than there would be in a print version of this kind of story.  The broadcaster begins the story by simply stating that the nominees were announced, but then says they will talk about a few of them in a "not so veiled attempt to play some rock on our airwaves." This is a very conversational and fun way to hook listeners in and take advantage of the ability to play music to accompany the story, something that would be otherwise impossible had it been a print news story. Similar to what would be done in a print story, however, the broadcaster begins with the most important information first by saying how many nominees there are and that they were announced "today," which is a word more closely tied to broadcast writing than print. While a print story could have given information on some of the different nominees like was done in this broadcast story, it could not have given the same amount of color to the story that the broadcast quality is able to do. The broadcaster throws in comments on each nominee while playing a bit of their famous songs, and this combination is well suited for a story on music, especially if listeners may not think they are familiar with the band but recognize the music once they hear it. It is different from a print story in this way because the writing seems to be more about shorter, more colorful sentences that feel more like the broadcaster having a personal conversation with the listener. Having this story done on the radio versus print enhances the content of the story and the even more conversational and engaging tone presented by the broadcaster adds to the appeal for listeners. Overall, this was a well done broadcast story and the use of music along with commentary and information provided for a fun and informative listening experience.

Broadcast Analysis

CNN recently aired a video on a family who found the world’s largest mushroom in their backyard. I think the “Monstrous mushrooms discovered” news story was very successful. It had an attention-grabbing lead, it was clear and concise, and it held my attention.  

The broadcaster begins the segment with, “When Ed Delaney told his wife he had a surprise for her she thought she was getting flowers but when she came downstairs Ed was holding this.”

This was very successful broadcast lead sentence because it makes the viewers want to keep watching and find out what this thing could be. Some broadcasters have visuals to aid their story so they don’t need as careful with their word choice. Normally in print, ending your lead sentence with “holding this” wouldn’t be appropriate. The video, however, cut to an image of the mushroom so its audience understood what the story was about.

The rest of the news story also had some distinct differences from a print story. The story didn’t mention the name of “the expert at Michigan State University” until later in the segment. In print, if someone was being quoted his or her name would be directly stated before or after the quote.

I also noticed that the most important information was mentioned within the first 30 seconds of the video. This is similar to print journalism’s inverted pyramid structure; however, the video was less detailed and shorter than a print story. In print, the inverted pyramid gives the readers the most important information first but the story can continue and be detailed.

Print stories also don’t have a time restriction. Readers can take however long they want to finish reading a story. Unlike print, broadcasters have a limited amount of time to share their story. 

The reason why print and broadcast journalism differ so much in their structure, language, and style is because broadcaster’s needs to get their message across as quickly as possible to keep their audience's attention. 

Jane Burnett's NPR Story Critique

The NPR radio segment and article I found are about a Miami charter school recently opened by rapper and Miami native Pitbull. The article is easy to follow. However, when compared to a standard print article, there are both similarities and differences in the language, structure, and attribution. For example, the language is also simple, but the most conversational words were featured in the direct quotes. But the article’s language did not match the text of the radio segment word-for-word. 

In addition, the structure of the article deviated slightly from print format. Most paragraphs are short, which is meant to aid the reader. The lead is about the highlight of the article- Pitbull’s new, public charter school in Miami, called SLAM. The writer then lists the location, grade levels and purpose. Next comes a Pitbull quote, some of his life story and a quote from a student. After more on the rapper’s rise to fame, direct quotes about the opinions of students’ parents, and the school board are featured. The article ends with quote from a speech given by Pitbull. Overall, the article had many more quotes than an average print story because in radio, broadcasters color their stories with lengthy dialogue straight from the subjects.   

            In terms of attribution, the reporter did a good job of introducing all quoted subjects immediately. Since there were many quotes, he had to attribute them to people quite a bit.

This article about a radio broadcast was similar to a print news article.