McGilley Martian Podcast
This podcast covers the topic of the community that came together on Earth to ensure Mark Watney's survival, and relates it back to our personal experiences with community through service learning. It was created by Anna Loch, Emilie Kiehlbauch, Jenna Asherman, Shelby Groce, Natalie Price, and William Young from McGilley house.
I really enjoyed listening to this podcast. The group did an excellent job discussing the questions that were brought up. The group was engaging and discussed both sides of the questions evenly. It is difficult to have such a big group and have everyone provide their input. They did an excellent job of allowing everyone to provide their point. I especially liked the question of if the German man was left what would NASA do. It is an interesting question that I never thought of. The introduction was great and caught the audience's attention, and the conclusion did a great job tying everything together. Overall, it was a very interesting podcast to listen to and felt like it could have gone on much longer.
ReplyDeleteI think my biggest critique would be from a technical standpoint. This may be just because I am very OCD when it comes with audio, but I felt as if there was a slight bit of white noise in the background that took me out of the podcast at first. This can be changed depending on the MIC you use and or simply adding some music in the background to flush out the noise. I also felt that I could hear some people more than others. Again this is the most difficult thing to do recording on just one microphone. Because with most podcasts, each person has there own mic and track they are recording on but I know hear we do not have the capabilities of that. Overall it was a good listen and the format was great but there was some improvement that could have been made from a technical standpoint.
From my point of view, I believe that the podcast was pretty well done for a first time. There was good voice from everyone who spoke and I thought the ideas expressed were pretty well rounded. I liked how in the beginning you had everyone talking so that they could all get their participation across. I will say that I also enjoyed some of the analysis and heard some really good points. I also heard some scientific basis for answers which I believed was really neat when thinking about how scientific this book was, regardless of whether it was intended or not.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of some areas of improvement, I believe that some voices did sound different and there was not as much consistency in how loud the voices are in your podcast. In terms of personal opinion, I must say that tone is a pet peeve of mine, and monotone just makes it seem to drag a little. I thought that William did a good job with his voice the whole time and I think most of the issue was when you were reading a script. I definitely could tell when you were reading from a script and when you were not. Whether that is a negative is up for interpretation.
This podcast was technically impressive for the constraints. The audio, while it did suffer from inconsistency in volume, was never difficult to hear. Additionally, all team members spoke clearly, making it easy to listen to. I also enjoyed the introduction; I found the sponsorship from the "O'Leary Company" to be humorous. In terms of content, I was impressed by the research. Anna's mentioning of a research study on human empathy and the several references to events from the book added credibility to the arguments presented.
ReplyDeleteThere are many positive things to be said about this production, but it is not without its faults. It felt as if members of the group such as Natalie and Shelby were underutilized. Furthermore, the interactions between members of the group felt stilted and unnatural, particularly when transitioning to another question. The transition to the second half of the podcast was similarly less than ideal. It was rather abrupt, despite the brief pause between segments. The two segments could have been related to one another more strongly. I believe that would have improved the cohesion of the work as a whole.
Overall, I found this podcast to be innocuous and deserving of high marks. Great work.