Before reading this essay, I was immediately intrigued by the title, “Consider the Lobster”. Unsure of its context, I was honestly shocked that the essay was indeed about lobsters. I thought it would have been some metaphorical story about humans, but no, it was about actual lobsters. As someone who has never heard of or attended the Maine Lobster Festival, it was interesting to learn about how insane it actually is. He’s writing this piece for a “gourmet” food magazine, which is understandable since lobster is seen as a more luxurious seafood. Wallace’s writing is very effective in describing all the elements of the festival, making it easy to visualize and understand how he was feeling while in attendance. I also found his footnotes very entertaining and informative to the entirety of the essay. It allowed Wallace to almost have side conversations with the reader, getting more of his personal flare. While Wallace did give a thorough and genuine description of the Maine Lobster Festival, I did not expect the topic to shift into the ethics of eating lobsters. It was really smart of him to engage the reader with the opening section, to then be able to address the importance of his essay. As someone who was fascinated by the lobster tanks at the supermarket or Red Lobster itself, it makes me sad how the whole cooking process occurs. While I’m not a vegetarian myself, I was still uncomfortable hearing Wallace describe the treatment of lobsters before being eaten. A quote from the section about boiling the lobsters really stuck in my head in saying, “The lobster will sometimes try to cling to the container’s sides or even to hook it’s claws over the kettle’s rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof… Even if you cover the kettle and turn away, you can usually hear the cover rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push it off.” Not only is that very graphic, but it really makes you consider the lobster in this situation and think about your own personal feelings towards animal treatment and moral ethics in general.

Unlike a random personality quiz, Buzzfeed’s site features “Inside the Playlist Factory” written by Reggie Ugwu in 2016. This essay dives deeper into the unseen work done at streaming service headquarters. Streaming services have taken the music industry by storm and have allowed so many people to access music more freely. The most popular component of these services is the plethora of playlists they offer. You can find a playlist for practically anything, similar to random greeting cards. However, people do not realize it takes a special type of person to curate playlists that appeal to the millions of users. They analyze listening patterns, activity, time of day, or really anything to better understand what playlists people will enjoy listening to and discover more music. The topic of this essay is what makes it interesting in itself. Not many people take into consideration the mechanics of the music they’re listening to, especially when it’s available at the touch of a button. This essay is unique in how it tells numerous creators personal stories, all tying back to the main theme. The author also makes numerous references to songs, artists, and main stream topics to keep the readers engaged in the content. In addition, he has links to outside sources by imbedding them within his writing, taking the reader into discovering the topic further. The content of this essay is so relevant because who doesn’t love music, especially in this digital age. The ending of the essay really stuck with me. The final quote, “Instead of reacting to what’s happening, I have a hand in shaping what’s happening.”, really speaks to the society we live in. We are constantly being shaped and influenced by our media and sometimes it’s subconsciously…just like the people behind playlists.

In Elizabeth Royte’s descriptive essay entitled, “The Remains of the Night”, she recounts her experience cleaning up sex garbage from a park. The content itself I found interesting, and definitely would have read it regardless of the platform she used. That being said, I do think Medium allowed her to implement more graphical elements and organize her points around them. The real photos of the trash found and discovered provides proof of her discoveries and the multitude of content in this specific area, the Midwood. The various statistics that were highlighted at various points definitely had a greater impact, rather than being woven throughout her essay. I personally found one of the statistics about unique sexual behaviors intriguing. As a gay man myself, I would not have considered kissing a “unique experience”. Reading that statement made me think a bit more about the society we live in and how it is still not widely accepted to be a part of the LGBTQ+ community, as well as internalized homophobia within people of said community. Going back to her images, one of them in particular caught my eye. The photo including the magazine on the ground with used condoms over top. The prominent word on the magazine is “Jesus”, which got me thinking as to why gay men would be looking at religious material. Or are they purposefully disposing of their items to make a statement about religion and homosexuality?

Overall, Royte used the perks of Medium to her advantage. In this digital age, not many people enjoy sitting down and reading paragraph after paragraph. That being said, Royte was able to implement all these graphic elements to not only assist in creating a visual, but also making the content more interesting to read about. Having a platform like Medium to expand your essay further and engage your audience outside of the words is definitely something beneficial.

In the “Space” podcast from RadioLab, I enjoyed the use of sound effects and music throughout the episode. They often related to what someone was saying and helped create a more visual experience while listening. A majority of the sounds were also entertaining and made the conversation more interesting. In addition, I liked the way they organized their points and had a specific break in between them. In our podcast, I definitely want to implement spooky sound effects and music to add to our fearful theme. Also, our podcast has different sections so being able to purposefully separate them will be beneficial.

Beth: I listened to the podcast on Heyoon and it was actually very interesting. The style of it really helped keep my attention because it started off in a story format. The main speaker, Alex Goldman, is telling the story of going to Heyoon, a pavilion in the middle of a random field in Michigan, as a teenager. While he tells this story, it switches on and off to a narrator along with sound recordings of a group of people going to Heyoon. Goldman later goes on to speak to the actual owners and creators of Heyoon which was really interesting. What were the rest of your podcasts like?

Stefano: The Every Little Thing’s podcast where they discussed Winnie the Pooh’s age was very interesting and fun to learn about. The overall atmosphere was light-hearted and had a child-like sense of curiosity throughout the age discovery. What about you guys?

Breanna: The podcast I listened to was You’re Wrong About: Kitty Genovese and “Bystander Apathy where they discuss the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. The style of the podcast was set up like a book or a magazine article telling the story of Genovese and her life that led up to her death and what happened after her death too. The two hosts’ names were called Sarah Marshall and Michael Hobbes and they went back n’ forth talking about Genovese. While Marshall tells the story more, Hobbes reacts to the insane things that took place in how she was murdered and how 38 bystanders almost did not do anything about it. What was your podcast like Ruby?

Ruby: Serial produced the podcast I listened to about the murder of Hae Min Lee in 1999. “The Alibi” follows Sarah Koenig, a woman who took interest in the murder case as she believes the alleged murderer is innocent.  Adnan Syed, who is currently in prison for the murder, claims to be innocent so Koenig goes through the process of figuring out a normal day 16 years later to prove this alleged innocence. Through a series of interviews dated back in 1999, when the case occurred, Koenig acts as a narrator while incorporating these discussions in place of her storytelling. Her style is informative while keeping a constant entertaining progression towards the truth. Her pathos is clearly shown throughout as she became emotionally involved in what was intentionally a truth-finding process. Beth for your podcast, how did they use their research?

Beth: The research used comes straight from Peter Hayden, the owner. Because this was such a mysterious and unknown place, there was no real research the producers could have done themselves. The organization of first telling the details of Heyoon and what the place was like and then going on to the interviews made the podcast easier to follow along. Stefano, how would you explain your research for the podcast you listened to?

Stefano: The research began with a professional age guesser to see what human characteristics helped him guess an age. From there, the discussion shifts to a wildlife ecologist who knows about bears and their characteristics. Lastly, a pediatrician was introduced, who wrote an academic essay about Winnie the Pooh, specifically about the book The House at Pooh Corner. Herein lies the answer to the driving question of this episode. Each piece of evidence made the audience more engaged to find out more and the level of professionalism on the main topic increased over time. Overall, I really enjoyed listening to this podcast and even found myself wondering what other random things do people not really know the answer to. Breanna, how did your podcast use their research?

Breanna: The research used to help Marshall explain the story comes from news articles and New York Times stories taken from before and after the murder took place. She also uses historical research, data, and articles to explain the “gay culture” from the time too because Genovese was also a lesbian. There was a lot to account for in her murder more because of all the things that got invented or started due to her murder. Better street lights were put into place, bystanders learned the true cost of not helping or asking for help, and telephone number 911 was started four years later. What I liked about how the podcast sums her story up as it is said that this woman had this happened to her and how even sadder that people’s lazy or “1960’s brains” reacted to her murder because this would never happen in today’s world. But her murder got coined as the “Genovese effect” meaning the only reason this would not happen in today’s world is that this awful event occurred. Ruby, did Koenig use her own research?

Ruby: The research was conducted by Koenig herself, as she used court recordings and self-conducted interviews. She dispersed the information in the order of the case, giving researched details as the story went on. This led the story along, eventually going past the horrific event, court appearances and family interviews to a modern search for the truth using the same type of research.

Discussing Episode 1 of StartUp, “How Not to Pitch a Billionaire”

In the first episode of StartUp entitled “How Not to Pitch a Billionaire”, Alex Blumberg tells the story of his new podcast idea and the experience pitching it to mogul Chirs Sacca. Prior to starting a new business, Blumberg was very successful and well-known in the podcast world. He was a producer for This American Life and helped create Planet Money, both dealing with finances and economics. One day he decided he could take his experience and create something better.

In the beginning, Blumberg decided he was going to create a podcast business focused on storytelling and the like; a genre that deserves more recognition but requires more resources to create. Anyone who is confident enough to leave their stable job and start a business must be passionate in the process. Blumberg is very personable and treats his podcast casually while remaining professional. He talks about his personal life and family and creates an equal connection to the audience, rather than putting himself higher. Blumberg then goes on to talk of all these successful investments that have been made through Sacca, showcasing his importance and getting the audience to support Blumberg’s pitch. 

I think it’s interesting how the podcast ended with Blumberg not getting the investment and feeling discouraged. Even when it seemed he was going to have another potential investor, that conversation wasn’t super promising either. Including this part of the story leaves the audience wondering what comes next, effective in keeping the audience interested to learn more in future episodes.

Analyzing This American Life and Comparing Methodologies to Stuff Mom Never Told You

American economics is not a topic I am particularly fond of in any way. Math and numbers get jumbled into a language that is very hard to follow. In This American Life’s podcast entitled “The Giant Pool of Money”, discusses the economic crisis that occurred in the housing market during the early 2000s. This was the cause of those who could not afford houses still being loaned money they definitely could not pay back. The podcast was divided into three sections, yet the content of the conversation never changes. It’s basically just to give the audience a break.

In comparison to the Stuff Mom Never Told You podcast, This American Life is way more informative. The women discussing fast fashion were just everyday individuals having a conversation and trying to educate themselves on the spot. Whereas the speakers in This American Life are experts in the field and also introduce people with personal experience on the topic. Generally, they appeared to be more credible and professional with their research and organization. However, that does not mean their message was more comprehensible.

In my opinion, I found “The Giant Pool of Money” more difficult to follow than “The Cost of Fast Fashion”. Although the women were a bit disorganized and did not really cite their sources, the conversation was easier to follow and interesting to learn about. This American Life seems to be targeted to an audience who has an interest in economics and finances, leaving people like me very confused and often uninterested. I also found it difficult to know who was speaking and if they were interviewing someone directly or if it was a recording. Luckily there was a transcript but the confusion of voice is not something I found in the Stuff Mom Never Told You podcast.

Analyzing Authorial Misconduct in Zakaria, Lehrer, and Anderson’s Writings

Plagiarism has been ingrained in my brain from an early age as something very unacceptable; going against the honor code was means for major consequences. Taking someone else’s work as your own and not giving proper credit or just flat out pretending it’s your own is unethical and unfair. However, there is always going to be a bit of plagiarism with popular topics or when writing about common knowledge. But when it’s a person’s job to create original content and they fail to comply, what does that do their credibility?

In my opinion, Jonah Lehrer’s case is the most offensive. Not only did he reuse older works and not address them, but he made up quotes from Bob Dylan that did not exist. His material was not authentic and it was very easy for people to uncover his mistakes. This case was also mentioned in the NY Times article about Fareed Zakaria, so it’s apparent that the severity of Leher’s mistakes were prevalent. I do find the idea of self-plagiarizing interesting, however, because why would the original author feel the need to quote themselves? 

On the other hand, the least objectionable offense would be the Chris Anderson controversy. I still believe that the amount of plagiarism that occurred was completely unprofessional but I don’t believe all the blame should be placed on the writer in this scenario. The team behind his book did not follow procedures in the most effective way possible. Waiting till the last minute to add things such as footnotes or a final edit are definitely cause for authorial mistakes. Could these have just been excuses to be lazy and plagiarize? Possibly, but multiple parties still remain at fault in this case.

Analyzing The Mystery Show, “Belt Buckle” Podcast

Starlee Kine, the host of The Mystery Show podcast, searches of the owner of a unique and mysterious belt buckle, hence the title, brought in from someone’s childhood. With little to go from other than an engraving within the buckle, Kine is bound to hit some bumps in the road.

The first dead end came when Kine was interviewing Donna the art teacher. Although Donna was able to describe the physical features of Hans Jordi, as well as his demeanor, she was unsure of his relation to cooking. Her personal bias to cooking did not help either. Kine began searching and eventually came across an article that mentioned a chef Hans Jordi. Donna may not have helped confirm this, but at least she taught Kine how to see a horizon in art.

While continuing with her search, Kine believes she has found Bob Six, whose real name appears to be Bob Bland. She traveled to Phoenix and attended a culinary association meeting to not only find Bob, but Hans Jordi as well. Jordi was unfortunately a no-show, dead-end number two. At least there was Bob Six, or so Kine thought. When she meets him, Bland confirms a connection to Hans Jordi but never went by the nickname Bob Six. Another dead end causes her to feel farther from solving this mystery.

In the end, Chef Rene organizes a dinner at his home for Kine and Jordi to meet. When Jordi is late to arrive, worry settles in. However, the real Hans Jordi arrives and Kine is able to return this unique and sentimental belt buckle to its owner. She even learned about the real Bob Six and Jordi’s story of immigration to the U.S.

Fast Fashion & Sustainable Fashion ~ Response

Upon first-glance, both pieces discuss fashion, and the cost of it, over the years. In Rebecca Onion’s article, “How Depression-era Women Made Dresses Out of Chicken Feed”, she provides examples of the unique way women created new clothing. They used their available resources, such as cloth sacks, to have a cheaper alternative for clothing, sheets, curtains, etc. Onion includes numerous photographs to aid visually and support her points being made. Since this is a magazine article, it is very structured and organized to provide a readable source for all people; the tone is very straight-forward and factual. It’s apparent the author is well-educated in her topic and there’s even another article linked at the end to encourage continued research on this topic. 

In the podcast from Stuff Mom Never Told You, the two speakers begin talking about shopping habits and then change the discussion to the negative effects of fast fashion. From the beginning of the podcast, the conversation is very informal, as if the listener is involved with a conversation with friends. It makes the speakers relatable and has a light-hearted atmosphere for a more serious topic. Throughout their conversation, they incorporate a variety of sources and statistics while still making a comprehensible and casual analysis of fast fashion industries. As a podcast with no visual aid, the content is solely based on what is being said. However, not physically seeing the source makes it more difficult for listeners to continue research and fact check if they choose to. 

Although these pieces are different in content and in form of media, they build off each other very well. Tying in an article about sustainable clothing and recycling materials during a time of crisis, with a podcast on cheap clothing and the environmental cost of such methods is very telling for present day.