For COM333 textual description for February 13
Better organization saved my nerves and (I think) produced a better result
A story I interviewed for on Friday is going to be more complicated, and may serve better as a video piece. But the same afternoon presented the opportunity to report on Douglas Rushkoff’s visit to Vancouver and the story that goes with it.
I tried a different tactic for this audio piece. On previous weeks I’ve suffered over those illusive word gobs that skitter away or break off like wild horses.This week I decided to attack my nemesis with order. Here’s what I did.
1. I listened to the entire recording, transcribing parts I thought I might want to use. I wrote down the timer where each clip was located in the recording.
2. I went back and reviewed my results. I actually transcribed verbatim the parts I wanted to use, so that I would feel very confident of the content of my clips and the choices I made.
3. I reviewed the results on paper, and I felt I made better decisions about which clips I should use.
4. I dumped what I thought were the best clips into a table as you see below, and then started writing my script, which ended up taking very little time.
5. Finally I started depositing the sound clips onto the tracks in Audacity, and it too, took only a few minutes.
6. The hardest part was cutting the piece down to two minutes, because I had three minutes of material I wanted to use. But I learned that I could take out a repetitive phrase here and an interesting but non-essential tidbit there, and finally got it pared down.
I hope you like the result, and that I’ll see you at Rushkoff’s visit or out doing your part to share digital ethics within your sphere.
Here is the format I used for my table:
|Who:||Why:||What:||How:||Who cares/ So what:|