Editorial Report 9a

Now that I have a rough cut, it is time to enter the editing stage!

"Headphones". 4/12/13 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain.

This stage is honestly not my favorite, but it is still important.

I have taken a section from my rough content and have edited it to fit the goals of project 2.

Selection from rough cut:

This is the rough content. I asked Ned the question "Are we being adequately prepared for writing in the medical field?", but I was unsure of what to do with the response.

Re-edited selection:

This is the edited segment.


How did the content change? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively?

• I added a bridge to this segment. I am talking about how "well, clearly writing actually is important in the medical field". This makes the content more communicative because it allows the audience to follow it more easily. There are clear transitions that make logical jumps from one section to another. I think this will keep the audience engaged because they will hear the purpose of the things I am saying, which will make me sound less boring.

• Then, I state that I asked my interviewees a specific question about writing preparation in the undergrad years. I also explain the writing/English requirements for Physiology at the U of A and most medical schools. This helps me establish credibility because I am showing my knowledge of this topic. Also, by explaining the requirements, I am making sure everyone is on the same page. Once they know the requirements, it is easier for them to form their own opinions on this question and better understand the answers provided by Ned and Dr. Cohen.

• I also significantly condensed Ned's answer. I liked everything he said for that question, but I decided to spread that answer throughout other sections. This is better because spreading little portions of other people's voices does not distract from my own, but rather supports my claims.

How did the form change? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively?

• I cut out that little section in the beginning and middle where I am asking Ned questions. I sounded like I was mumbling because I was not close to the microphone. It is easier to focus on the content when the mumbling is taken out.

• I added a sound effect/transition in the beginning (heart monitor sound). This is more effective because the audience knows I will be switching topics and the audio provides them a few seconds to gather thoughts before the next segment. 

• I also added bridges between speakers, like "Dr. Cohen said...", "Ned said...". This makes it easier for the audience to follow along and differentiate between the 3 opinions that are being expressed.