Process Note

The speaker learned about different types of hunting and modes of communication while working on a podcast project. They found it interesting to explore the morality of hunting from different perspectives and conducted interviews to gather opinions. The majority of their classmates believed hunting was morally right, which influenced their research. The podcast was designed for their peers, allowing for a more casual and conversational approach. The title of the podcast reflected the contrasting viewpoints on hunting. Two guest speakers with opposing opinions were chosen to provide a balanced discussion. The speaker used a script for the general overview of the podcast but deviated during the interviews for more spontaneity. They mentioned the challenge of conducting research, finding appropriate questions, and connecting polar opposite viewpoints. Overall, the assignment required careful consideration of different perspectives on hunting. So, this multi-modal project being a podcast, I've kind of learned some different things. The key takeaways I would find from doing this podcast is basically the three types of hunting. I didn't know there were three types of hunting. I didn't know they were broken into three distinct categories. I kind of just thought it was either you're doing it for fun or you're kind of doing it for conservation of a species. I never really thought about it in the way of substantive hunting where you're doing it for a particular reason, that particular reason being nutrition. Also the different modes of communication, for example, spatial and gestural, oral, linguistic, and visual. I kind of brought those aspects into the podcast besides visual, obviously, since it's not that type of mode. Using the different kinds of modes, it seemed easier to portray what I wanted to say to the audience. I would say it was educational for the listener because I kind of went into depth on what the different kinds of hunting there are and what kind of categories there are. I also got two very different points of view on the morality of hunting and why some people think it's good, some people think it's bad, and the reasoning examples behind that. The most entertaining and engaging part of the podcast was definitely the interviews. Because they were so different, it was kind of interesting to see how people were brought up and how their views reflected on how they might think about the morality of hunting and if they thought it was morally right. I was brought up hunting since I was ten years old, so I'm obviously going to think it's morally right since I've been doing it for so long. Looking back at the Google Forms I had sent out to the entire class, I think the two questions that most influenced my podcast was, do you think hunting is right? I got 14 responses and 13 of them were yes and only one of them were no. I kind of based my reasoning more on hunting being morally right since 92, almost 93 percent of the class thought it was morally right. I think the second question that I think was most critical and most important for the development of my podcast was, did you grow up around hunting in the outdoors? Ten people said yes and only four people said no. So over 70 percent of the people grew up hunting or grew up being in the outdoors, so they had those fond memories that I talked about throughout the podcast. Considering the responses to those questions, I did get the information that I needed and it influenced my research because the questions that I asked about, did you have fond memories of hunting or did you have fond memories of outdoors, I don't think I would have asked those questions if I didn't receive the feedback from my classmates that they enjoyed the outdoors and that they grew up around the outdoors. Considering the relationship with my intended audience, I think that my podcast was critically influenced by the fact that it is by my peers and my classmates versus, say, a TED Talk for all of YouTube. The interviews were more fun and energetic and I think if it was for a podcast for all of YouTube, I probably would have been more serious, had more concrete questions and concrete evidence to give versus just having a conversation and getting someone's opinion. Those defining characteristics of my listeners, of my audience, was just the fact that, like I said before, if they were my classmates or my peers, they're not going to look at me like I'm some expert on hunting. They're not going to look at me like I know everything about the morality of hunting. They're going to look at me like I'm doing the research, I'm with them. I mean, I only know so much about hunting. I mean, I've only been doing it for so long. I'm not some big, knowledgeable guy. I think that's important because if I was some hunting expert, I think I would have gave more evidence on what the different kinds of hunting were and why they were important and based on the morality of why people think they're right and wrong. So for this podcast, I chose the title, Hunting and Killing, Moral and Just or Immoral and Wrong. I think this is significant because it brings both sides, it brings both points of views to what the podcast is containing. See, I did the two interviews with two completely different points of views. And I think the title relates to the podcast because it shows the connection between those two interviews without getting into too much detail. So it leaves the audience wondering what is so just and moral about hunting or what is so wrong and unjust about hunting. So for choosing a guest speaker on my podcast, the criteria I had was, had to be two completely different points of views. So for one, my roommate who is vegetarian and views hunting as immoral, he had a very strong point of view on the immorality of hunting and the polar opposite being Cadet Johnson, growing up around hunting, having fond memories of hunting, loving hunting and thinking it's very moral. It was just, I wanted the complete polar opposite just so I could grab both points of views and have that kind of connection. So that was the criteria I used in choosing the guest speakers. So I did find the script pretty helpful in recording the first part of the podcast. Just like the general overview of the podcast, I let the audience in on what I'm going to be talking about, what the interviews are going to be about, what my personal views on hunting were, what the three categories were. So I kind of need the script for that just kind of to guide me on what the podcast, what the general overview of the podcast would be. I deviated from the scripts pretty much in the interviews and a little bit during the general overview just to add more character to the podcast, as one might say. But with the interviews, it was kind of, I would ask the question and then I'd have a general understanding of what they would say, but it was kind of up to them on what they would say about hunting overall. And that was pretty much the reason that I would deviate from the script. If I was to conduct a critical analysis of the podcast, I'd probably ask the creator, is there another type of hunting that kind of joins all three categories or maybe two or maybe, I don't know, some combination of the categories that is not blatantly obvious that would have some immoral and some moral aspects. And probably to go to talk about morality on a different level, like morality means things to different people. Some might view morality differently. So probably just go into that and why some people view hunting as immoral and immoral overall. I think the most difficult part of the assignment was probably doing the research for one and then finding the questions to ask the people I was interviewing and finding the people I interviewed, some polar opposites people, like trying to connect, bring that connection of the polar opposites together and then bring those polar opposites into one conclusion. That was one of the most difficult parts of this assignment.