Criticism of second Podcast.

In this podcast i did the light hearted fluff piece, these are very different to what we have usually been taught in "hard news". The fact that i had more room to be creative was both a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing because i am very fond of creative writing, however it is not as easy as it looks. I stuck to the agenda and interviewed Deidre Allcock who participated in the race. I feel i could have researched the topic more and gont to Andrew mayoke School to see what they would say about the implementation of the water tank. This could be a future potential story.

reflection on the first podcast : Frontier News

According to our Agency document we predominantly look at developmental issues . This is seen by the water shortages story, and the afrikaans stroy. We are aiming at the everyday local Grahamstownian therefore crime is a good story pitch because it affects almost each and every one of us. Our first story is relevant as we are currently in the middle of voting for our new president, this affects our entire population as we are determining who rules over us. The fact that it specifically looks at youth is relevant to Grahamstown as there are many students that live there.

I feel the stories were structured well as they were different to eachother, it did not sound as if the anchor predominantly spoke. The input of various quotes from the locals involved in some of the stories reflected our agency document. This shows the "person on the ground" instead of constantly listening to politicians or other high status individuals.

In the second podcast I could find more sources who are affected by the story instead of those telling the story. For example, in my story about crime in grahamstown I used a comment by the communications officer Mrs Coetzer, instead I could have used maybe a victim of one of the assaults or a concerned local. The story was also too short and needed to be elaborated.