StartUp is an interesting case within the world of various podcasts because it is a podcast about how the podcast came to be, which is extremely meta. I’m not saying that the show details the complete origins of podcasting (which is not the case), but rather how itself and the company it is produced by, began. At its bare bones, the episode introduces the journey that the podcast will be taking listeners on over the course of several installments, explaining the crazy idea that host Alex Blumberg had to create his own company.

The pilot of the series, titled “How Not to Pitch a Billionaire,” goes through the initial steps that Blumber takes to ‘startup’ his podcasting company. First, he needed investors for the project, and that is where guest Chris Sacca came in. Blumberg records the audio from his meeting with Sacca, as well as the initial pitch that he gave him. Since it is his first pitch, it does not go as well as Bumberg planned, with Sacca actually stopping him and helping him tighten his pitch, to make it more enticing for investors, demonstrating both positive and negative reactions to the pitch. While Sacca does not ultimately invest in Blumberg’s podcasting enterprise, Blumberg is not discouraged, and as we, the listeners are able to tell, something eventually goes right as there are more episodes that follow. One of the main ways that Blumberg is able to convince listeners to continue listening to what happens next is to include sound bites from events that will be featured in the next week’s episode, giving a brief lead-up to each one.

Even though the episode does not end on an entirely positive note, it does offer a spark of hope for the future of Blumberg’s company. Blumberg’s podcast is not only intriguing, it could also potentially be helpful to someone who is also thinking of beginning their own business, and is able to pick up pointers from Blumberg’s experiences.

In the interconnecting worlds of academia and professionalism, plagiarism is one of the worst sins a person could commit. Not only does the act of plagiarism make a mark on your reputation and credibility when writing, it also says a lot about one’s character; that they were too lazy or didn’t care enough to thoroughly cite sources.

In the three cases of plagiarism that I read, concerning the individual work of writers and journalists Chris Anderson, Jonah Lehrer, and Fareed Zakaria, each had different issues surrounding their writing. While all of them were wrong to complete an act of plagiarism, I think that the person who committed the worst offense was Lehrer. I believe this because not only was Lehrer guilty of repeatedly plagiarizing pieces of articles he had previously written, he also admitted to completely fabricating quotes from Bob Dylan that were supposedly supposed to be in his new book, Imagine: How Creativity Works. While plagiarizing is not one of the worst forms of the act, creating false information and presenting it as fact is, as this has moved beyond plagiarism and turned into lying. Lying is exactly what Lehrer did and continued to do when a fellow journalist essentially called him out on the phoney Dylan quotes.

I think that, out of the three, the least objectionable case of plagiarism was done by WIRED writer Chris Anderson. Anderson’s crime was that he had several paragraphs in his book “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” that were similar to other sources. The one mainly talked about in the news article involved an uncited section copied from a wikipedia article on the topic of “Free Lunch.” While Anderson is still at fault for not attempting to cite/paraphrase the source, he claimed that his plan to include footnotes explaining the sources fell through. I agree with the conclusion of the article and think that it was a combination of sloppy research and editing that caused this instance of plagiarism. If any lesson can be taken from Anderson’s misjudgment is to be sure to proofread and check the origin of your sources, making certain that you cite them correctly, whether direct or indirectly.

To me, plagiarism is defined as stealing the work or ideas of another, and presenting them as your own original content, without offering credit to the original creator. Out of the three cases, the one that matches my definition of plagiarism the most is Fareed Zakaria, who was found to have stolen quotes from a fellow journalist’s article on the same topic he had written about.

What all of this boils down to is very simple: DON’T PLAGIARIZE. A simple concept in itself but it is tempting to do, and sometimes can be done accidentally if your sources are not properly cited within a text. Plagiarizing can not only get you into serious trouble in high school and college, but as seen in the three cases, the real world, where your career and credibility are at risk.

In a time where literally everything is bad and depressing, Mystery Show is a light in the inky dark. The podcast is a pure and wholesome example of the good that human beings are capable of. In the episode I listened to, “Case #3 – Belt Buckle,” host and amateur detective, Starlee Kine, uses her sleuthing skills to help return a lost belt buckle to an incredibly hard to track down chef. The episode began with the origin story of how the buckle came into her friend’s possession, and his desire to find its true owner, even though it’s been over 20 years.

Throughout Kine’s investigation, as with any unsolved mystery, she hit a few dead ends in her chase to find the elusive Hans Jordi. The first dead end she hit was after talking to painting instructor Donna Beers, as had learned a rough description of Hans, but not if he was a chef. This dead end did not stop Kine, as was able to find another lead via an internet post looking for a “Chef Hans,” hopping that it was the Hans she was looking for. After digging some more and interviewing, Kine made her way to Phoenix, AZ to attend the board meeting of the the Phoenix Culinary Association, where she would hopefully meet both Hans and Robert Bland, the man she believed was “Bob Six.” Kine however hit not one, but two dead ends when at the meeting. The first being that Hans was not in attendance, which put a stop in Kine’s plans of reuniting him with his buckle. While she was disappointed that Hans wasn’t there, Kine didn’t let this discourage her from asking the chefs that were present more about the Swiss chef. The second dead end that Kine encountered happened after talking to Robert Bland. During their conversation, Bland revealed that he had never been referred to as “Bob Six,” causing Kine to lose her suspect of the buckle’s gifter. Through all of these difficulties, Kine continued to keep researching for new information, until she was eventually able to find the correct owner of the buckle.

Along the way, Kine also found out a few things if she hadn’t kept digging deeper to find Hans Jordi. Two occurred when she was talking with Sated Epicure about Hans, where the former chef turned food blogger told her about how fate intervened, not once, but twice. The first time allowed Sated to help Kine confirm that this was the Chef Hans she was looking for, as he told her about the first time he saw Hans out of chef’s whites. If Sated hadn’t been at the bar, he would have never seen Hans wearing a cowboy-esque outfit, confirming that Hans indeed had the soul of a cowboy. The second time happened when Hans passed Sated with an A in the course he was taking with him, allowing Sated to continue going to college, and ultimately meet his wife the following year. The third thing that Kine learned, even though her first suspicion was false, was the true identity of Bob Six. After returning the belt buckle to Hans, he proceeded to tell Kine about the real gifter of the buckle: Bob Six, chairman of Continental Airlines, and a dear friend of Hans.

I think that the lesson that can be taken from this podcast is to keep going, even if you hit some dead ends. This same lesson can also be applied to research. Even when you encounter a dead end or a cold trail while researching, keep digging. Not every mystery is able to be wrapped up as well as this one was, but it goes to show was what good can come from just a little bit of researching.

I like to consider myself a listener of a wide variety of podcasts, whether it is a structured show that tells a story with each episode, or a more casual conversation. I will admit that I will sometimes skip out on listening to podcasts that focus on more heavier and complex topics. Case in point: “The Giant Pool of Money” from This American Life. The episode, which was a collaboration between WBEZ Chicago and NPR, took on the immense task of explaining the financial science behind the housing crisis, and just exactly is the “giant pool of money.” This is not a podcast that I would typically listen to on my own, but I decided to keep an open mind and try something different. The show runs for about an hour, and is essentially split into three different parts: the prologue, act one, and act two, with each part delving deeper and deeper into the tangled web of lies that make up the housing and mortgage market.

One of the ways that the hosts of the podcast presented the facts and research surrounding the confusing topic was to it down into simpler terms or examples. In doing this, they allowed for a more general audience to be able to follow along, rather than bringing in the subject and expecting the audience to know what it mean, implying that the podcast’s audience is made up of a specific group of people. Another way that research was presented to the audience was through sound bites of interviews conducted with people who either had expertise in the topic, or were closely connected to the topic. By including these sound bites, it allowed for the audience to experience another perspective of the issue from different sides.

In comparing this podcast to the last one I discussed, “The Cost of Fast Fashion,” I noticed several differences. In terms of approach, I found “Giant Pool of Money” to be structured, and flowing very much like an audio documentary with the inclusion of interviews broken up by commentary from the hosts. “Fast Fashion” on the other hand, as I said in my last post, was more of an open conversation, where there was some structure, but it was mainly the hosts offering commentary on the sources they were citing. I also think that the hosts of “Giant Pool of Money” knew what they were talking about more-so than the hosts of “Fast Fashion,” and offered more credibility.

Overall, I enjoyed listening to this podcast, and found it very similar to aspects seen in Adam Ruins Everything, where a topic is broken down into terms that a typical person would be able to understand. This podcast also engaged the audience emotionally through the three main “characters,” Richard, Mike Francis, and Mike Garner, whose stories were followed throughout the length of the episode.

As a way to practice my growing skills as a researcher, I was given the task to read and watch two different types of media and examine the ways that research is utilized in both. Let’s begin with the online article.

The article was taken from the human interest category of Slate.com and was first posted by Rebecca Onion in 2017. The piece, titled, “How Depression-Era Women Made Dresses Out of Chicken Feed,” details the history and popularity concerning the way women used to make clothes out of patterned cloth sacks containing flour, sugar, or animal feed. The author, Onion, is a history scholar and has written several other articles for Slate.com in addition to a book about the rise of children’s informal science education. In all, the article includes three sources, and relies heavily on a cited academic article that reflects on the culture of the time.

Moving on to the podcast, the episode comes from the 2016 season of HowStuffWork’s podcast, Stuff Mom Never Told You. The episode, titled “The Cost of Fast Fashion,” is hosted by Cristen Conger and Caroline Irvin, both journalists, and discusses the problem and overall “cost” of cheap clothes. The episode lists a total of 15 different sources, with a semi-even spit of sources between news articles and informed online sources, as well as a scholarly article.

Both the web article and the podcast encourage their creators to present their research in different ways. With Onion’s article, her research can be presented like an engaging essay, where a conversation can be started through comments between online visitors to the website. On the other hand, Conger and Irvin are able to be more flexible with their material, presenting their research through a conversational manner, using it as a device to backup commentary throughout the episode. I think that the podcast overall has a better use of the research included. This is because they were not confined to simply relaying the facts of the research, both hosts were able to also insert their own voices, opinions and experiences, keeping their audience engaged.

In the second season of Tru TV’s hit show Adam Ruins Everything, host Adam Conover takes on the myths surrounding the American Suburbia. The tenth episode, titled “Adam Ruins the Suburbs” shows Adam breaking down and ‘ruining’ the myths attached to living in the suburbs, such as the safety of the cul-de-sac and why suburban schools are better than other schools. While the episode tackles several different issues surrounding what living in a suburb is like, the main myth that Adam Conover is ultimately responding to is that although suburbs portray an idyllic environment to live in, they are not actually actually the best places to be in.

Some of the ways that Adam punctures the myth of idyllic suburbia are through a combination of cited sources, such as articles featured in the New York Times and The Atlantic, and guest stars in the form of three experts on issues raised in the episode. A specific example of these methods in action is seen when Adam is speaking to Nikole Hannah-Jones about the segregation of suburban schools. In the complete list of sources for the episode, three of Jones’ own articles were cited for her dialogue in the segment, and later Adam goes ‘off-script’ and interview’s Jones, asking her for more information on the subject. One concept that I learned from the episode was about Suburban Sprawl, and how not only is the longer commute bad for your health, it also causes an excess of trillions of dollars a year when compared to cities. The evidence that is offered to support the claim made by Adam is derived from a few different sources ranging from an New York Times article citing a scientific study in Sweden, as well as an article posted on the website, CityLab.

Something that I am able to take away from this form of research writing, one that is so focused on undercutting commonly held assumptions, is that it needs to be done more often. By watching and reading research that is presented in this way, it allows for its audience to let go of false perceptions that we, as a society, have held onto for so long. Yes, it can be difficult to swallow some of the information that is given to us, and that is mainly due to the fact that the belief or assumption that is so familiar, has now been proven to be completely false. The role that humor plays in this particular form of research writing is an especially important one because it is able to soften the hard blow that shatters our known perceptions. The use of humor allows us to take in the new information and process it in a way that, essentially won’t make our brains break down and explode.

After reading both “Internet-Age Writing Syllabus and Course Overview” by Robert Lanham and “College Writing Class Assignments With Real World Applications” by Cameron Dodd, I find myself wondering if I could be grouped into the generation that is in discussion. Both articles are different from each other but share a common theme: how do we teach writing in a contemporary and technology savvy world?

First we’ll take a look at Lanham’s article. In this “syllabus,” Lanham goes on to outline the new class he is teaching students about how to use internet age writing and language in what he calls a “postprint era.” One of the main things to notice when reading the article is Lanham’s use of humor, particularly sarcasm, as he appears to use this to criticize the “Lost Generation.” You can get a sense of this in just the second paragraph of the syllabus, where Lanham is both praising the technique and refinement of the action while also clearly showing the reader his true feelings about the internet influence on writing. Another thing to notice about Lanham’s article is that he seems to be making generalizations about the generation in question. While the points he makes throughout the article could be applied to some of the technological generation, it cannot be applied for the generation’s entirety. I for one like, and prefer, to read physical books, and while I confess that I do spend time using social media and other apps, I do not let it completely influence the way that I speak while writing.

Next, let’s move onto Dodds short list of situational writing prompts. Like Lanham, Dodds also incorporates humor into the article. Both posts are poking fun at the uprising in internet age communication and writing. The Lanham article however is much more critical of this advancement, and while sarcasm covers their judgements of the “Lost Generation,” the criticism is still present. The Dodd article on the other hand is much more lighthearted in tone, even when the prompts concern more serious topics, such as dropping out and death. Dodds uses their humor to lightly poke fun at the incorporations that could be made in contemporary writing, without harshly critiquing its use and popularity.

I think that the points that both of these posts are making about how research and writing classes could work in the contemporary world are that even though “internet speak” can be considered annoying and oftentimes, unnecessary, it is still important to be able to use it in different contexts.   

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton