Editorial Report 1

 Change is great! Especially when it results in you getting a better grade! Here is one major change that my podcast script underwent.

 Original Selection from Rough Cut

Very serious tone with the occasional breaks of humor (“creators were on drugs”)

Trying to convey his own feeling during the investigations on the topic to the audience

Intensive labor and the sense of urgency (“dont know what it does but we need to find soon!”)

 Selection from Re-edited Selection:

Langner further pushes his credibilty by his ability to easily explain all the diagrams that he puts up on the screen. For example, listen to this clip: 0:40
 
Langner also puts foward the notion that he put countless hours of labor into this investigation: 5:50
 
Througout the presentation, I also get the feeling that he sometimes has to struggle with not getting to technical for the audience since this presentation is intended for a broaded audience. There is a moment where he starts talking about the code of stuxnets and starts to get very technical. 4:00

Audience Questions

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

     This did not even exist! That is how much of a change occurred. It was a complete overhaul.  This originally was a series of ethos appeals that was somewhat extensive. However, what I decided to do here is narrow it down, give examples from my genre, and explain even more.
 

2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

     The form in my podcast changed with this because it made it more dynamic. This section of podcast lacked some of the dynamics from other sections, but the addition of multiple clips from this presentation boosted it up there with the others.