Peer Speech Review

I.

In my first peer's speech, Katie appears to be trying to make her audience aware of the problem with GMO's and warn them of the possible long term outcome effects on people. She delivers a valid concern such as GMO pollens cross pollinating organic crops. Katie informs us that GMO is an acronym for Genetically Modified Organisms. She repeats some critical information to make her point stick on how critical GMO's are on us and our environment.

In my second peer's speech, Tiffany presents her issue with larger people having to purchase a second seat on flights. She discusses the possibilities of dealing with larger people on airlines. Tiffany also states a counter argument in her speech to show a different perspective. She covers the possibility of this issue being classified as discrimination.

II.

Katie shows her dedication to this topic through the passionate delivery of her speech and the information she provides to her audience. The information comes across easy to understand and is presented in a manner that any audience will be able to understand and take something from the speech. I know I am better informed on GMO's than I was before watching this speech.

I feel that more information should have been delivered for those like-minded to myself that were left wanting to know more or at least a source or two for me to follow up on. That leads me to another issue. What were Katie's credible sources for this speech? I heard mentions of GMO and her concerns but the information feeding her concerns did not seem to be accredited to anyone.

Tiffany comes across as an adamant advocate for larger people needing to purchase a second seat on airlines. She is definitely passionate about her topic but comes across as though she is not reading a speech but simply talking or "rambling" on about her topic. The speech is delivered much like an average person would complain to a fast food manager about an order being incomplete. It is unprofessionally delivered with only a few references of her having an overweight friend but nothing credible.

I feel Tiffany should have acquired more information, statistics, or the like and mentioned her sources to give her topic delivery more of a professional feel rather than making it sound like she is simply complaining the entire time. A speech should be more than a complaint. It should first get my attention; second allow me to relate, and finally it should hold premise.

III.

In reflection, active listening from the audience will generate some sort of effect and outcome whether it is desired by the speaker or not. The speaker should be aware and actively listening and watching the responses of his or her audience to make a last minute "audible" or changes to the speech to get the desired outcome. A good speaker tries to include the audience and pull them in more so that EVERY word spoken on the matter feels directed towards them in some way or is related to them in a positive manner. To get the desired outcome from a speech the speaker must pay close attention to his or her audience because we are all different personality types and we all react differently than others based on our lifestyles, where we live, how we were raised, etc.

Improving my listening skills is always an ongoing issue. Depending on how busy my life is or whether or not the topic interests me I may not be listening unless I am required to do so. The best example I can give is that I do not follow politics because I feel it is a constant mockery. Who can lie the best to get into office? Who can distract the general public from the truth the best? The media has been known to control and manipulate views of the general public and as individuals we sometimes want the truth. Truths have to be objectively found and not delivered biased or else the information is not valid. I am going to try listening to everything whether I am interested or not. This will in turn feed my personality type and thus give me more examples to refer to in proving my own valid points on how politicians deliver persuasive arguments even when they claim to only be informational.