I'd like to respond to the reaction my tv package received in class. At first I was a little insulted at people's outbursts and automatic assumption that someone attending a conference about marijuana laws would be high. I watched my piece over and over and thought the sentence leading up to the interview- "Doctors and patients came out to speak about the benefits"- sufficed to explain the situation. But obviously, judging by everyone's reaction, this was not the case.
I think this brings up an interesting point though, several actually. I went into the conference with an open mind, listening to the lectures and talking to the attendees. After a spending a few hours with those at the NORML conference, I left with the understanding that this conference was a chance for individuals who are serious about reforming the laws to come together and discuss ways to work to make a difference. They were by no means just a bunch of "stoners." Thus, when putting together my package, the thought never crossed my mind that any of my interview subjects would come across this way.
I think this has taught me two things. For one, how important it is to always remove yourself from the subject. I went into it with that understanding, and don't think I got "attached." But I did forget to consider what people who may have not been there might think when they view the package. Sure, I knew conference was all business, but for my audience, hearing the word "marijuana" alone is enough to distract from the point of the story.
In addition, I think this experience proves how necessary it is to have editors and other intelligent eyes view something before it goes on the air. Otherwise, one may miss something. I think it's good that the 4804 class puts students into groups. Since we are all knew at these skills, that in one way or another will hopefully prevent someone from making a mistake like I did. :)