How do you interview someone you disagree with? I don’t mean civil disagreement here; I mean someone whose views you find actively harmful and repulsive. How can you give them the space to speak their mind and represent themselves without tacitly endorsing their awful stance?
Fortunately, that’s not a problem I anticipate running into myself. I’m fortunate because that’s a brutally difficult line to walk — the line between respect and endorsement. If I ever do need to give it a try, though, I’ll remember when Ross and Carrie interviewed Mark Sargent.
Oh, No, Ross and Carrie! is a podcast about scepticism. It’s about meeting claims of the paranormal with an open mind and evaluating their claims for what they are (usually, pseudoscientific or false in some key manner). The hosts use common sense and an educated layman’s understanding of science to take them through their various encounters with groups making “extraordinary claims.” Reason is their lodestar.
Mark Sargent thinks Earth is flat.
He also turns out, over the course of the interview, to be painfully arrogant and rather misogynistic. He doesn’t have much respect for the interviewers, especially Carrie, whose questions he tends to blow off (in one particularly cringeworthy moment, he “corrects” her pronunciation of “Foucault pendulum,” saying it’s “Foh-cult”). But Ross and Carrie never contradict him. They give him all the space he wants to talk and expound on his ideas. Which he does for a long time. They never outright say he’s wrong, even when he transparently is (note when he says he never published anything saying that round-earthers are “hiding God,” and then immediately says he believes that and cites a video where he says that). They’re remarkably good about giving him space to outline his actual views without being deceptive.
At the same time, it’s clear that they don’t buy Mark’s theory for a second. They put the interview in context of a five-part series on the Flat Earth movement, the first four parts of which allow them to voice their own views. Then they asked sceptical questions during the interview… and then allowed Sargent to answer, giving him space to talk and not trying to jump in with “gotchas.”
The interview is fascinating listening, albeit very cringeworthy. It’s very long, clocking in at an hour and thirty-five minutes, but it’s strangely compelling all the way through. I doubt I’ll ever have to interview a Mark Sargent, but there are some things I learned from this interview I’ll be happy to take with me into my own interviewing in the future. The interview is ultimately about the interviewee; it’s their chance to speak their mind and be heard. The job of the interviewer is to fairly represent what the interviewee says. Tempting as it may be to impose their own views on the dialogue, an interviewer shouldn’t try to make an interview into what they want to hear. They can say their piece outside of the interview. Being that respectful to one’s guest makes for ethical interviewing good podcasting. It’s a lesson I’ll take to heart moving forward.
The podcast episode I selected was “Maths and Science of Sex” from The Infinite Monkey Cage, the longer podcast version of the BBC Radio 4 show of the same name. The show is hosted by physicist Brian Cox and comedian Robin Ince, who interview scientists in various fields for an irreverent look at science, math, physic and statistics. In this particular episode, Brian and Robin interviewed comedian Paul Foot, mathematician Hannah Fry and statistician Professor Sir David Speigelhalter about love, sex and the probability of entering a relationship through mathematical analysis.
Though the conversation relied heavily on dry British humor, it remained on topic and was extremely informative, even to the mathematically illiterate. Fry and Speigelhalter were both clear and avoided overuse of terminology to keep the audience engaged and focused. Brian and Robin clearly did some research about the speakers (and Brian’s background in physics gave him the ability to drop deadpan science one-liners, to the delight of the crowd). I also appreciated how all of the speakers got equal time to discuss their work and ideas, and how the conversation never felt one sided or like a ping-pong match of people firing questions and answers. It was very much a conversation within a group of very smart people, and I found myself laughing out loud at some of the raunchier jokes.
I learned about statistical proactivity, and how approaching someone you’re attracted to rather than waiting to be approached leads to a better match overall, and how people prefer symmetry in stationary faces but asymmetry in moving images. I also learned about the process of sexual census taking, and that some men double the number of sexual partners they’ve had on surveys until they’re hooked up to lie detectors, after which their answers match up with the mean answers of women. The conversation was overall very enjoyable and I’ll be listening to the podcast again soon.
I’m still fairly new to the world of podcasting, and I’m trying to learn how podcasts work best in the music and entertainment world. That’s why I chose to listen to a podcast of a major print and digital publication, Rolling Stone, and see how they handle interviewing an artist.
Rolling Stone describes its Rolling Stone Music Now podcast like this:
The writers and editors of Rolling Stone take you inside the biggest stories in music. Featuring interviews with our favorite artists; what’s playing in the office; expert insight on the week’s biggest music news; and much more.
A new episode is published once a week. In this particular episode, Kelly Clarkson is interviewed by Brian Hiatt, a senior writer at Rolling Stone, while she does the promo circuit for her gig as a judge on The Voice as well as her newest album.
I really appreciated the fact that Brian seemed to know Kelly’s history as an artist, as well as the names of her previous label and many of the producers she’s worked (and clashed) with. He didn’t pressure her into divulging the ugly truth about her time with RCA Records and Clive Davis, but he asked careful questions that brought the truth out — like “Where did you find the strength to hold your ground in all those conflicts?”.
Brian also took us back to Kelly’s earliest days in the spotlight, asking questions about her very first American Idol audition. Fans who know Kelly would enjoy this throwback, and listeners that don’t know Kelly would be able to get a better sense of where she started and how she got to where she is now. On the other hand, he also asked her what she thought her future looked like, bringing it full circle.
By asking Kelly if we’re ever going to get to hear the country album she’s been working on, Brian proved that he knows what projects she’s involved with and has done his research.
I think Brian’s most impressive moment as an interviewer was when he asked Kelly about a specific song on her latest album. It’s not been made a single (yet), and Kelly was clearly excited that Brian chose that one to ask her about, which she even vocalized.
I’m not a massive Kelly Clarkson fan, but this interview gave me so much insight into her experience as an artist as well as newfound respect for how she took herself out of a bad situation. It also gave me some snippets of her new music. I think it was both great content for Rolling Stone and great press for Kelly.
Rolling Stone alsopublished a text version of most of the interview on their website.
I started listening to the podcast, That’s So Retrograde, about six months ago and now consider myself an avid fan and subscriber. Hosts Elizabeth Kott and Stephanie Falcon Simbari—two hilarious, badass babes who radiate positivity and love through the sound waves—cucuss all things wellness, pop culture, astrology, and other good vibe-y topics once a week on the show; which, whenever possible, should be accompanied by wine. I’ve listened to about a hundred episodes of the podcast, but the one that really blew me away was the episode featuring Shaman Durek called “That’s So Shamanade,” which debuted on the podcast on September 1 of last year (2017), and remains one of the podcast’s most popular episodes.
I remember first listening to the episode during my commute to work on the Boston T during a time in my life when I felt overwhelmed, stressed out, and negative. By the time I arrived to work, I felt like I was floating. The episode filled me with so much strength, hope, and love; and after listening to it several more times since that morning (usually when I’m feeling low and pessimistic), I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s my favorite podcast episode of all time, and it changed my life for the better.
I couldn’t possibly list everything I learned from that episode because soooo much knowledge was dropped over the course of an hour, but prior to listening, I had no idea what a shaman actually was. I think I always assumed shamanism was another form of spirituality; ipso facto a shaman must be a spiritual guru. Shamanism actually dates back to when the Earth was first formed, and Shaman Durek explained that “shaman” is a Saxon word meaning “one who is guided to have the answer.” There are many different types of shamans across many cultures, but Shaman Durek is a third generation spirit shaman, and spirit shamans do not communicate with the physical, but rather what’s inside the physical (the spirit). To become a spirit shaman, he had to “learn how to remove his judgment of humanity” because spirit shamans “cannot create an idea or perception that something is right or wrong” because “that’s subjective to each culture.” Instead, they ask the question, “Is it referenced through love?” Spirit shamans have to go into the darkest parts of the human psyche to bring forth light and love. There’s just one catch. Before becoming a spirit shaman, you must physically die; which Shaman Durek did, and he shares his experience with death (what he saw, who he met, what he learned) in vivid detail for the majority of the episode. When I tell you I was nearly falling out of my seat on the T, I AM NOT JOKING.
What I like so much about this episode of That’s So Retrograde is the fact that Elizabeth and Stephanie let Shaman Durek do most of the talking, since he was sharing such an epic and riveting experience; however, they knew just when to interject and ask clarifying questions that every listener was probably thinking (myself included). For example, at one point he’s talking about how spirits and gifted people around him were telling him that he was going to have a physical death, and he says, “and then I went to one of my other lifetimes when I was the Oracle of Delphi…” and before he can go any further Stephanie interrupts by saying, “How-how-how-how-how?” which yes, HELLO, that’s not just a tidbit you drop on us and don’t explain further! A few minutes later, Shaman Durek is telling us that he died a very painful physical death by suffocation and, the moment I was about to yell, “How did that happen?!” Elizabeth and Stephanie asked the question for me and requested that he back up and explain what led up to the horrible death. However, when Shaman Durek describes the events leading up to his death and what happened immediately following, the girls give him the floor and let him tell his story, so the episode felt more like a stream of consciousness that was full of passion and love and hope and explanation.
Towards the end of the interview, Stephanie asks Shaman Durek to give us (the listeners) some tools we can use that would allow us to practice his teachings on our own, since we may not have the opportunity to meet with him personally or go to one of his teaching events. I was incredibly grateful she asked this question because yeah, what he’s saying is awesome, but how can we actually use what he’s saying to better our lives? Shaman Durek then shared an exercise to practice in our own time to bring forth our own light, love, and peace, which gave me ALL the vibes. Other helpful questions the girls asked were regarding where we could find him on social media or the Web; where we could go to learn more about him and his teachings; what kinds of plans he has for the future; and what’s his take on the state of America at the moment (which, at the time, was nearly a year after the election shook the country and brought forth some not-so-pleasant events and feelings). By the end of the episode I didn’t have any questions that I wished the girls had asked him, except maybe, “What did the spirits look like that you met in the afterlife?” because I’m dying (no pun intended) to know how spirits appear physically, but I don’t think that’s really the point of his experience.
What I also loved about the episode was the fact that they were discussing some pretty heavy topics—death, religion, and spirituality can get a bit dicey—but they injected plenty of humor and lightness into the episode so that it didn’t feel so heavy. Additionally, I had never heard of Shaman Durek prior to this episode, and was unfamiliar with shamans and shamanism; however, I was able to follow and understand the conversation, and I think anyone listening could do the same. He puts things in layman’s terms for the listeners and explains his teachings through analogies and metaphors, which is very helpful. Although, I think it’s important to note that a discussion like this should be listened to with an open mind, and whether you believe Shaman Durek’s story or not, it’s still a fascinating discussion and an experience worth sharing. I may not believe (or want to believe) everything he said, for example, he insinuates at one point that those who pass from illness create their illnesses because they don’t want to stay in this life. That’s a bit harsh, however, I loved his sentiments about how we must wake up every day and tell ourselves beautiful things about ourselves because if we don’t, we’re “lying to who we are.” I definitely also believe his notion that humans are driven by fear and that’s a toxic way of thinking because darkness binds to fear and feeds off of it; and from a young age we’re taught that life is all about survival—do whatever you can to survive—rather than being taught to love ourselves, ignore negative thoughts, and don’t seek approval from others or depend on others to make us happy. Shaman Durek wants us to stop thinking that we must live in perfection—that everything has to be perfect. We live on a planet of refinement, and we should love limitlessly and stop lying and compromising our happiness.
At the end of the day, a good podcast is informative, entertaining, and thought-provoking; and this episode—and That’s So Retrograde in general—is just that. Personally, I found Shaman Durek’s words incredibly comforting, and I remember having a damn good day after listening to this episode that morning before work. I’m grateful that the girls had him on their show and appreciated the candid discussion.
My favorite moment of the podcast was when he closed the interview with these words: “Remember how amazing and wonderful you are, and that you’re a gift to life and don’t let anyone at any time ever tell you anything different other than the most beautiful things about you because that’s the truth and everything else is just poison. They’re lying, don’t accept it.” MIC. DROP.
To listen to this episode of That’s So Retrograde, click HERE!
Whenever looking for new podcasts, the first thing that always stands out to me is a series that fills a vital societal need or shines the spotlight on a perspective oft-ignored by hegemony. This was most certainly the case for the weekly news/interview show Strange Fruit. Produced by 89.3 WFPL News Louisville and hosted by NPR, Strange Fruit “examines black gay life through the voices and stories of those of us who live it….and live it well!” The series, hosted by Jaison Gardner and Dr. Kaila Story, often spends each of its approximately 30-minute-long episodes focusing on a single subject within the realm of politics and pop culture, with the pair interviewing guests who have written on the topic or, in some cases, the creators of the work they are discussing.
For the purposes of this assignment, I listened to two episodes whose titles caught my attention most, each one taking a different approaches towards the podcast’s overarching goals. One of the most recent episodes finds Gardner and Story replaying interviews they conducted with musician/actress Janelle Monae and playwright Tarell Alvin McCraney from weeks or years past shortly following the film Moonlight’s Best Picture victory at the Oscars. The film itself fits right into the focus of the podcast, but where this episode stood out to me was in how it exploded my expectations of what these discussions would be about, covering everything from afrofuturism to the power of theater. Both of the guests in this episode provided some very insightful commentary about the ideologies and art that mattered to them, creating a multifaceted reflection on blackness that stems directly from these interviewees’ passions.
https://soundcloud.com/strangefruitpod/sf187
The second episode I listened to was more of a traditional roundtable dialogue between Gardner, Story, and Dr. Brittney Cooper as they dissect their complicated and evolving reactions to Adele’s win for Album of the Year at the Grammys and her speech directed at Beyonce where she made reference to “my black friends.” This discussion, in particular, really struck me for how nuanced and analytical the conversation got, with each participant in this talk grappling with their visceral and reflective thoughts on the matter, along with their criticisms directed at the awards ceremony’s recurring tendency to have black musicians perform but fail to adequately award black talent. This would be a lot for any podcast to cover in under 30 minutes, but it’s a testament to the hosts and their guest that all three of them manage to deftly cover all this ground seamlessly. I’m already greatly looking forward to delving into the Strange Fruit backlog even further and listening to these hosts discuss so many more subjects.
I love history – so much so that I minored in it in undergrad. Before the world crushed my innocence and I realized I had to pick a profession that actually made some kind of money, my dream was to be a young Indiana Jones. I loved history, and I wanted to be that super cool archaeologist digging up dinosaur bones and ancient civilizations. So I decided I want to work in book publishing instead. Not quite sure how that line of thinking occurred, but here I am.
My love of history has never gone away, and I read a great deal of historical fiction and nonfiction. That’s why discovering Stuff You Missed in History Class was so exciting. I can listen to cool history stuff on my way to work! On the T! This is wonderful.
Stuff You Missed in History Class is one of many podcasts run by HowStuffWorks. Co-hosted by Tracy V. Wilson and Holly Frey, it doesn’t necessarily cover things you actually missed in history class. Instead, it looks at a wide range of unique topics that a history class likely wouldn’t have delved into, and it goes into more depth than a history class would have. Wilson and Frey take a particular shine to oppressed groups. They discuss a large amount of Native American, African American, and LGBTQA+ history.
The way Wilson and Frey speak about history, however, is far from academic. There will be no quiz at the end, and no one is expecting you to memorize dates. Instead, these are stories about humanity. They are well-researched and one hundred percent true, but they are meant to help you understand what life was like for others at different periods in history and empathize with them. Education is certainly a primary goal, but the education is casual. By telling history as a story, you engage the reader much more than a dry textbook could. Stuff You Missed in History Class gets you to look at others and wonder what their own histories look like.
Here is a link to one of their podcasts about Olive Oatman, a girl who was abducted by Native Americans. It’s incredibly interesting.
But they also have a veritable tome of other topics to choose from – the Stonewall Riots, the Bronte siblings, Nikola Tesla, a history of harmonicas. Frey also has an obsession with fashion history, so there are a number of podcasts on that, as well. Every New Year they do a rundown of important historical findings made the year before. They have something for everybody.
Considering the requirements of this assignment, I’ve had the extremely good fortune of never listening to or looking up Welcome to Night Vale before, despite knowing several fans who have loved it for years, and also despite finding the album art very attractive.
These shades of purple fall within a range I call “Jerri Purple” because I like them so much and everyone knows it
I listened to a handful of episodes for this post, and I definitely get the hype. This podcast is a ton of fun, and made me laugh a lot while also creeping me out and breaking my heart, which is pretty much exactly what I want out of my media. I’m immediately a bit obsessed, and really excited to finally get into this fandom.
I enjoy the surrealism and absurdity of the story, the editing and delivery, and although the background music kind of annoyed me at first, that has also grown on me. Far and away, though, my favorite thing about the podcast so far is the narrator’s infatuation with Carlos. It’s such an adorable, baffling, and frustrating part of the Night Vale world, and feels like an unfortunately on-the-nose commentary for how people observe (or don’t observe) the dangers and/or circumstances of the world around them. I see it as pretty clearly missing the forest for the trees, and how often do we ignore problematic behavior or information because the source is pretty?
The narrator’s noble but bizarrely naive efforts to report accurate and honest news has also struck a chord with me, because despite his dedicated and diligent work, he’s still operating under so much misinformation and with such a peculiar understanding of what’s happening around him. I haven’t gotten very far in the podcast yet, so I’m sure there’s plenty of development and opportunity for his unique sort of innocence to either lend itself to his work effectively or disappear, but his position is probably where I most feel the aforementioned heartbreak. Anything that ends up feeling like a potential exercise in futility from someone with such passion really makes me feel a lot because I root for those people in particularly really hard.
Hopefully the timing of getting into this podcast won’t be too devastating as I try to get caught caught up on it while also trying to get all my other work done 😉
I use the term “dose” in my title because 2 Dope Queens, a comedy podcast hosted by Jessica Williams and Phoebe Robinson, is medicine for my emotions. I’ve come down with a cold this week, but an episode of 2 Dope Queens makes me forget about my sore throat and sniffles because I’m too busy laughing. Some humor can be dour and self-deprecating, but Williams and Robinson are upbeat and effusive, projecting sisterly solidarity with each other, their live audience, and their listeners. I hope this doesn’t make me sound like a sad loner, but Williams and Robinson feel a bit like friends who live in my ears.
Album artwork for 2 Dope Queens podcast. Image source: Stitcher.
Each episode follows a basic structure: Williams and Robinson open with their live stand-up comedy in front of an audience. Throughout the episode, they introduce other comedians, who perform short routines, which are interspersed with Williams and Robinson’s playful anecdotes. About three guest comedians are featured in each episode. Episodes run about 40 minutes to an hour and are produced by WNYC Studios.
Williams and Robinson tell stories with such verve that parties at strip clubs and encounters with racist cab drivers sound like delightful capers. But despite the hilarity, they—and the guests they invite—aren’t afraid to wade into real problems, from white privilege to relationship challenges. In the first episode, “Dad Bods,” the featured comedians (Aparna Nancherla, Gary Gulman, and Michelle Buteau) riff on catcalling, role-playing in the bedroom, and breaking up with an cheating boyfriend. The second episode, “Billy Joel Has the Softest Hands,” finds Williams and Robinson speculating on the feminist perspective on being given front-row seats at a concert for being gorgeous. Do they reject the objectification of their bodies or accept the seats they really want? (They took the seats, as would I if offered the front row at a Billy Joel concert!) They also satirize their present-day concerns, like dropped calls on a 3G network, by imagining how incredible their conversations will sound when they’re old. Guests Naomi Ekperigin, Sam Jay, and Beth Stelling discuss, respectively, making bad dating choices and white women being killed on crime TV shows, homeless white men and buying strap-ons, and having a back tattoo of an ex’s name and trying to fix an abuser.
I most love the female-centric perspective of this podcast. Although I couldn’t personally relate to all the experiences described by the comedians, I recognized, in their stories, grievances I share. Feeling a pressure regarding weight and beauty that says I should be satisfied with a handful of nuts as a snack? Check. Horror at the unsolicited photos women receive through online dating? Check. Trying to be excited in a group setting about the person everyone else is excited about while secretly having no clue who that celebrity is? Check. These comedians’ voices feel real and close to me, even though the details of their lives seem to differ dramatically from mine.
As a huge fan of Katie Couric and her journalistic work, I was happy to discover that she has her own podcast where she explores the lighter side of her journalistic personality. The podcast takes a more casual look at the interview medium, and Couric definitely shows more of her own personality through these podcasts than her more straight-forward journalism interviews.
I found the episodes I listened to very engaging and funny. I didn’t realize how much I was learning throughout the interview because of Couric’s own ease with the process. Her honesty throughout the show, about her experiences as a female reporter, a mother, a woman, are inspiring, and her guests are equally engaging. Couric has a way of making topics that might be difficult or boring intensely interesting through her choice of interviewees.
One particular brightspot was Couric’s interview with Julia Louis-Dreyfus from last year where they both discuss the show Veep and the impact it has had on the 2016 election. They also talk about the optimism they both have concerning Hillary Clinton. Couric’s interview with Louis-Dreyfus is light and funny, but not the entire podcast. She then speaks with journalist and writer Rebecca Traister to gain a different perspective on the election and the rise of Hillary Clinton. They both frankly discuss sexism in their field and the way the press has carefully constructed Clinton throughout her time in the spotlight. Both women weren’t afraid to be critical, but they were also very casual in their conversation.
While I do listen to comedy podcasts, educational podcasts, and talk podcasts, my first choice will always be the scripted, or audio drama, podcast. I grew up loving “old time radio” stories — mystery hours, dramatic short story readings, audio dramas, and fictional serial episodes from the days of network broadcasting before television. My preference for podcasts that run in this vein is a natural extension of that love.
I learned of the podcast when, earlier this month, Tumblr advertised a q&a session with the creators of The Bright Sessions. I had never heard of it, though apparently it has been airing since Fall 2015. I learned the premise of the plot and the fact that it offers more than one LGBTQ+ character to care about, and added it to my “to listen” list–though I did hesitate to listen after looking at the cover art, which skimmed as generic and DIY. I still think this is a drawback; nothing about the cover art conveys the mood or the creativity of the podcast.
The Bright Sessions is a science-fiction audio drama about people with superpowers in therapy as they learn about themselves, their powers, and how to control them. The listener is put in the position of a voyeur, listening in on taped recordings of Dr. Bright’s sessions with these characters. I have now only listened to the first five episodes. Each is approximately twenty minutes–a length I found to be very snappy and digestible, almost to the point of being a tease. The podcast is currently in its third season, and it the length of each episode and the scope of the plot has (according to the website) grown considerably.
The audio experience feels claustrophobic and voyeuristic.It’s an absolute hook. In the second episode, a character opens the Dr. Bright’s door–and slams it shut behind them. Then Dr. Bright speaks, and her voice carries a tinny, metallic tinge one might expect when listening to a tape recording. In .5 seconds, the listener already feels the tension of being in an enclosed space fraught with a high level of emotion. I find the experienced voice actors are all very believable, and the script is well-written. I wish that the story progressed a little quicker, but I anticipate that once these therapy sessions become more emotional and less expository, we’ll have some really meaty dialogue that demands weighty performances.
I’ve spoiled myself somewhat by engaging with the podcast’s website, which offers “Bonus Content” in the form of Patient Files, Character Facts, Doctor’s Notes, etc. In an engaging and hyperrealistic multimedia move that I love, each character also has their own social media account(s) set up. One patient has a tumblr, and another has an instagram account. I’ve seen television shows aimed at a millennial audience attempt this “fictional characters on social media” marketing strategy before. Sometimes it works to the point of feeling uncanny valley-esque (SKAM), and sometimes it rings terribly false (U.S. Skins). The Bright Sessions falls somewhere in the middle; only one person from the Production Team updates these social media accounts, and I suspect that is too much work for one person. However, since your experience as a listener depends on digging deep into these fictional characters, I found this marketing technique really added to the auditory experience in an engaging way.
I described The Bright Sessions to my roommate as “listening in on X-Men therapy sessions with an auditory Captain’s Logs from Star Trek vibe.” I’ve subscribed to the madness, and we’ll see how many commutes to class it takes me to catch up to episode 33.
I’m not a really a fan of podcasts so finding a new podcast was both very difficult and ridiculously easily. There were many podcasts that I had never heard of, but there weren’t any that I wanted to listen to. Normally, the extent of my podcast listening is NPR’s tidbits from one of their serializations. Even then, I can’t really say that I enjoy them so much as they give me something to think about while I’m commuting.
So the journey to finding a podcast began with the simple question of “what will make me listen to it for more than two minutes?” It would have to be something I could relate to, something that I wanted to hear or needed to know.
I tried to search for podcasts on specific topics that I might enjoy, hoping that if I was seeking information that I could only find in one location, it would make me appreciate the podcast more. I looked at several topically focused podcasts but I can’t say that I liked any of them because the format was off putting. I couldn’t finish a single one.
The difficulty I have with podcasting is that it comes out in documentary or interview style. If you’re not interested in that, then it’s difficult to get into a podcast. Because there is no visual feature, it’s a little bit like reading a play with stage directions.
After searching for a while, I did find one I could listen to in its entirety. The Allusionist is a short (10-20 minutes), biweekly program that explores interesting ways we use language. With small interview snippets and references to current events, the show really drives home the dynamic nature of language production.
What made this podcast successful were the little things:
First, it’s fairly short. I can pay attention for a 10-15 minute segments and the topic is different and interesting each time. The information is efficiently and concisely delivered.
Second, the 1-minute beginning section is a good way to focus my attention. It’s a short segment on the history of a word. Funnily enough, this segment is sometimes sponsored by a company but the way the host links it in doesn’t make it irritating.
Third, the music is well integrated and blends well with the progression of the show. The entire production is top-notch so that each element feels vital but not overwhelming. Even the interview style is handled so well that the conversation flows naturally.
And of course, the host is instrumental to the success of a podcast. Helen Zaltzman is witty and dry, which makes me pay more attention to catch her bits of humor.
I don’t know that this is a podcast that I would eagerly await. I’m not that sort of person to begin with. But, if I had some free time, I’d rather listen to this podcast than do something else. I’d definitely listen to this to learn something new or just tune in to catch the first segment of each episode.
You must be logged in to post a comment.