I'm Against Podcasts • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#271

Post by Bartweiss » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #243

metamet wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're oversimplifying the trade of journalism and massively underselling the value and importance of it. WP isn't "the elites". They're journalists. They have a trade, which is on a completely different plane and set of standards than a random blog.

> I think you're oversimplifying the trade of journalism and massively underselling the value and importance of it That's because I have about 15+ years experience with it (until relatively recently) from various roles (and family in the business). > They have a trade, which is on a completely different plane and set of standards than a random blog. From a random blog, yes. From a good blog, no. And there was no real…

> From a random blog, yes. From a good blog, no.

It's perhaps also worth noting that blogs and professional journalism aren't actually distinct anymore.

At one end, news organizations started hosting blogs under their main domains, often not clearly identified as such. The bloggers get big-name prestige and the appearance of being contracted journalists, the news orgs get free content and click-attracting stories that can be disclaimed if they're inaccurate or improper.

At the other end, Vice News has multiple Peadbody awards. Emptywheel exists. Notable, award-winning journalists like Marcy Wheeler and Nate Thayer publish on their own sites, without editors, then link up with news orgs later to publish books or take contracts for specific stories. (And, yeah, sometimes those people break completely with journalistic practice. Wheeler outed a source, then gave a detailed account of her ethical justification. Thayer may or may not be completely off the deep end.) Neither of them works for a major outlet, but both of have worked for major outlets, so it's hardly clear how to score either the positive or negative aspects of that.

Comparing the Washington Post to a blog is hard to do, because there's no particular guarantee that the two are on different sites, or by different authors.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#272

Post by OldFatCactus » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

nickelcitymario wrote: post #141

leftyted wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lou Reed made it pretty big though. I agree with the article. Especially this part: > Forget the lousy microphones and the dinky interstitial stock music — the thing that derails most podcasts is the blab. There are two kinds, more or less. The first is that soft, inquisitive staccato popularized by Ira Glass on “This American Life,” the source from which so much pod-voice appears to have sprung. The second mode is p…

> Lou Reed made it pretty big though. Not compared to the influence he had on other musicians. The general music loving public is not THAT familiar with him. He was a musician's musician. (Also an asshole and abuser of women, which has nothing to do with this discussion, but I can't praise him without mentioning this.) > There's something phoney about podcasts. I see most podcasts as similar to TED talks or books by…

What's wrong with Gladwell? I love Revisionist History

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#273

Post by TimTheTinker » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

ds206 wrote: post #131

sureaboutthis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hope that blab would not be the point. I've always thought to myself that, when I see a link to a video or podcast about some technical topic, I know that some large chunk of that cast will be "er, um, is this thing on?", stupid jokes and laughter, and I think to myself, "Are they incapable of writing this down?". I don't have time to watch or listen to these things and ignore them.

Blab is definitely the reason I listen to some podcasts. It's real. I get tired of the perfectly edited videos and television shows. Even better are LIVE podcasts where the show could go off the rails at any moment :)

Yes. And this is the same reason people enjoy local bands who perform live, especially if they're performing at the edge of their ability (i.e. taking musical risks).

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#274

Post by ghaff » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

mprev wrote: post #239

mikece wrote: post #104

The single word that comes to mind when reading this: "Waaaaaaah!!!" I listen to podcasts because I learn from them or am entertained by specific people with insights and expertise I appreciate. The whole bit about eavesdropping on a conversation is the essence of what makes a good podcast: it's a conversation that if you caught a part of it in real life you would stop and stand at the edge to listen and learn more.…

Adam Curry came up with the name but people were embedding media in RSS feeds before that.

Actually, Ben Hammersley seems to have come up with the name. Adam Curry and Dave Winer are usually credited with the concept but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if you had embedded media in RSS earlier.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#275

Post by username223 » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:08 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #33

freddie_mercury wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're talking about "the ins and outs of audio recording". The author makes clear that's not what he's talking about. In the very next sentence after your quote he writes: >Forget the lousy microphones and the dinky interstitial stock music — the thing that derails most podcasts is the blab. And later on he explains again . >By “sound good,” I meant that I wanted podcasts to sound considered. Anyway…

I, too, dislike the "eavesdropping on other people's tipsy pub conversation" genre of podcasts. I generally don't love the professionalized "least common denominator of an NPR listening audience's tastes, delivered in carefully rehearsed NPR voice" podcasts, either. My solution is to not bother with those podcasts. There are so many others that I find to be more worthy of my time. Admittedly, it's probably a small fr…

I dislike the "hour of unedited rambling" ones, enjoy some of NPR, and find the over-produced stuff like Radiolab insufferable. I also enjoy a lot of recorded music. But the great thing about podcasts is that, like blogs, there are way more of them than you can ever consume, and they're just RSS feeds, not locked into some platform (yet). To each his own.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#276

Post by ru999gol » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

jason scott was recently talking in his podcast about this sort of thing: https://textfiles.libsyn.com/the-podcasting-episode

To be honest, as someone who listens to podcasts for 14+ years now, I always found it completely hilarious when the dead tree media talks about podcasts.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#277

Post by coldtea » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #163

jordanpg wrote: post #109

What an edgy, contrarian critique. Watch as the author translates his criticisms of some podcasts that he doesn't like into a global criticism of all podcasts. I wonder if this guy still insists on listening _exclusively_ to LPs and lossless audio formats. Here are some things about podcasts that I love: * some podcasts are true gems -- extremely high quality content * free * no ads or ads are trivial to avoid * blat…

> What an edgy, contrarian critique. Let's not use "edgy and contrarian" like Britain's working class use "pretentious". E.g. to criticize any attempt to divert from the norm and be more inquisitive. It's perfect fine to be "contrarian". If anything, we need more of those.

>And being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian is a TERRIBLE idea. I'm all for thoughtful criticism, but simply disliking things for no intelligible reason is grounds for ridicule.

It makes as much sense as liking things because they're the norm, which is the default for most people. So hardly "grounds for ridicule".

Plus, "being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian" adds contrarian voices, which are by definition few (if they were many, they wouldn't be contrarian but "the norm") -- and are thus sorely needed in a mono-culture of agreement (or shallow bi-partisan splits of opinion, like Dems and Reps).

If not for anything else, to serve as the devil's advocate, since few ever consider points outside the norm.

Notice that I said contrarian, not stupid/crazy. E.g. it should be a contrary opinion to popular opinion/norm, but that doesn't mean any contrary opinion will do (e.g. "I believe we should all be eating rocks").

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#278

Post by username223 » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #250

biztos wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I listen while: * cooking or cleaning (usually politics or culture stuff) * working if the work isn't too intense (usually lighter stuff) * on the treadmill (30 minutes of tech stuff) * doing random stuff and just want a voice in the background, like some people keep a TV on. I don't listen while commuting because my walking-and-public-transit commute requires that I stay alert and doesn't give me any sit-down time.…

I only take public transit rarely but I've never been able to adapt to wearing earphones while walking about--especially in a city. I just don't feel comfortable being isolated from my environment in that way. Probably a pretty minority opinion these days.

I remember when I started listening to stuff while walking around in public (classical music, at the time). It was like giving the world a soundtrack -- strange at first, but you get used to it.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#279

Post by nickelcitymario » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #271

coldtea wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you're oversimplifying the trade of journalism and massively underselling the value and importance of it That's because I have about 15+ years experience with it (until relatively recently) from various roles (and family in the business). > They have a trade, which is on a completely different plane and set of standards than a random blog. From a random blog, yes. From a good blog, no. And there was no real…

> From a random blog, yes. From a good blog, no. It's perhaps also worth noting that blogs and professional journalism aren't actually distinct anymore. At one end, news organizations started hosting blogs under their main domains, often not clearly identified as such. The bloggers get big-name prestige and the appearance of being contracted journalists, the news orgs get free content and click-attracting stories tha…

> sometimes those people break completely with journalistic practice.

This may be the first real argument I've seen for the difference between blogging and journalism.

Blogging is one person's opinion or account of a topic.

Journalism is one person's opinion or account of a topic, as filtered, reviewed, revised, challenged, fact-checked, and approved by an organization.

It's reasonable to expect an individual to be able to decide whether they trust a handful of news organizations. If the NYT repeatedly breaks my trust, I can remove them from my reading list. But until then, I trust that the NYT to vet their writers. So I trust the authors published on nytimes.com without knowing a thing about them, because I trust the NYT. (Likewise, if I mistrust the org, I'll mistrust the contributors. Hello there, Fox News.)

It's not reasonable to expect individuals to be able to decide how much they trust each individual writer. I don't even know how many writers I read on a daily basis.

When it's a blogger, I take it with a grain of salt unless it's someone I read so often that I've come to trust them. (Hello, Jason Kottke.)

This doesn't make blogging inferior to journalism. I probably get more value from blogs than news sites on the regular. But I do think it's a valid distinction to take into account.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#280

Post by coldtea » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #259

coldtea wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you're oversimplifying the trade of journalism and massively underselling the value and importance of it That's because I have about 15+ years experience with it (until relatively recently) from various roles (and family in the business). > They have a trade, which is on a completely different plane and set of standards than a random blog. From a random blog, yes. From a good blog, no. And there was no real…

> And there was no real training required in being a journalist This is nonsense unless you think the only training of value happens in post-graduate degree programs. Journalists get a huge amount of on-the-job practical training.

On the job journalistic training is (a) ad-hoc (b) training constrained to teach the motions and traditions of the trade -- not training on the things that you cover.

Both good and bad journalists could be produced on the other end of it -- even on the same newspaper. Now consider on different, low quality, newspapers (e.g. on the job training on some gossip rag). Still, you get to call yourself a journalist, like someone who slaps together some shitty PHP code from Stack Overflow answers is a "programmer".