Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show • Hacker News Board

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#81

Post by smackfu » Mon, May 21, 2012, 6:47 PM UTC

chicagobob wrote: post #67

AllenKids wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But almost all the 5by5 major shows are horribly overtime. Hypercritical, Back to Work, Build and Analyse, the once Talk Show, every host other than Dan is rambling, on and on and on and on for hours. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, 5by5 podcasts are background noises when I walking around the city, doing chores etc. But information densities are really low (Back to Work is an exception but per Merlin's style it's so…

I've never gotten any of these complaints about shows running "overtime". Personally, the longer the better IMHO. They're podcasts. I listen as much as I can, and then pause them to pick them up later. Short ones are just over quicker and then I have to wait until the next one until there's more to listen to. PS: (edit) unless its music, I almost always listen to the spoken word at 1.5x or 2x speed.

My main complaint is that no one is saying "let's get back on topic" because the topic is whatever the host wants. So you get a 10 minute digression on random crap. That is the "overtime" part. I wouldn't mind 90 minutes of on-topic chat.

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#82

Post by jakemcgraw » Mon, May 21, 2012, 7:08 PM UTC

evan_ wrote: post #78

jakemcgraw wrote: post #74

When Gruber said "Readability is run by scumbags" [1] for hijacking referral links, I'd say right back at you, John Gruber, you're a scumbag for hijacking the name of the show and exiting with a total lack of class. I hope the fluffing [2] Mike Monteiro [3] gave you was worth tossing Dan and 5by5 under the bus. [1]: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/03/30/readability [2]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php…

Mike Monteiro is actually https://twitter.com/#!/mike_ftw - FTW, not WTF. (he's got a fairly NSFW twitter background incidentally)

total subconscience slip

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#83

Post by chmars » Mon, May 21, 2012, 7:08 PM UTC

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #27

georgespencer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like everyone is saying, Dan comes across really well in this. I don't expect JG will ever give us his take. RE: never listening to any 5by5 podcasts–I listened to The Talk Show a few times. Maybe it's because I'm used to the dogma of professional broadcasting, but I don't think you've missed out unless you like hearing a couple of guys pause a hell of a lot during an awkward conversation. Almost every episode I hear…

I like all the people on the 5by5 podcasts but this is exactly why I don't listen to them. I wish instead of doing 1 hour 15, they'd do 15 minutes planning, 15 minutes editing and a 45 minute show. There's plenty of good material there, I just feel it gets drowned out.

It's the format and it's not for everyone. More preparation might help – some similar podcasts on 5by5 and elsewhere have more structure –, but was probably not John Gruber's style. Sometimes I liked it, sometimes not. I wasn't too happy about the first episode of the 'new' podcast but I'll certainly listen to some future episodes.

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#84

Post by chmars » Mon, May 21, 2012, 7:10 PM UTC

revolvingcur wrote: post #68

oblique63 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about that. Just to even get an idea of what you want to edit, you need at least the amount of time it takes for you to review your raw material, which in this case could be over 2 hours sometimes... (I work with a lot of audio, though no podcasts, so I may still be underestimating a bit)

I think you and your GP are right on. I edited a short-lived podcast and regularly spent 1.5 hours producing and editing each 25 minute show. Even if you're using good equipment and have a solid connection, producing a tight podcast necessarily takes more effort than is obvious to the listener. That's kind of the point.

Final reasons might be another point why podcasts without much preparation and only the necessary minimum of post-production are common. I don't know the economics of podcast networks but a post-production infrastructure similar to traditional media would probably be go beyond the financial scope.

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#85

Post by tjogin » Mon, May 21, 2012, 7:11 PM UTC

moron wrote: post #44

I like Gruber's writing and often chafe at some of the less-insightful things people have to say about him, but I agree 100% with Dan here. It would have been right for Gruber and him to properly cap off the show for the listeners. It would have been right to acknowledge that it really isn't the same show anymore. In addition, it would have been right for Gruber to say how great of a co-host Dan has been, because he…

I agree, but on the other hand, Dan always says "it's your show" whenever they need to make a decision about something.

Dan also often refrains from correcting or informing Gruber at times when he's unsure or is wrong about something, much to Gruber's disappointment the following episode when Gruber has found it out, again with Dan excusing himself with saying "it's your show".

If I were to venture a guess, Gruber would prefer a co-host that contributes to, rather than mostly guides, the conversation.

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#86

Post by protomyth » Mon, May 21, 2012, 7:13 PM UTC

rjj wrote: post #77

mturmon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not exactly "not saying anything". The top link on DF ("Why wasn't I consulted", a 16-month old piece) could be interpreted as a reply. Follow the attribution link and read: "Apropos of nothing. Ahem."

Excellent point. The title of the article which he craftily links to is "The Odd World of Digital Groupies". It's 2.5 years old and has the bolded subtitle " Obsessed fans spend hours online trying to talk to their rock gods—and sometimes, the efforts turn toxic. Doree Shafrir goes inside the bizarre world of extreme internet fandom."

When you live your life off the advertising dollars directed at your audience, it seems like an odd way of commentary.

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#87

Post by georgehaake » Mon, May 21, 2012, 7:15 PM UTC

filmgirlcw wrote: post #49

Disclosure: Dan is my friend. He's actually one of my best friends. I know far more about this situation than most, I am not unbiased. I love Dan for doing this. I think it was the right way to address listeners and also express himself on the topic. John doesn't need to give his take if he doesn't want to -- and I don't think anyone would expect him to. People do expect more transparency with Dan, and that's why, ho…

I just checked out the new show's site, artwork and listened to the first few minutes. Gruber is clearly a jerk here. Dan is walking his walk here and it's commendable considering the level risen to do so.

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#88

Post by filmgirlcw » Mon, May 21, 2012, 7:16 PM UTC

anon808 wrote: post #79

filmgirlcw wrote: post #49

Disclosure: Dan is my friend. He's actually one of my best friends. I know far more about this situation than most, I am not unbiased. I love Dan for doing this. I think it was the right way to address listeners and also express himself on the topic. John doesn't need to give his take if he doesn't want to -- and I don't think anyone would expect him to. People do expect more transparency with Dan, and that's why, ho…

I think this private situation only became public when dan mentioned it? if it truely is private why not have that trump whatever public business expectations there are. if it's private, it's private. my personal taste is not to use private situations as pr.

He certainly wasn't using this for PR, I know Dan would have preferred for the whole thing to never become a big spectacle on the front page of HN, with YouTube songs and Twitter riots.

But when something IS public, responding is often necessary and I stand by my comment that his response was a perfect example of the right way to do something difficult with class and aplomb.

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#89

Post by harpastum » Mon, May 21, 2012, 7:20 PM UTC

cw4 wrote: post #69

There were lots of armchair quarterbacks talking about how "they don't owe us anything". There were lots of comments from Gruber, Mike, etc basically mocking people for being upset that the show dropped Dan and moved with no warning. Dan pretty much nailed it: he feels like they owed the fans one last episode to say goodbye and they didn't get to do that.

Any links for those comments from Mike and Gruber? I haven't seen them.

Re: Dan Benjamin: Regarding The Talk Show

#90

Post by yojimbo311 » Mon, May 21, 2012, 7:21 PM UTC

anon808 wrote: post #79

filmgirlcw wrote: post #49

Disclosure: Dan is my friend. He's actually one of my best friends. I know far more about this situation than most, I am not unbiased. I love Dan for doing this. I think it was the right way to address listeners and also express himself on the topic. John doesn't need to give his take if he doesn't want to -- and I don't think anyone would expect him to. People do expect more transparency with Dan, and that's why, ho…

I think this private situation only became public when dan mentioned it? if it truely is private why not have that trump whatever public business expectations there are. if it's private, it's private. my personal taste is not to use private situations as pr.

I'm going to have to disagree. It is cynical at best to assume that this situation is being used as PR. Beyond disappointment that the show will not continue as it was, Dan has not exposed his personal feelings on the matter or any private details that should otherwise remain private. There is nothing about switching hosts in a public podcast/show/presentation/etc. that can be considered truly private and deserving of no attention whatsoever. As a listener I found the switch jarring, confusing and leaving lots of questions. Do listeners deserve the intimate details? Of course not, but no one is offering those. All Dan offered was an answer to the question listener's had of "What happened to Dan?", 1/2 of "The Talk Show". It wasn't just JG's show and to offer nothing to the listeners to explain a shift like this leaves lots of questions. The issue became public when JG published the first podcast on Mule with no mention of what Dan's continued involvement might be. Dan had nothing to do with making that issue public, he's merely provided a polite and respectful explanation so everyone can go about their business and not worry about it anymore.

As listeners we are not "entitled" to be treated with respect, but it sure goes a long way in keeping us as listeners and keeping listeners in the loop of major shifts in the show is what I would call respectful. The show on Mule is a different show now, JG is trying to own it and do his own thing with it and there is nothing to criticize there, but it does show a lack of respect for the existing listeners to not at least hint at the changes and give the other host a chance to sign off for the listeners and close the loop. It's not right or wrong, it's simply a choice, just like the choice we make to listen or to leave comments etc.

I am grateful to Dan for filling in the blanks so listeners are no longer distracted by it. I think it's critical to note that he did a masterful job in phrasing it so as not to generate any animosity on the part of the listeners (or between himself and JG) and that's probably the most important aspect of what makes what he did "respectable" versus something to criticize and/or dismiss as a PR stunt.