I mentioned in a recent(ish) post that I was conducting a trial of three podcasts in an attempt to find a new ‘current events’ show. Time for an update!
The first show was Left, Right, and Center from KCRW. It brings various journalists representing both ends of the (simplified) political continuum to discuss the week’s events. The show always produced interesting conversations and I’ll recommend it for anyone who enjoys journalists discussing politics. However, I will not be listening to any additional episodes. The show is overproduced for my tastes and the classic telltale signal of too much music between segments was the first signal.
The ending from my second-ever episode better summarizes my frustration, though. As one journalist wrapped up a thought, the host said ‘We have to leave it there’. And my thought was – no, we don’t, we don’t have to leave it there, because it was an interesting discussion that had a lot more to offer the audience. This is the most important thing about podcasts, reader – nothing has to be done. Podcasts are defined by the lack of imposed restrictions. I never understand it when hosts treat their podcasts like it’s live television. I say just let people talk, make use of the edit button if someone makes a mistake, and stop pretending the show is governed by the boundaries of 'rabbit ears' media.
You might protest, reader – you’re wrong, podcasts have limits and boundaries! I see that point but my counter is that a podcast can only limit itself. Why does a decent podcast like Fresh Air waste my time by reminding me I’m listening to Fresh Air? It's not because of some rule, it's just what Fresh Air decided to do, and it's ridiculous. Does a server stop by the table to remind diners of the name of the restaurant (hey, you’re eating at Sapporo Ramen…)? There’s a reason why podcasts are far more popular than recorded radio ever was, and a good place to understand why is in the differences between the two forms. So why try to go back in time?
Where was I? Oh right, my current events podcast search...
Let’s see, the second show I tried was The Pollsters, a show hosted by Margie Omero and Kristen Soltis Anderson. The stated purpose of the podcast is to dig into polling data, determine the validity of a given poll’s methodology, and discuss the implications of the results. I liked a lot about this show and I might try it again if I tire of my other podcasts. For now, though, I’ll pass on elevating the program into my full rotation because I’m not hugely interested in polling. Although I liked the hosts and enjoyed their discussions, I found that listening to a weekly podcast about polling is tough given my lack of interest in polling, even if said polls are almost always directly related to current events.
This brings me to Middle Theory, a podcast I liked right away. It’s just one guy talking and the style of both show and host (X) reminded me of Common Sense and its host, Dan Carlin. Middle Theory covers current events, but only tangentially, and I think this approach suits me – although I’m interested in current events, what I’ve always preferred in news coverage is perspective. It’s hard to be sure in these early days if Middle Theory is the right fit or if I’m simply distracted by the show’s similarities to Common Sense. I suppose I’m committed to finding out the hard way.
