podcasts
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 23:00:21 +0000
I listen to podcasts on my commute to/from work. The radio doesn't work underground, and Metro or bicycle it's nice to be able to stop and replay sections I've missed. (And I often miss things on the bike, because if my attention needs to be on traffic, my attention is on the traffic, and I have no idea what the irrelevant voices were saying.) I also play podcasts on my trips to/from NC so I don't have to search for decent radio stations, and because the Bluetooth headset's noise cancellation takes the edge off the road noise in my 20+-year-old car. (It does not prevent me hearing horns or sirens.) I don't use the N/C headset on the bike, where I want to hear every change of airflow or tire tread; there I opt for a water- (and sweat-)resistant headset.
Some of the later podcast line-up additions were "Stuff You Missed in History Class" and "Stuff You Should Know", both from http://www.howstuffworks.com/. I found the topics in "Stuff You Missed" quite interesting, and less so for "Stuff You Should Know" - I didn't feel like I needed to know any of the few I heard. (E.g.Panic Attacks (36:15). I don't have them. I don't personally know of anyone who has them. I've never seen anyone having one. After hearing the program, I might be better able to help someone having one. But, other than riding the Metro, I don't spend a lot of time around people, and I don't tend to spend time in places where people would stress out enough for an attack. (Besides which, I have learned from the podcast that the people who do have attacks phobicly avoid any places that might trigger their attacks.)
Rogue Waves (34:47): I'm not expecting to be out at sea in a small boat (or even a large boat.)
Karate (45:14): I think that's the one I bailed out on.
Skywriting (36:50): That would have been next. Interesting? Probably. Useful? Doubtful. And I could probably learn more on my own in 36 minutes of web surfing than I would learn from the podcast.
Viruses (34:59): I'd rather hear about this from knowledgeable virologists and biologists than from people who probably know less about it than I already do.
The Great Train Robbery (1963) (45:16): I've somehow heard quite a bit about this, and 45 minutes at their bantering pace probably wouldn't tell me anything new.
Extinction (49:48): I think I have a grasp of the basics behind extinctions - climate change, loss of habitat, unsuccessful competition, overhunting, diseases, introduced exotic competitors, etc.)
I found both podcasts too chatty; the presenters try to inject some humor and light banter, apparently to make the material more appealing. I didn't find it amusing, or helpful. The core subject matter either is or isn't of interest to you. For me it diluted the content density of the program. I don't care to spend my time listening to jokes I don't find funny, and suppositions about the subject from people who have done some (mostly on-line?) research and who aren't any more expert than I would probably be after an evening of web surfing.
Their English usage is definitely "younger" than mine, which I also found irritating. I'm fine with changes that make communication better, clearer, but not just for the sake of change or sounding trendy. What pushed me over the "is-this-worth-my-time?" edge was one host answering the other with a "Meh."
I've skipped ahead to the next set of podcasts in my Kindle (Kojo Nnamdi's Tech Tuesday shows). Deleting the "Stuff" podcasts is going to free up a lot of space, since their episodes are long (30+ minutes) and they have lots of them.
These podcasts do have 2 or 3 advertising breaks, presented by the hosts. None of the products were things I would buy, but since it's a recording I could skip ahead.
To dispute any notion that dialog and banter is the kiss of death, the "More or Less" podcasts from the BBC are great. I often do find them funny. They're basically about economics, but an incredible expanse of human behavior and experience can be viewed from an economics viewpoint, and can still be interesting. And educational. Humor isn't universal. I never found Dave Barry funny, nor cared much for the NPR Car Guys, Click and Clack. (There was a serious lack of density. I do think it would be useful to know more about cars, but that was only about 10% of the show.) I could watch The Simpsons all day, and my mother-in-law can't stand them. Stupid movies - people actually pay to see them? Humor isn't universal.
This notion of "content density" affects most of my media consumption. It's why I listen to Public Radio instead of commercial radio. (And I've been finding more and more on WAMU that's lacking in density - or lacking in content of interest to begin with.) Same for TV. I like to watch shows that I can learn something from. Yes, there is some fluff/entertainment/suspension-of-belief stuff that sometimes makes the cut. (IFF there's commercial skipping; essential for the density.) But mostly I prefer to be learning - science, culture, history, other cultures, others' histories, etc. Or solving a puzzle - which is the murder-mystery genre. Although I can't understand why mysteries seem to require murders. Couldn't less-severe events be just as intellectually engaging? Some puzzle-solving shows can get too formulaic; you can eliminate some lines of inquiry because "that simply wouldn't happen on this show."
[This entry was originally posted as https://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/726587.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]
I listen to podcasts on my commute to/from work. The radio doesn't work underground, and Metro or bicycle it's nice to be able to stop and replay sections I've missed. (And I often miss things on the bike, because if my attention needs to be on traffic, my attention is on the traffic, and I have no idea what the irrelevant voices were saying.) I also play podcasts on my trips to/from NC so I don't have to search for decent radio stations, and because the Bluetooth headset's noise cancellation takes the edge off the road noise in my 20+-year-old car. (It does not prevent me hearing horns or sirens.) I don't use the N/C headset on the bike, where I want to hear every change of airflow or tire tread; there I opt for a water- (and sweat-)resistant headset.
Some of the later podcast line-up additions were "Stuff You Missed in History Class" and "Stuff You Should Know", both from http://www.howstuffworks.com/. I found the topics in "Stuff You Missed" quite interesting, and less so for "Stuff You Should Know" - I didn't feel like I needed to know any of the few I heard. (E.g.Panic Attacks (36:15). I don't have them. I don't personally know of anyone who has them. I've never seen anyone having one. After hearing the program, I might be better able to help someone having one. But, other than riding the Metro, I don't spend a lot of time around people, and I don't tend to spend time in places where people would stress out enough for an attack. (Besides which, I have learned from the podcast that the people who do have attacks phobicly avoid any places that might trigger their attacks.)
Rogue Waves (34:47): I'm not expecting to be out at sea in a small boat (or even a large boat.)
Karate (45:14): I think that's the one I bailed out on.
Skywriting (36:50): That would have been next. Interesting? Probably. Useful? Doubtful. And I could probably learn more on my own in 36 minutes of web surfing than I would learn from the podcast.
Viruses (34:59): I'd rather hear about this from knowledgeable virologists and biologists than from people who probably know less about it than I already do.
The Great Train Robbery (1963) (45:16): I've somehow heard quite a bit about this, and 45 minutes at their bantering pace probably wouldn't tell me anything new.
Extinction (49:48): I think I have a grasp of the basics behind extinctions - climate change, loss of habitat, unsuccessful competition, overhunting, diseases, introduced exotic competitors, etc.)
I found both podcasts too chatty; the presenters try to inject some humor and light banter, apparently to make the material more appealing. I didn't find it amusing, or helpful. The core subject matter either is or isn't of interest to you. For me it diluted the content density of the program. I don't care to spend my time listening to jokes I don't find funny, and suppositions about the subject from people who have done some (mostly on-line?) research and who aren't any more expert than I would probably be after an evening of web surfing.
Their English usage is definitely "younger" than mine, which I also found irritating. I'm fine with changes that make communication better, clearer, but not just for the sake of change or sounding trendy. What pushed me over the "is-this-worth-my-time?" edge was one host answering the other with a "Meh."
I've skipped ahead to the next set of podcasts in my Kindle (Kojo Nnamdi's Tech Tuesday shows). Deleting the "Stuff" podcasts is going to free up a lot of space, since their episodes are long (30+ minutes) and they have lots of them.
These podcasts do have 2 or 3 advertising breaks, presented by the hosts. None of the products were things I would buy, but since it's a recording I could skip ahead.
To dispute any notion that dialog and banter is the kiss of death, the "More or Less" podcasts from the BBC are great. I often do find them funny. They're basically about economics, but an incredible expanse of human behavior and experience can be viewed from an economics viewpoint, and can still be interesting. And educational. Humor isn't universal. I never found Dave Barry funny, nor cared much for the NPR Car Guys, Click and Clack. (There was a serious lack of density. I do think it would be useful to know more about cars, but that was only about 10% of the show.) I could watch The Simpsons all day, and my mother-in-law can't stand them. Stupid movies - people actually pay to see them? Humor isn't universal.
This notion of "content density" affects most of my media consumption. It's why I listen to Public Radio instead of commercial radio. (And I've been finding more and more on WAMU that's lacking in density - or lacking in content of interest to begin with.) Same for TV. I like to watch shows that I can learn something from. Yes, there is some fluff/entertainment/suspension-of-belief stuff that sometimes makes the cut. (IFF there's commercial skipping; essential for the density.) But mostly I prefer to be learning - science, culture, history, other cultures, others' histories, etc. Or solving a puzzle - which is the murder-mystery genre. Although I can't understand why mysteries seem to require murders. Couldn't less-severe events be just as intellectually engaging? Some puzzle-solving shows can get too formulaic; you can eliminate some lines of inquiry because "that simply wouldn't happen on this show."
[This entry was originally posted as https://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/726587.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]