It's mildly amusing how temporal and disposable these podcasts are. As I'm listening to this most recent one, I receive an email notification with information (the Libby lawsuit) that makes almost all of what was said here four days ago outdated and no longer accurate.
Three MPI employees' speculation (an hour each) became irrelevant immediately with today's news. This podcast's shelf life was literally four days, which makes me wonder if was worth the hours it took to create it.
That would be the case with ANY podcast the comments on news and current events, Mike. What would you prefer we do, say nothing about emerging political and policy news? If you don't like it, don't listen.
And we said, repeatedly (particularly me) in the last two of these that we thought Libby had a legal case to file against the Legislature, and we even speculated as to what the nature of that challenge could be. Not sure how that makes it "outdated" or "disposable," but to each his own.
Not an attack, or even a criticism, Matt. Just noting that current events move quickly these days and three people spending an hour on something that is yesterday's news by the time a lot of folks get around to listening to it seems Sisyphean.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the norm, but I don't listen to many podcasts or livestreams at all. Maybe just a couple each week. It's strange to me how long they all are, like many feel the need to justify the podcast by having it be an hour or two long each episode. Like long paragraphs, tackling a 75 or 90 minute podcast is daunting to me. Maybe just limit it to 30 minutes each?
Also, think strategically, not tactically, when producing one. A lot of columnists write that way for print publications, knowing that their words will be read weeks or months later at the earliest. Maybe instead of ruminating what the supplemental budget will be like next week, consider what the past few Mills budgets have been and give detailed context to what has been (which is known) in lieu of speculating as to what is being considered right this minutes (which is unknown, but might be known by the time someone listens to the episode, which makes the speculation a bit pointless).
It's different than radio, which is immediate information digestion for the most part. Again, not being negative or critical, just engaging and making an observation.
Your consumption habits and preferences are not the norm, Mike. Looking at the back end statistics, 90 percent or more of the listens we get on these things (which is growing significantly, by the way, much more than I anticipated) is within 24-48 hours of it being released. And for a lot of the people who do consume podcasts regularly, being just a hair "out of date" is not really an issue, as people frequently like to hear what hosts thought of something as it happened, even a few days later.
I do listen to a lot of podcasts, and I have found myself listening to stuff that is a month or two out of date fairly often, particularly when I find a new podcast I like and am getting "caught up" on what they are talking about. People do not listen to these to get the fastest, most up to date news of the day, they listen to them to get reactions and perspectives that they find valuable and interesting.
Regarding length... look, we are never going to make everyone happy. I frequently get people who want the podcast to be 5 to 8 minutes long, and I get just as many (probably more) who think it should be 3 hours long. Famously, Rogan's podcast is often times three or four hours long. Length is pretty irrelevent for most people. What people want is content they find interesting. We never have a clock on what we do... if we were done talking about what we were talking about in 30 minutes, we'll be done. If it is the more standard hour or hour and 15 minutes, so be it.
The great thing about this medium, Mike, is you have access to both a transcript and the full digital episode, so you can listen to any chunk you want, and skip anything you don't.
In the future, we are very likely to break down the podcast into smaller chunks from larger episodes, which will hopefully satisfy a lot of the people who want both shorter and longer podcasts. But either way, we are doing this to create a podcast for people who are interested in politics and public policy and want more depth on what is going on beyond the empty calories they get in mainstream press coverage. Judging by the traffic on these, clearly it satisfying what a lot of people want.
I appreciate the feedback, but we're doing it the way we are for a reason.
Great episode as usual. I listen on headphones and your intro is way louder than the episode. Help my ears!
Cut the money Trump! Make Mills squeal. Mills is an unmitigated, non-gender or sex related asshole!
Remove her from any public office in Maine.
It's mildly amusing how temporal and disposable these podcasts are. As I'm listening to this most recent one, I receive an email notification with information (the Libby lawsuit) that makes almost all of what was said here four days ago outdated and no longer accurate.
Three MPI employees' speculation (an hour each) became irrelevant immediately with today's news. This podcast's shelf life was literally four days, which makes me wonder if was worth the hours it took to create it.
That would be the case with ANY podcast the comments on news and current events, Mike. What would you prefer we do, say nothing about emerging political and policy news? If you don't like it, don't listen.
And we said, repeatedly (particularly me) in the last two of these that we thought Libby had a legal case to file against the Legislature, and we even speculated as to what the nature of that challenge could be. Not sure how that makes it "outdated" or "disposable," but to each his own.
Not an attack, or even a criticism, Matt. Just noting that current events move quickly these days and three people spending an hour on something that is yesterday's news by the time a lot of folks get around to listening to it seems Sisyphean.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the norm, but I don't listen to many podcasts or livestreams at all. Maybe just a couple each week. It's strange to me how long they all are, like many feel the need to justify the podcast by having it be an hour or two long each episode. Like long paragraphs, tackling a 75 or 90 minute podcast is daunting to me. Maybe just limit it to 30 minutes each?
Also, think strategically, not tactically, when producing one. A lot of columnists write that way for print publications, knowing that their words will be read weeks or months later at the earliest. Maybe instead of ruminating what the supplemental budget will be like next week, consider what the past few Mills budgets have been and give detailed context to what has been (which is known) in lieu of speculating as to what is being considered right this minutes (which is unknown, but might be known by the time someone listens to the episode, which makes the speculation a bit pointless).
It's different than radio, which is immediate information digestion for the most part. Again, not being negative or critical, just engaging and making an observation.
Your consumption habits and preferences are not the norm, Mike. Looking at the back end statistics, 90 percent or more of the listens we get on these things (which is growing significantly, by the way, much more than I anticipated) is within 24-48 hours of it being released. And for a lot of the people who do consume podcasts regularly, being just a hair "out of date" is not really an issue, as people frequently like to hear what hosts thought of something as it happened, even a few days later.
I do listen to a lot of podcasts, and I have found myself listening to stuff that is a month or two out of date fairly often, particularly when I find a new podcast I like and am getting "caught up" on what they are talking about. People do not listen to these to get the fastest, most up to date news of the day, they listen to them to get reactions and perspectives that they find valuable and interesting.
Regarding length... look, we are never going to make everyone happy. I frequently get people who want the podcast to be 5 to 8 minutes long, and I get just as many (probably more) who think it should be 3 hours long. Famously, Rogan's podcast is often times three or four hours long. Length is pretty irrelevent for most people. What people want is content they find interesting. We never have a clock on what we do... if we were done talking about what we were talking about in 30 minutes, we'll be done. If it is the more standard hour or hour and 15 minutes, so be it.
The great thing about this medium, Mike, is you have access to both a transcript and the full digital episode, so you can listen to any chunk you want, and skip anything you don't.
In the future, we are very likely to break down the podcast into smaller chunks from larger episodes, which will hopefully satisfy a lot of the people who want both shorter and longer podcasts. But either way, we are doing this to create a podcast for people who are interested in politics and public policy and want more depth on what is going on beyond the empty calories they get in mainstream press coverage. Judging by the traffic on these, clearly it satisfying what a lot of people want.
I appreciate the feedback, but we're doing it the way we are for a reason.