10 ms·

What makes an interview podcast good or great?

76 points by jger15 5y ago

lysecret 5y ago
omg. I have a econ background and i used to read marginalrevolution religiously. Actually until economistsview shut down :( Ahhh and they mention EconTalk at the start. I think its time to dive into my past haha
frou_dh 5y ago
Briefing the guest beforehand to not begin every spoken answer with "So: "
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Postproduction editing is much more effective for removing verbal tics and the like. On the Media ran a segment a few years back (2007) on the practice, and product, of audio editing: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/129437-pulling-back-the-curtain https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/129437-pul... (transcript available, click to view) audio: https://pdst.fm/e/www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm052507f.mp3 https://pdst.fm/e/www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wny...
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Having a podcast makes you very aware of verbal tics, including your own. I don't knock myself out over it but I typically spend a couple hours on a podcast removing umms, pauses, general verbal stumbles, etc.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      That's a start, though there's far more than that. The roll the tape and broadcast everything school makes for terrible audio, with very few exceptions. Editing should be for tics, extraneous discussion, flow, etc. No, don't pull a Project Veritas and make people say the opposite of what they did, but do get to the damned point. I think it may have been This American Life (or some similar aughts-era narrative programmes) which published some really good guidelines on doing your own audio editing. I'll see if I can turn up something (though a quick scan seems to show a lot of similar guides and now, university coursework). Updates: There's a more recent guide (2018) from KQED-FM here: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/662070097/starting-your-podcast-a-guide-for-students https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/662070097/starting-your-podca... That covers far more than just audio editing, though it points here for specifics: https://training.npr.org/2018/10/31/mixing-diy/ https://training.npr.org/2018/10/31/mixing-diy/ Also not what I'd had in mind originally but a pretty good guide, here: https://medium.com/@ranlevi/the-importance-of-editing-to-your-podcast-d86f66b19c53 https://medium.com/@ranlevi/the-importance-of-editing-to-you...
arh68 5y ago
It's subjective. I'd say pick three: 1) interviewer knows the topic 2) interviewer knows the person 3) interviewer does not speak for the person 4) neither total agreement nor disagreement. Also, they've got to know how to use a mic. On the other hand, if the person's a really good storyteller, it matters less what the interviewer does. But so subjective. Personally, I usually can't stand Terry Gross and I've heard many say she's one of the best. I really liked some of Joe Rogan's interviews, but others are train wrecks.
- specialist 5y ago
  Like all new mediums, podcasting has been DIY. The content creators have had more creative control, are in charge of their own programming. Though I don't like the Guest of the Week format, I recognize the skills of Terry Gross and others, for their medium. The phases of experimentation and retrenchment are cyclic. Like all other mediums. The hotness in podcasting will spasm back and forth between indies and studios.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Terry Gross is an institution now, there are both lovers and haters. I've listened to her programme off and on for decades. The plusses as I see them are: - Fantastic range of material. She covers arts & culture, news and politics, world events, and science. I strongly suspect the show's staff has a lot to do with this. - The intereviewer (not always Gross --- Dave Davies stands in fairly frequently and occasionally others) mostly get out of the way of the guest, though Gross herself is known for her five-minute-wind-up question. OK, it's not five minutes, but there's usually a question or two in the show that has a very long preamble. - The interviews are edited. Not heavily, but just enough to fit format, for continuity, and relevance. This virtually always helps, and most especially avoids all of the live-on-air annoyances of technical glitches and rushing the guest at the end of the time window. I see these as strong positives. Gross's voice and intonation may strike people differently. I appreciate the non-shrill, calm manner (most commercial broadcast feels like people screaming or shouting, by contrast). It's instantly soothing. Her politics are clearly left/liberal, though she does try to get out of her comfort zone occasionally, and when she does so the results are far more equitable than what I see with leading interviewers from the right. Most notably Bill O'Reilly, though also Kiss lead man Gene Simmons, off the top of my head. (I heard both when originally aired.) The format is not especially combative, though Gross will dig gently on occasion. (Contrast, say, Bob Garfield's hard press on occasion, notably an oil-industry apologist and Internet revenge-porn hoster. Even there, Garfield isn't aggressive, but he's very clearly assertive and making his views clear.) The high consistency of interviews regardless of host is what makes me feel that there's probably a lot of teamwork involved. Gross is pretty good in arts and culture issues, but weaker on technology and science. Despite that, the science and technology interviews still tend to be pretty good, especially in a general-audience venue. What becomes clear is that Gross has her own favourites and crushes. Some are somewhat surprising (Johnny Cash), others more predictable though understandable and reciprocated --- Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart especially, occasionally other public media names such as This American Life's Ira Glass. Again I find this endearing.
paleite 5y ago
I think Charisma on Command nailed it in their video: https://youtu.be/cHyYlFCaXPM https://youtu.be/cHyYlFCaXPM The biggest takeaway for me was: make the interviewee feel comfortable by letting them talk freely about subjects they feel passionate about, and the interviewer should ask genuine and good questions by properly researching the interviewee beforehand.
phreeza 5y ago
One thing I have noticed recently in particular with the coronavirus, but also other topics, is that several interview podcasts fall into a sort of trap where they have guests on that have some sort of contrarian viewpoint, and this gives listeners a dopamine hit for apparently having discovered some sort of truth that is unknown to society. Now this is great if the host finds someone who has something genuinely interesting to say, but it can quickly devolve into having a bunch of crackpots on the show. In fact I think it may go one step further in that the popularity of this format has lead otherwise reasonable (and well-credentialed) people to take more kooky positions because it gives them the chance to appear on these podcasts (I've read it described as "throwing themselves off an epistemic cliff" somewhere).
- RubberMullet 5y ago
  Insight porn is another way of describing it. And these guests tend to do more than one podcast in a short period of time which, coupled with social media, contributes to the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
  - phreeza 5y ago
    That's a great word for it!
  - ramraj07 5y ago
    Aka TED talks
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    It's heard this referred to as "it's a 'as it turns out'"
- lovegoblin 5y ago
  > they have guests on that have some sort of contrarian viewpoint ... but it can quickly devolve into having a bunch of crackpots on the show. Joe Rogan has entered the chat.
sleavey 5y ago
I got into Lex Fridman's podcast [1] maybe a year ago and was instantly a fan of his depth-first search style. It's often frustrating in other interview style podcasts when something interesting is mentioned but not explored. Lex will often say something like "oh that's interesting, let's talk about that" then that becomes the subject of discussion for 20-30 minutes, but he's good at backing up to the original point after that branch is exhausted. Incidentally he's a computer scientist! [1] https://www.youtube.com/user/lexfridman https://www.youtube.com/user/lexfridman
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  I used to like this podcast but two behaviors by the host ultimately turned me off: - Lex’s weird comments and massive oversimplification of ethical topics. He always seems to ask people if X is Good or Evil, with no consideration of nuance. I get that he’s a computer scientist and not a ethicist, but I somewhat expected more. - He doesn’t question the guest or curate the discussion very well. Some of the episodes are 3, 4, 5 hours long, which is madness. I want to listen to his guests, but I can’t spend 5 hours on a conversation that has an hour of insight. This is the job of a good host. Overall the strength of his podcast comes from the quality of guests. I wish he would take his role as journalist/interviewer a little more seriously.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - elevenoh 5y ago
    To counter: -unnuanced prompts/questions tend to trigger better responses. highly nuanced questions don't. it's up to the answerer to freely craft their response w/ little cognitive load or host-assumptions to manage. -some of the longer podcasts are where the veil of persona disappears & one can see the authentic guest. I like long, deep, authentic conversations personally.
    - sleavey 5y ago
      I was going to reply to the comment directly but I completely agree with what you said here. And to add more to your second point: Lex is catering to people who want long form interviews. There are thousands of other podcasts that fit the interview to the time rather than fit the time to the interview for those that don't like this.
fumblebee 5y ago
I rate Tyler Cowen's (the author of the linked post) podcast highly because his questions are so incredibly well crafted. (Incidentally, I just found this article on the blog which suggests a set of guidelines for asking high quality questions. [1]) However, the issue I take with his interviews is that, because the questions are often pre-meditated, the conversation oftentimes fails to flow smoothly as tangential questions follow an interviewee's answer. It sometimes feels more of a Q&A than a conversation. [1] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/how-do-you-ask-good-questions.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/ho...
- snakeboy 5y ago
  I agree, and find it ironic that he explicitly calls his podcast a "conversation", when indeed it's the least conversational podcast around (except when he clearly really likes the person or has a strong opinion on the topic)
- thinkharderdev 5y ago
  I actually really appreciate that aspect of Conversations with Tyler. So many podcast are "bring on someone who just wrote a book and let them pontificate for an hour" which can be interesting if the topic is interesting but it often ends up sounding like a set piece as the guest just "reads their script." Cowen's style of asking really oblique questions and skipping around to topics really allows guests to demonstrate a dynamic range of intellect and often say things that are interesting and "off script." It doesn't always work but when it does it is brilliant.
- syspec 5y ago
  Where can i find Tyler crowns podcast?
  - wheelinsupial 5y ago
    Wherever you listen to podcasts? https://conversationswithtyler.com/ https://conversationswithtyler.com/
- 5y ago
e-brake 5y ago
When the interviewer does not attempt to control the conversation but is receptive and genuinely curious about the guest and their perspectives, encouraging a free flowing conversation.
- post_break 5y ago
  I can tell you someone who does the opposite of that and it destroys the interviews is John Gruber. He has guests on I genuinely want to listen to, and John talks more than they do.
TamDenholm 5y ago
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this?t=1598530776560 https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this?t=15985... How i built this is an excellent podcast full of VERY interesting stories and hes had big names on it.
emsy 5y ago
I don't want to search through all threads so I'm going to make a separate thread where everyone can add their ONE favorite episode which you think are great interviews. I start with my favorite Chuck Palahniuk on Joe Rogan (which is really more due to the interviewee) https://open.spotify.com/episode/1j5rNNfDQuGjj3EjErwVge https://open.spotify.com/episode/1j5rNNfDQuGjj3EjErwVge
- PennRobotics 5y ago
  https://www.alieward.com/ologies/phallology https://www.alieward.com/ologies/phallology This episode was rock solid.
timoth3y 5y ago
I've been running an interview podcast called Disrupting Japan for the last seven years or so. I interview Japanese startup founders in English. Four things I do with every guest 1) Do real research. Read any other interviews this person has given. It helps you avoid the dumb questions and sparks new ideas. 2) Try to figure out what this person really wants to talk about but never gets asked about. Founders usually have some passion related to, but not really part of, their startup story. I don't always hit tis, but when I do, it's a magical conversation. 3) Challenge your guest. If they say something that seems too fluffy or hyped. Push back and ask them (very politely) to support it. 4) Sketch out the conversation arc beforehand. Know the story you want to tell. The interview will be a series of having the guest go off on interesting tangents, and you pulling them back onto the storyline. I don't know if my podcast interview skills count as "great" or even "good". But that's the way I approach it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
specialist 5y ago
Hosts should state the date at the very beginning of the episode. Minimally. Extra credit each for episode number, show URL, guest names, topics, sponsors, sponsor URLs.
- ghaff 5y ago
  With respect to date and guests (though the latter is usually stated anyway), aren't you typically coming into the episode through some mechanism that provides you with that information?
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Quite frequently not. Raw audio exists. (See my earlier response.)
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I stumbled across an S3 bucket with a set of historical radio interview archives dating from the 1950s to the 2010s, nearly 1,000 individual recordings (not all full episodes, some are outtakes or short edits). None have the date indicated, either recording or air. Their a pretty fascinating cross-section of history, but the task of identifying when and who each recording concerns is tedious. The total set does correspond to a publicly-accessible interface, though that itself only provides access to a small subset of the total archive. (Likely because the hosting organisation is itself trying to identify and date the segments.) I can understand how early in the project this might have been acceptable, but after a decade or five, you'd think the host or producers might have had the inspiration to clearly identify their work. "Hello, I'm X, it's DATE, this is PROGRAM, and I'm talking today to GUEST(S)".
BlameKaneda 5y ago
Thinking back, this is what my favorite podcasts have in common: - Research has been done on the guest, their work, the subject, etc. - The interviewer asks interesting questions that the guest likely hadn't heard before. For instance, I'd much rather hear about something very specific versus something like, "What was your audition for Killing Eve like?" The latter's probably been asked dozens of times, and I'll bet that the guest's sick of hearing it. - The interviewer asks their questions but gives the interviewee enough room to answer without interruption. While it's good to find a balance between an interview and a conversation, I think, I can't stand it when the interviewer interrupts. - Simply put, the interview is the focus. I stopped listening to a knowledge-based podcast because the host interrupted the interview with "fun fact about [Subject]" segues. They were edited in after the interview happened, but it frustrated me because I was way more interested in hearing the guest speak.
candlemas 5y ago
You need to get just the right ratio of discussion about MMA, bowhunting, and stand up comedy.
twox2 5y ago
The reason I really like shows like Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman are because they get an amazing variety of high profile guests that don't often do long form interviews / discussions.
Rd6n6 5y ago
I avoid interview podcasts because they wander across so many topics. If one were to stick strictly to a well defined topic or question, then I would personally be more open to them
jkingsbery 5y ago
Russ Roberts is a terrific interviewer. He is excellent at understanding perspectives other than his own and asking questions from that perspective. When he is interjecting with his own bias, he's also very good at acknowledging his bias. The handful of times I've heard him interview someone about a book they wrote and I've gone on to read the book, I feel like I've gotten most of the main point already from listening to the EconTalk interview.
- tenkabuto 5y ago
  I agree. However, I've found the topics of his episodes less and less interesting lately.

76 points by jger15 5y ago

omg. I have a econ background and i used to read marginalrevolution religiously. Actually until economistsview shut down :( Ahhh and they mention EconTalk at the start. I think its time to dive into my past haha

frou_dh 5y ago

Briefing the guest beforehand to not begin every spoken answer with "So: "

dredmorbius 5y ago
Postproduction editing is much more effective for removing verbal tics and the like. On the Media ran a segment a few years back (2007) on the practice, and product, of audio editing: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/129437-pulling-back-the-curtain https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/129437-pul... (transcript available, click to view) audio: https://pdst.fm/e/www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm052507f.mp3 https://pdst.fm/e/www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wny...
- ghaff 5y ago
  Having a podcast makes you very aware of verbal tics, including your own. I don't knock myself out over it but I typically spend a couple hours on a podcast removing umms, pauses, general verbal stumbles, etc.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    That's a start, though there's far more than that. The roll the tape and broadcast everything school makes for terrible audio, with very few exceptions. Editing should be for tics, extraneous discussion, flow, etc. No, don't pull a Project Veritas and make people say the opposite of what they did, but do get to the damned point. I think it may have been This American Life (or some similar aughts-era narrative programmes) which published some really good guidelines on doing your own audio editing. I'll see if I can turn up something (though a quick scan seems to show a lot of similar guides and now, university coursework). Updates: There's a more recent guide (2018) from KQED-FM here: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/662070097/starting-your-podcast-a-guide-for-students https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/662070097/starting-your-podca... That covers far more than just audio editing, though it points here for specifics: https://training.npr.org/2018/10/31/mixing-diy/ https://training.npr.org/2018/10/31/mixing-diy/ Also not what I'd had in mind originally but a pretty good guide, here: https://medium.com/@ranlevi/the-importance-of-editing-to-your-podcast-d86f66b19c53 https://medium.com/@ranlevi/the-importance-of-editing-to-you...

arh68 5y ago

It's subjective. I'd say pick three: 1) interviewer knows the topic 2) interviewer knows the person 3) interviewer does not speak for the person 4) neither total agreement nor disagreement. Also, they've got to know how to use a mic. On the other hand, if the person's a really good storyteller, it matters less what the interviewer does. But so subjective. Personally, I usually can't stand Terry Gross and I've heard many say she's one of the best. I really liked some of Joe Rogan's interviews, but others are train wrecks.

specialist 5y ago
Like all new mediums, podcasting has been DIY. The content creators have had more creative control, are in charge of their own programming. Though I don't like the Guest of the Week format, I recognize the skills of Terry Gross and others, for their medium. The phases of experimentation and retrenchment are cyclic. Like all other mediums. The hotness in podcasting will spasm back and forth between indies and studios.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Terry Gross is an institution now, there are both lovers and haters. I've listened to her programme off and on for decades. The plusses as I see them are: - Fantastic range of material. She covers arts & culture, news and politics, world events, and science. I strongly suspect the show's staff has a lot to do with this. - The intereviewer (not always Gross --- Dave Davies stands in fairly frequently and occasionally others) mostly get out of the way of the guest, though Gross herself is known for her five-minute-wind-up question. OK, it's not five minutes, but there's usually a question or two in the show that has a very long preamble. - The interviews are edited. Not heavily, but just enough to fit format, for continuity, and relevance. This virtually always helps, and most especially avoids all of the live-on-air annoyances of technical glitches and rushing the guest at the end of the time window. I see these as strong positives. Gross's voice and intonation may strike people differently. I appreciate the non-shrill, calm manner (most commercial broadcast feels like people screaming or shouting, by contrast). It's instantly soothing. Her politics are clearly left/liberal, though she does try to get out of her comfort zone occasionally, and when she does so the results are far more equitable than what I see with leading interviewers from the right. Most notably Bill O'Reilly, though also Kiss lead man Gene Simmons, off the top of my head. (I heard both when originally aired.) The format is not especially combative, though Gross will dig gently on occasion. (Contrast, say, Bob Garfield's hard press on occasion, notably an oil-industry apologist and Internet revenge-porn hoster. Even there, Garfield isn't aggressive, but he's very clearly assertive and making his views clear.) The high consistency of interviews regardless of host is what makes me feel that there's probably a lot of teamwork involved. Gross is pretty good in arts and culture issues, but weaker on technology and science. Despite that, the science and technology interviews still tend to be pretty good, especially in a general-audience venue. What becomes clear is that Gross has her own favourites and crushes. Some are somewhat surprising (Johnny Cash), others more predictable though understandable and reciprocated --- Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart especially, occasionally other public media names such as This American Life's Ira Glass. Again I find this endearing.

paleite 5y ago

I think Charisma on Command nailed it in their video: https://youtu.be/cHyYlFCaXPM https://youtu.be/cHyYlFCaXPM The biggest takeaway for me was: make the interviewee feel comfortable by letting them talk freely about subjects they feel passionate about, and the interviewer should ask genuine and good questions by properly researching the interviewee beforehand.

phreeza 5y ago

One thing I have noticed recently in particular with the coronavirus, but also other topics, is that several interview podcasts fall into a sort of trap where they have guests on that have some sort of contrarian viewpoint, and this gives listeners a dopamine hit for apparently having discovered some sort of truth that is unknown to society. Now this is great if the host finds someone who has something genuinely interesting to say, but it can quickly devolve into having a bunch of crackpots on the show. In fact I think it may go one step further in that the popularity of this format has lead otherwise reasonable (and well-credentialed) people to take more kooky positions because it gives them the chance to appear on these podcasts (I've read it described as "throwing themselves off an epistemic cliff" somewhere).

RubberMullet 5y ago
Insight porn is another way of describing it. And these guests tend to do more than one podcast in a short period of time which, coupled with social media, contributes to the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
- phreeza 5y ago
  That's a great word for it!
- ramraj07 5y ago
  Aka TED talks
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  It's heard this referred to as "it's a 'as it turns out'"
lovegoblin 5y ago
> they have guests on that have some sort of contrarian viewpoint ... but it can quickly devolve into having a bunch of crackpots on the show. Joe Rogan has entered the chat.

sleavey 5y ago

I got into Lex Fridman's podcast [1] maybe a year ago and was instantly a fan of his depth-first search style. It's often frustrating in other interview style podcasts when something interesting is mentioned but not explored. Lex will often say something like "oh that's interesting, let's talk about that" then that becomes the subject of discussion for 20-30 minutes, but he's good at backing up to the original point after that branch is exhausted. Incidentally he's a computer scientist! [1] https://www.youtube.com/user/lexfridman https://www.youtube.com/user/lexfridman

ceilingcorner 5y ago
I used to like this podcast but two behaviors by the host ultimately turned me off: - Lex’s weird comments and massive oversimplification of ethical topics. He always seems to ask people if X is Good or Evil, with no consideration of nuance. I get that he’s a computer scientist and not a ethicist, but I somewhat expected more. - He doesn’t question the guest or curate the discussion very well. Some of the episodes are 3, 4, 5 hours long, which is madness. I want to listen to his guests, but I can’t spend 5 hours on a conversation that has an hour of insight. This is the job of a good host. Overall the strength of his podcast comes from the quality of guests. I wish he would take his role as journalist/interviewer a little more seriously.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- elevenoh 5y ago
  To counter: -unnuanced prompts/questions tend to trigger better responses. highly nuanced questions don't. it's up to the answerer to freely craft their response w/ little cognitive load or host-assumptions to manage. -some of the longer podcasts are where the veil of persona disappears & one can see the authentic guest. I like long, deep, authentic conversations personally.
  - sleavey 5y ago
    I was going to reply to the comment directly but I completely agree with what you said here. And to add more to your second point: Lex is catering to people who want long form interviews. There are thousands of other podcasts that fit the interview to the time rather than fit the time to the interview for those that don't like this.

fumblebee 5y ago

I rate Tyler Cowen's (the author of the linked post) podcast highly because his questions are so incredibly well crafted. (Incidentally, I just found this article on the blog which suggests a set of guidelines for asking high quality questions. [1]) However, the issue I take with his interviews is that, because the questions are often pre-meditated, the conversation oftentimes fails to flow smoothly as tangential questions follow an interviewee's answer. It sometimes feels more of a Q&A than a conversation. [1] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/how-do-you-ask-good-questions.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/ho...

snakeboy 5y ago
I agree, and find it ironic that he explicitly calls his podcast a "conversation", when indeed it's the least conversational podcast around (except when he clearly really likes the person or has a strong opinion on the topic)
thinkharderdev 5y ago
I actually really appreciate that aspect of Conversations with Tyler. So many podcast are "bring on someone who just wrote a book and let them pontificate for an hour" which can be interesting if the topic is interesting but it often ends up sounding like a set piece as the guest just "reads their script." Cowen's style of asking really oblique questions and skipping around to topics really allows guests to demonstrate a dynamic range of intellect and often say things that are interesting and "off script." It doesn't always work but when it does it is brilliant.
syspec 5y ago
Where can i find Tyler crowns podcast?
- wheelinsupial 5y ago
  Wherever you listen to podcasts? https://conversationswithtyler.com/ https://conversationswithtyler.com/
5y ago

e-brake 5y ago

When the interviewer does not attempt to control the conversation but is receptive and genuinely curious about the guest and their perspectives, encouraging a free flowing conversation.

post_break 5y ago
I can tell you someone who does the opposite of that and it destroys the interviews is John Gruber. He has guests on I genuinely want to listen to, and John talks more than they do.

TamDenholm 5y ago

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this?t=1598530776560 https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this?t=15985... How i built this is an excellent podcast full of VERY interesting stories and hes had big names on it.

emsy 5y ago

I don't want to search through all threads so I'm going to make a separate thread where everyone can add their ONE favorite episode which you think are great interviews. I start with my favorite Chuck Palahniuk on Joe Rogan (which is really more due to the interviewee) https://open.spotify.com/episode/1j5rNNfDQuGjj3EjErwVge https://open.spotify.com/episode/1j5rNNfDQuGjj3EjErwVge

PennRobotics 5y ago
https://www.alieward.com/ologies/phallology https://www.alieward.com/ologies/phallology This episode was rock solid.

timoth3y 5y ago

I've been running an interview podcast called Disrupting Japan for the last seven years or so. I interview Japanese startup founders in English. Four things I do with every guest 1) Do real research. Read any other interviews this person has given. It helps you avoid the dumb questions and sparks new ideas. 2) Try to figure out what this person really wants to talk about but never gets asked about. Founders usually have some passion related to, but not really part of, their startup story. I don't always hit tis, but when I do, it's a magical conversation. 3) Challenge your guest. If they say something that seems too fluffy or hyped. Push back and ask them (very politely) to support it. 4) Sketch out the conversation arc beforehand. Know the story you want to tell. The interview will be a series of having the guest go off on interesting tangents, and you pulling them back onto the storyline. I don't know if my podcast interview skills count as "great" or even "good". But that's the way I approach it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

specialist 5y ago

Hosts should state the date at the very beginning of the episode. Minimally. Extra credit each for episode number, show URL, guest names, topics, sponsors, sponsor URLs.

ghaff 5y ago
With respect to date and guests (though the latter is usually stated anyway), aren't you typically coming into the episode through some mechanism that provides you with that information?
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Quite frequently not. Raw audio exists. (See my earlier response.)
dredmorbius 5y ago
I stumbled across an S3 bucket with a set of historical radio interview archives dating from the 1950s to the 2010s, nearly 1,000 individual recordings (not all full episodes, some are outtakes or short edits). None have the date indicated, either recording or air. Their a pretty fascinating cross-section of history, but the task of identifying when and who each recording concerns is tedious. The total set does correspond to a publicly-accessible interface, though that itself only provides access to a small subset of the total archive. (Likely because the hosting organisation is itself trying to identify and date the segments.) I can understand how early in the project this might have been acceptable, but after a decade or five, you'd think the host or producers might have had the inspiration to clearly identify their work. "Hello, I'm X, it's DATE, this is PROGRAM, and I'm talking today to GUEST(S)".

BlameKaneda 5y ago

Thinking back, this is what my favorite podcasts have in common: - Research has been done on the guest, their work, the subject, etc. - The interviewer asks interesting questions that the guest likely hadn't heard before. For instance, I'd much rather hear about something very specific versus something like, "What was your audition for Killing Eve like?" The latter's probably been asked dozens of times, and I'll bet that the guest's sick of hearing it. - The interviewer asks their questions but gives the interviewee enough room to answer without interruption. While it's good to find a balance between an interview and a conversation, I think, I can't stand it when the interviewer interrupts. - Simply put, the interview is the focus. I stopped listening to a knowledge-based podcast because the host interrupted the interview with "fun fact about [Subject]" segues. They were edited in after the interview happened, but it frustrated me because I was way more interested in hearing the guest speak.

candlemas 5y ago

You need to get just the right ratio of discussion about MMA, bowhunting, and stand up comedy.

twox2 5y ago

The reason I really like shows like Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman are because they get an amazing variety of high profile guests that don't often do long form interviews / discussions.

Rd6n6 5y ago

I avoid interview podcasts because they wander across so many topics. If one were to stick strictly to a well defined topic or question, then I would personally be more open to them

jkingsbery 5y ago

Russ Roberts is a terrific interviewer. He is excellent at understanding perspectives other than his own and asking questions from that perspective. When he is interjecting with his own bias, he's also very good at acknowledging his bias. The handful of times I've heard him interview someone about a book they wrote and I've gone on to read the book, I feel like I've gotten most of the main point already from listening to the EconTalk interview.

tenkabuto 5y ago
I agree. However, I've found the topics of his episodes less and less interesting lately.