Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Podcasting

One of the neat things about the dearth of listenable radio stations in most areas of our country today is the rise of the podcast. Tablet + podcast + cassette adapter = highway diversion when traveling two-plus hours to a meeting. The variety is immensely greater than even the most eclectic radio station menu, and the downloadable nature of the format means that a desired program can be listened to when convenient, rather than only when broadcast.

Book Lab is a podcast by Canadian science journalist Dan Falk and science writer Amanda Gefter that discusses what are usually called "popular science" books, as opposed to specialized textbooks. The popular books are meant to be read by a well-educated but non-specialist audience, and succeeding at that task requires a bit more dexterity than the creation of a teaching textbook. Falk and Gefter have a couple of award-winning popular science books between them, so they make a kind of natural fit for discussing similar offerings.

Format-wise, the show opens with a single book that both of the hosts have read and they work through it, explaining the subject matter, what the writer says about it and whether or not they think the project succeeds. Then each offers a shorter take on a book that's "on the nightstand," explaining it in briefer detail and answering questions from the other about the content and why they picked it.

Book Lab has a very NPR-show feel to it, right down to the jazzy piano music bumpers between segments and Falk's broadcast-professional presentation. Gefter is just as articulate and informative, but her tone is not quite as radio-ready as Falks. Although both have their own specialty areas of study and interest, they've covered many areas of science through the books they discuss. Both are engaging personalities and work well together, leaving a listener better informed not only about a few books but also the scientific discipline it covers. The only real complaint I have with Book Lab is the infrequency with which Gefter and Falk release shows; since their first episode in December 2014 they've only done 19. Which is probably savvy from their point of view, marketing-wise, because it never hurts to leave your listeners wanting more.
-----
Quillette is an online magazine founded in 2015 by Australian writer Claire Lehmann. Its podcast focuses primarily on issues the magazine has covered, digging deeper through interviews with other writers and newsmakers they have covered.

Like the magazine, the Quillette podcast trends heavily into the heterodox and iconoclastic in both its subject matter and the way it's approached. Although heterodoxy in today's media world most often means a more conservative perspective, Quillette doesn't hesitate to publish or interview anyone, left or right, connected to the subject at hand. Meghan Murphy, a radical feminist blogger whose general politics would probably clash with Quillette's more libertarian leanings, wrote for the magazine and sat for an interview to discuss her removal from Twitter. Lehman and other members of the Quillette staff may disagree with Murphy on much, but they stand four-square behind free speech and believed Murphy's story and experiences offered a good handle for exploring the issue.

Unlike some other podcasts that cover interesting subjects from a libertarian or even right-leaning point of view, Quillette allows its interviewers far more time than just a quick 10-minute segment. Interviews last anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour, and primary interviewers Toby Young and Jonathan Kay do an excellent job exploring the topic of the hour through their conversations with their subjects.

Most of the actual reporting done under the Quillette banner goes into the magazine's stories. The podcast interviews can provide some significant contrast and background but they are not intended to be street-level reporting and writing. All told, Quillette is an excellent way to either deepen our knowledge of the world around us or gain some new perspectives on perhaps familiar topics. And so far, at least, writers and bloggers have diligently dug simply for information for a story, rather than treat their work as a tool with which to slam or embarrass one office-holder or another.

Those persons may certainly find themselves embarrassed now and again, but that's not the name of the game -- just a wonderful side-benefit..

No comments: