Hacker News Reader

Comment by drusepth | Hacker News Reader

I wanted to like podcasts, but never found one that wasn't either incredibly boring or incredibly grating to listen to.

Maybe I'm not the target audience, but I'm rarely if ever interested in the speaker of whatever information I'm trying to consume, and podcasts' focus on guests (and hosts) always came off as self-aggrandizing and people speaking just to hear themselves speak. Especially with very little editing (uhs, pauses, and general dysfluency) and/or preparation (winding conversations with a lot of fluff instead of a structured outline), I'd almost always just prefer to listen to a narrated book or textbook on whatever topic I'm interested in.

View on HN

I don't listen to off the cuff podcasts at all. I used to listen to Tank Riot, for example. They had really interesting topics. But then it devolved into "we haven't seen each other for a month, so let's catch up while we're recording" and they got into endless unrelated tangents.

My current list is only well-edited and produced stuff

  - No Such Thing as a Fish (facts, trivia, comedy)
  - 20kHz - audio production and sounds in general
  - 99 Percent Invisible - random trivia and deep-dives
  - More or Less - analysing statistics 
  - Cautionary Tales - historical failures, they have actual radio play style stuff with actual name actors (Helena Bonham-Carter for example)

And stuff I listen to on the background and usually fall asleep to:

  - Crowd Science - people as questions about science and the host interviews people who know about it
  - Every Little Thing - More random trivia stuff
  - 30 Animals that Made us Smarter - exactly what it says on the tin

My tolerance for "let's turn on the mic and chat for three hours without any plan and publish it as a podcast" is pretty close to zero.

- In Our Time (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl) - nearly 1,000 episodes since the late 90s, covering history, science and literature. Different expert panel every week with some amazing reoccurring guests (Ian Stewart, Martin Palmer, Mary Beard, Angie Hobbs, Paul Cartledge, Caroline Crawford).

Definitely my favourite podcast. The only other comparable one Revolutions by Mike Duncan.

Revolutions podcast was too in-depth for me (think, hundreds of episodes for each revolution). But I've been listening to his podcast-closing appendix (12 appendix episodes, that tells you something about being verbose), and it's fun :)

Now wondering what the boundary between "BBC radio programme on Sounds" and "podcast" is. Could the BBC have been said to invent the "podcast" format with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_America ? (2,869 episodes! "The series ran from 24 March 1946 to 20 February 2004, making it the longest-running speech radio programme hosted by one individual")

(Very strictly, a podcast requires an RSS feed and the ability to download to an iPod, but those criteria have been eroded to "any audio programme that is not on the radio")

Many programmes on BBC Sounds have RSS feeds, you can subscribe using any podcast client.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/help/questions/features/subscri...

> Now wondering what the boundary between "BBC radio programme on Sounds" and "podcast" is.

This thread is teaching me that people would even draw a boundary there at all. It's clear from the people posting here that many really think of podcasts as "couple of guys sitting around shooting the shit", but there's a hell of a lot out there outside of this one genre.

It's a bit "I tried a bunch of science fiction books, but I didn't like them so reading isn't for me."

Ever heard the term 'The medium is the message?"

BBC Radio podcasts are not representative of podcasts, nor is it the reference point for most people that start one. Those people very likely have the image of two friends shooting the shit in front of a mic.

Have a look at Fall of Civililzations as well - I think you'd like it. 3h deep dives into fallen societies of history.

I find Fall of Civilizations lacking. It often lacks structure, few sources are cited (though I don't doubt the author's seriousness) and few points are made. I much more prefer Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, even if it is based on a kind of long storytelling.

There are a few podcasts that turn on the mic and chat, yet where the hosts also make an effort to reach out to new guests. For example: episodes of The Amp Hour that aren't just Chris and Dave pull in people from all over the industry. The thing is, I suspect that is difficult to do when you are are small podcast. Without the reach, potential guests simply don't know who you are.

Over the years I have adopted almost this same rubric. The way I describe my filter is "two people read wikipedia to you for an hour".

I have 2 of the ones on your list: 99PI and Cautionary Tales and I notice that they are both publish about the ~30 minutes episodes once per week. I think all these podcasts that are 60-120 minutes > 2 times per week are really just replacing talk radio on people's long commutes. It's just a pleasant way to fill the air, not to actually learn anything.

Exactly, there's no way you can produce 2+ 2 hour podcasts a week without them being a rambling mess - or you have dedicated script writers and editors and the one reading them is just the voice of other people's text.

Any podcast should be prepared and scripted to some extent, especially shorter ones. Especially good political comment/talk shows. Unprepared 15-minutes interview podcasts are just as annoying to me as very long one.

This relies on the moderator / podcaster to have sufficient time / manpower to prepare, or sufficient authority to convince guests not to come without any serious preparations.

On the opposite, there's a podcast from the German Newspaper Die Zeit that has made the long rambling its concept. It's called "Alles gesagt?" and consists in a usually unedited interview with two journalists. The interview (in English or German) stops when the guest considers he has nothing more to say or pronounces a magic word. Yuval Noah Harari's interview lasted 10 hours IIRC. It's decently prepared, but that's not the kind of podcast you can listen to regularly.

These are good, maybe similar, and have high frequency of very interesting episodes:

  - People I mostly Admire (Steven Levitt/Freakonomics Radio)
  - The joy of X (Steven Strogatz, discontinued)

Both are in the style that the host talks with an interesting guest about their work. Coincidence has it that in the most recent episode of PIMA, the guest is the host of the other one, Steven Strogatz. They normally don't collaborate but have their similarities.

Interestingly, these are exactly the traits that make podcasts appealing to me.

It's fun to hear people talking about what they're interested in, or I get to hear people's personal experiences on a subject I care about (entrepreneurship, neurodivergence, software development). I'm here less for structured content than to expand my perspective on general experience and challenges of being in a given situation.

For what it's worth, there are also lots of other formats besides "two dudes/dudettes talking": scripted drama, documentary, unscripted/situational comedy. I even listen to a guy critique classic computer science research papers.

Ooo... What podcast reviews classic compsci research papers?

The Eric Normand Podcast, previously titled Thoughts on Functional Programming. Despite the name, he also dives into e.g., some classic OOP material too, as well as general programming paradigm commentary.

https://ericnormand.me/podcast

A couple episodes you may be interested in:

"In this episode, I excerpt from and comment on Allen Newell's and Herbert Simon's 1975 ACM Turing Award Lecture."

https://ericnormand.me/podcast/computer-science-as-empirical...

"In this first episode of season 3, we analyze a great paper called Lisp: A language for stratified design. The paper asks the question "What is Lisp good for?"

https://ericnormand.me/podcast/lisp-a-language-for-stratifie...

"We read one of the great articles by Alan Kay, inventor of Smalltalk, called The Early History of Smalltalk."

https://ericnormand.me/podcast/the-early-history-of-smalltal...

Awesome, thanks!

I think different formats have different propensities.

Your problems with podcasts appear more related to propensity than inherent format issues - that is, books too can come off as self aggrandizing, fluff and winding, but you have found mode examples that don't do this perhaps?

Perhaps one thing inherent to podcasts vs books is that you can simply skip sections and skim past the content you find not worth your time, where podcasts are harder to do this without missing your spot, etc.

Podcasts like 99% invisible I find hit the right balance, but again, definitely have more emphasis on interviews than pure factual info compared to books. But I think that's kind of normal, as podcasts do suit discussion and interviews better than a more straight facts approach.

Still, I feel the points you've listed, while valid, are not always the case and like most mediums, you can find examples that would suit your style.

For me, the lack of editing, scripting and structure is exactly what I find refreshing about podcasts. They feel more natural, more flawed, more raw, but therefore also more honest and more human.

But to each their own. Not saying there's anything wrong at all with disliking podcasts for exactly these reasons, they're just not for everyone I suppose.

There is a limit to "natural". If the hosts even slightly stay on topic, a few umms and aahs don't bother me.

But when I start listening to something titled "X & Y talk about Z" and they tangent off to A, B and C. I just stop listening.

My pet peeve is shows that have interviews with people and preface it with 30 minutes of "banter" that doesn't interest anyone who hasn't listened to the previous 420 episodes.

Just have one episode with the catch-up part and one with just the interview, please.

> My pet peeve is shows that have interviews with people and preface it with 30 minutes of "banter" that doesn't interest anyone who hasn't listened to the previous 420 episodes.

Repeat listeners are most podcast producers' bread and butter, and those listeners tend to be invested in the hosts, and typically enjoy the banter.

It's sort of the reverse of radio. In a radio show you want to pander to the widest audience - every show must stand alone and can't rely on the audience's familiarity with the host or past content. In a podcast there's no one tuning in at random because it's something interesting that's "on" at the time that they happen to be listening, so podcasters get by from cultivating and pandering to a dedicated fanbase, who then tend to enjoy content that benefits from a deep familiarity with the show.

It sounds like you'd most enjoy "podcasts" that are really recordings of radio shows (99% Invisible, the many NPR podcasts etc).

I could not get into podcasts until I started listening at 1.5x. That changed everything for me, the information density was finally high enough that they were worth listening to, and over time I upped the speed to 2.5x (mostly). Also I’ve started listening audiobooks faster (though not as fast), and that has greatly increased my consumption of audiobooks, even when measured in hours listened.

If you’ve not tried it I would heartily recommend it - I really didn’t think it would matter before I tried it.

It would be so cool in the future if AI could predict which parts are harder to understand and which parts are fluff and dynamically adjust the speed for you.

I’d love 50% speed for tough concepts but 300% for the banter and their dumb stories.

Maybe a product idea actually? Feel free to run with it.

And auto-rewind when your eyes glaze over.

50% speed is impossible to listen to. It will not help your comprehension.

Maybe just strategic pauses then.

I think there's large segments of many podcasts that'd be nice to just get through, where comprehension isn't inherently necessary. :)

I've begun doing this as well. Also, as soon as one of the guests makes some off-topic joke and I sense that there is going to be some banter before they get back to the point I just hit the fast-forward-30-seconds button.

Podcasts are not a good format for consuming serious information, at least in my experience. Neither are audiobooks. The problem with podcasts is they are light on real content and if it's on a technical topic and the format is having a guest be interviewed on it, the quality of information depends on the quality of questions and most people are not good at coming up interesting questions on unfamiliar topics on the spot. So you get very superficial questions and equally superficial answers. But podcasts are great for entertainment and zoning out. And for lonely people it's great to hear people talking. Darknet diaries is a good one though I don't listen consistently

> not a good format for consuming serious information

Yes, podcasts are reminding me 'the age of the feuilleton' from Hesses's Glass Bead Game.

I disagree, though it depends on the circumstances in which you're consuming them. If you're listening while you're doing something that is mentally engaging then of course it will be hard to absorb the information. But I'm not exactly taxing my brain when I'm walking my dog or sitting on the porch drinking coffee.

There are good ones, but they require a proper host and environment.

Steve O has had some interesting people open up about their issues, same with Jon Bernthal. Especially his episode with Shia LaBeouf was amazing.

But these people are rare. They devolve too often into the host fawning over the guest. Nerdist podcast started doing this at one point.

+1 on Jon Bernthal. I was very skeptical at first but he gets very unique guests such ex-gang members and policemen.

Many popular podcasts just have guests who are obviously trying to promote a new Netflix special or book.

He stutters and the outcome isn’t that polished but if you can adapt to that his podcast feels very authentic.

Heartily disagree. A lot of professional journalist-led podcasts are really excellent. And the audio format is concise without being distracting. It's basically the on-demand version of classic talk radio. I crow a lot about On the Media which is fantastic journalism. There's loads of other similar content that varies from topical to human interest. Stuff like This American Life or Radiolab or How I Built This or Planet Money or more niche stuff like Cyberlaw. Kara Swisher is great too.

I was like this until I found the NPR Planet Money podcast. I am not 100% sure why I found this so engaging but here are my guesses:

1. They cover a subject I was interested in (economics), but knew basically nothing about. This made it easier to listen to as I found I didn't space out when they were talking about things I already knew. 2. Nice, tight editing and good production. No hosts blathering on for hours - they keep it short and to the point. Most episodes are 20 minutes and easy to get through.

I used to listen to Planet Money, but it’s devolved over the same dumbed-down drivel that dominates NPR these days:

“Money has always been used to buy goods, but did you know you can also use it to buy services? Here’s some pop culture reference comparison to fake a narrative.”

I think the show started suffering when NPR turned every show into a podcast; it removes the ability to cater to a more focused audience because you have to waste half the show doing background.

I’m glad I’m not alone thinking this. 10 years ago it was the best of the best. Now it tries way to hard to be cute and “engaging.”

I think media types decided everything needed to be like Vox Explainers, so now everything sounds like it’s designed for primary school students.

Completely agree. More or Less and Business Daily (both BBC) have replaced Planet Money for me in the last few years.

I think that's a bit unfair - I think they're taking a very dry, boring subject and trying to make it engaging and interesting to a wider audience. They are sometimes going to err on the side of too generic, but most of the actual stories are still quite interesting, at least to me, who is coming into economic stuff very late in life and has very little grounding.

I listen to podcasts that take a lot of production. One favorite of mine is "American History Tellers." It is well edited and tightly scripted and thoroughly researched.

Check out a big podcast producer like Wondery. They approach podcasts with production and professionalism. It takes a team to produce a good podcast.

If a professional podcast is like network TV, the podcasts you're describing are like the old public access channel on cable. They're both the same medium, sure, but they're in different leagues entirely. I don't listen to the podcasts with a random person with a mic chatting about what he thinks is interesting; that would indeed be boring and a waste of time.

My favorite podcasts are science Friday or stuff I’d hear on public radio for a short bit while driving. One-off interview podcasts can be good if looking more into a specific person but in general many podcasts seem like/wanna be a cult of personality

> podcasts' focus on guests (and hosts)

Not all podcasts do that, though. I listen to about ten podcasts fairly regularly; one ("Behind the Bastards") has regular guests, though their purpose is largely to have someone for the host to tell a story to, two ("The Rest is History" and "The Rest is Politics") have occasional expert guests, on perhaps 10% of episodes, the remainder don't have guests at all.

I'd give "In Our Time" from the BBC, and Econtalk, by Ross Roberts, a try if I were you. They both follow the traditional podcast format with a host and guest, but there is a lot of work done by the hosts ahead of time to ensure your time is well spent. Definitely high-density content.

I noticed that I like podcasts just how I like blogs. Even if it's objectively great (as decided by the masses), I probably don't like it and can't stand listening to it for long. But if I stumble upon something I like to read or listen to, then I'll follow that blog/podcast for many years. I would in general even go so far as saying that listening to people talking is not my medium of choice (I also don't like audio books) - but I'd say I'm actually a fan of a select of few ones.

In addition to the In Our Time suggestion by a sibling comment, I can recommend Sean Carroll’s Mindscape podcast (https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/).

And for some good fun (and some occasional new insight), the Soft Skills Engineering podcast (https://softskills.audio/).

I never listened at all until last year when somebody pointed me to Darknet Diaries. Now I’m completely hooked.

It’s hard to find good ones though. I haven’t had as much luck.

It works if the guest is discussing a topic that interests you and the information cannot be readily found elsewhere, because it's his unique story or perspective.

I quite enjoyed Swindled. Not exactly on the lighter side, but usually stories I’ve never heard of before. With the type of research and structure you mentioned.

in some places radios is still done by professionals, and it shows. In the US outside of NPR I stuggle to find anything of values.

Example : Most show on France Culture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com