Comment by filmgirlcw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by filmgirlcw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Disclosure: Dan is my friend. He's actually one of my best friends. I know far more about this situation than most, I am not unbiased.

I love Dan for doing this. I think it was the right way to address listeners and also express himself on the topic.

John doesn't need to give his take if he doesn't want to -- and I don't think anyone would expect him to.

People do expect more transparency with Dan, and that's why, however uncomfortable this might have been to discuss, I'm glad Dan took the time to do.

In my professional life, I spend a lot of time analyzing, criticizing and discussing various PR maneuvers of major companies and brands. To me, it's always telling to see how a company or brand deals with a difficult situation.

I think Dan's approach here (and again, I'm totally biased -- though I try to look at this objectively and out of the lens of "my friend") was a great example of how to deal with a private business situation that becomes public.

No one is a villain here. No one did anything wrong. But I'm glad Dan got a chance to talk to his listeners. It's why I listen.

Well done Dan.

I just checked out the new show's site, artwork and listened to the first few minutes. Gruber is clearly a jerk here. Dan is walking his walk here and it's commendable considering the level risen to do so.

I think this private situation only became public when dan mentioned it? if it truely is private why not have that trump whatever public business expectations there are. if it's private, it's private. my personal taste is not to use private situations as pr.

I'm going to have to disagree. It is cynical at best to assume that this situation is being used as PR. Beyond disappointment that the show will not continue as it was, Dan has not exposed his personal feelings on the matter or any private details that should otherwise remain private. There is nothing about switching hosts in a public podcast/show/presentation/etc. that can be considered truly private and deserving of no attention whatsoever. As a listener I found the switch jarring, confusing and leaving lots of questions. Do listeners deserve the intimate details? Of course not, but no one is offering those. All Dan offered was an answer to the question listener's had of "What happened to Dan?", 1/2 of "The Talk Show". It wasn't just JG's show and to offer nothing to the listeners to explain a shift like this leaves lots of questions. The issue became public when JG published the first podcast on Mule with no mention of what Dan's continued involvement might be. Dan had nothing to do with making that issue public, he's merely provided a polite and respectful explanation so everyone can go about their business and not worry about it anymore.

As listeners we are not "entitled" to be treated with respect, but it sure goes a long way in keeping us as listeners and keeping listeners in the loop of major shifts in the show is what I would call respectful. The show on Mule is a different show now, JG is trying to own it and do his own thing with it and there is nothing to criticize there, but it does show a lack of respect for the existing listeners to not at least hint at the changes and give the other host a chance to sign off for the listeners and close the loop. It's not right or wrong, it's simply a choice, just like the choice we make to listen or to leave comments etc.

I am grateful to Dan for filling in the blanks so listeners are no longer distracted by it. I think it's critical to note that he did a masterful job in phrasing it so as not to generate any animosity on the part of the listeners (or between himself and JG) and that's probably the most important aspect of what makes what he did "respectable" versus something to criticize and/or dismiss as a PR stunt.

public: the show moved, fair game

private: what the partners said or didn't say to each other, dynamics of their relationship

good taste is to use all public info as pr, bad taste use private info as pr.

I listened to dan's special again, something just doesn't sound right about it. he wishes john good luck but then implicitly blame's john for not doing one last goodbye show. this is where the (implied) private stuff comes in, who knows why john didn't want to do one last show, maybe john's just an asshole, maybe dan was an asshole and john doesn't want to see him, maybe they're both assholes, who knows. i don't, that's private. so dan should've kept those speculations out of the public ears, but instead he frames john as the guy who didn't feel like he owed it to the fans to have one last show, when the reason for that is probably private. sorry, something just doesn't sit well with me about that.

Brah, chill out. It sounds like you have an axe to grind with Dan. You're insinuating that "PR" is bad. His statement is not inconsistent with anything that Dan has done in the past. He values his relationship with his listeners, what's wrong with that? Do you truly believe a buddhist would go out and turn this incident into a stunt?

He certainly wasn't using this for PR, I know Dan would have preferred for the whole thing to never become a big spectacle on the front page of HN, with YouTube songs and Twitter riots.

But when something IS public, responding is often necessary and I stand by my comment that his response was a perfect example of the right way to do something difficult with class and aplomb.

not using this for pr is not talking about who said/didn't say, did/didn't do what. using it for pr is talking about one-side of a two-sided relationship. Dan's 100% correct to tell his listeners the old show they listened to isn't on any more and his hope they try some of the other shows, takes about 30 seconds. but unfortunately he doesn't stop there, and that's where it crosses the line.

It's not PR. Take his first sentence in the explanation, "Since a lot of people have been asking about it..."

There are a lot of rumors and Dan just rightfully is trying to put in a final statement so that he and the audience can move on. It is customary given the abrupt change in programming and it shows proper respect for the audience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com