I always find it amazing when I'm actually noticed by somebody I know of from the skeptical community. Nigel St. Whitehall, fellow podcast junkie and fellow alumni of the Conspiracy Skeptic podcast, wrote a review of my last episode on his Skeptical Review blog
I rarely get constructive criticism, so it's nice to have something like this to think about. For example:
Be forewarned like other Canadian podcasts tight editing is not in the
cards. Therefore, this particular episode, while highly thought
provoking and entertaining, clocked in at over two hours. I walked Ike
twice, and took him with me to pick up lunch, and I folded laundry but
the show still have ten minutes left after all those activities.
I know that this is just a comment and not a criticism from Nigel, but it's an interesting point. When I first started out I didn't do much editing, but I've started to do more. I now edit out pauses that seem like they might be a little long, and I try to do some
amount of editing out the um's and ah's and things like that. Of course, I could spend all day trying to clean up all of my
stammering around, but I have other things to do ;)
I guess other podcasts probably leave a lot more on the cutting room floor than I do though. They try a lot harder than I do to keep their episodes a constant length. I could cut out parts of the discussion that I find less important or relevant, and maybe I'll consider doing a little more of that. But in general I find the entire discussion to be very interesting, and I myself prefer to listen to any conversation in its entirety rather than the parts that have been custom selected by somebody.
I also think that an abridged copy of a book is an abomination.
Anyway, Nigel was also disappointed that we didn't bring up the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a podcaster who holds himself ultimately responsible for the content of the episode, I place the blame entirely on the shoulders of my guests! Jeff, Stu... you guys really let me down on this one! As gays, aren't you supposed to know everything about gay rights so that you can interject this kind of relevant information into the discussion?
I'm not angry at the two of you...... I'm just disappointed.
Nigel also criticized me for something I said in my ending commentary:
The only thing I thought was a bit odd, and I do not know if Parrot does
this on most of his podcasts, is that he added an addendum to the show.
Parrot brought up a new angle on an topic the panel was disagreeing
over after the other panelist were not available. To be fair, Parrot
did note this might not seem fair, but he wanted to get his thoughts out
there. While the host of a podcast has the liberty to tack on an after
the fact idea, I think such things are best left for a future date or
I always work in a little bit of an after word into every podcast, but I've never before actually made some sort of point from a disagreement I had. Nigel may be right, that might have been a poor decision on my part.
My thought process was that people who have their own show have the privilege of putting in the final word on any discussion. Even when Steve Novella went on the Doctor Oz show, he specifically stated that he didn't hold it against the man that he got to put in his own final words that Steve didn't have the opportunity to reply to.
But maybe it depends on the dynamic that you're going for, so I'm not entirely certain whether I made the right decision or not. I've told you guys many times before that I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, so it's not unexpected that I might screw up somewhere.
What do you guys think? Was I in the wrong? Or was I just fairly invoking my podcasters' privilege? You can comment here or send me an email
Nigel did have some very nice things to say though:
What I have enjoyed most about the two or three episodes so far is that
Parrot is fairly fearless in picking his topics and steering the
discussion. It is not a no hold bar politically incorrect festival that
used to be a hallmark of "Irreligiosophy" for example, but it is quite
open. Also, the guests do not tend to agree with each other all the
time, which occurs on a number of other skeptically minded podcasts.
It's not that they disagree for the hell of it, but it sounds to be an
honest dialogue. I should try and listen to this podcast more often.
You can call it "fearless", I like the sound of that. But it's probably closer to "reckless". I just enjoy a good discussion and don't see any subject matter as being off limits. The good thing about talking with skeptics is that even when they disagree with you they're more often able to take a step back and actually respond with a rational discussion on the subject rather than just yelling at you.
I enjoy exploring points of view that don't completely agree with mine, and I'm really glad that I had Jeff on to challenge what I was saying.
Anyway, I'm glad you're enjoying the show Nigel. Hopefully you'll continue listening to future episodes as well