Well, if random podcasts are going to be the order of the day I think we should set up some kind of podcast rating system to help people wade through the massive number available, maybe a scale from one to five, with questions such as:
1. HOST COMPETENCE: Are the hosts competent in their field? Do they have any expertise or any credentials whatsoever? Have they done any research in the field? Have they published anything? How long is their tenure? What's their reputation?
2. YUCK YUCK FACTOR: Are the hosts just naturally funny and entertaining (good) or do they push the envelope and think everything they say is funny. How 'forced' is their humor? Does it dominate the show? Do the hosts rely on potty-mouth humor or excessive obscenity?
3. GUEST QUALITY: Overall (allowing for a few inevitable duds), do the guests to the show bring knowledge and insight that is useful in understanding the field? Are they argumentative and defensive?
4. PROFESSIONALISM: Do the hosts exhibit a professional manner? Are the guests treated civily, but with discerning and insightful questions? Can the hosts pull off a 'good interview'? Is the show filled with poor grammar and excessive 'ahs' and pauses?
5. TECHNICAL COMPETENCE: Are the 'production values' of the show at a high level? Can you actually hear the show? Are there technical quirks in the show that take away from the value? Is there any evidence of editing?
6. AUDIENCE AWARENESS: Does the show recognize that it actually has an audience, or does the show sound like it is a tape of a conversation with no awareness of the outside world?
7. BIAS LEVEL: Does the show reflect a political or contextual bias? For example, does the show reflect an ETH bias and treat the IDH with obvious disdain, or is the show even-handed across the spectrum of opinions in the field? How judgmental is the show?
8. BREADTH: Does the show cover a wide range of topics in the field, or is it narrowly focused on one particular aspect to the point that it is repetitious?
9. ATTITUDE: Is the show all about the hosts or all about the show? Do the hosts spend an excessive amount of time discussing themselves and how great they are, or do they get right down to business and 'do the show'?
Maybe these could be refined a bit, but the idea is to have the audience rate each show they listen to to get a cumulative score. Since people have a limited amount of time to devote to listen to a couple of guys jawing off about the topic, people could begin to get a sense of the worthiness of each show. Like a ratings sysem, the best shows will rank near the top, garner a larger audience share, maybe even a premium ad rate, and be 'worth more' than shows which rank near the bottom.
