I think it sucks.

[Jeff Crowell]

I didn't drink until I started getting into paranormal research. About the first time I tried to have a seriously critical discussion with a conspiracy theorist, I had to start drinking. His arguments made a lot more sense, then.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Changing back isn't possible. The only way for The Paracast to grow is to move on. To be blunt, the original setup seriously stagnated our growth -- listenership actually declined slightly. And we are, as a matter of fact, more serious now. I won't bore you with the details.

What's more, I haven't changed. I've always produced and edited The Paracast. The only format change is slight -- more rigid station break points, which also means a somewhat more organized conversational flow. The revolving co-host lineup has made for a richer selection of guests and information.

Yeah, it be would hard to go back, as the previous co-host QUIT.

If people want someone to blame, blame DB.

In the meantime, I hate the ads, but I think the show is much better with Chris, Greg and Nick, all of whom, agree with them or not, have done real research, as opposed to the previous co-host who, lest anyone has forgotten - QUIT!

Jeebus...

---------- Post added at 12:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------

I don't drink. Seriously. Just never got into it.

I'm Canadian. I was born drunk, and not on that swill Americans call beer.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Besides, getting a network deal has long been part of the game plan. It isn't a new idea the sprung up in the last few months.

 

[hemi]

I maybe new to listing to the show and being apart of the the paracast community but the show by no means "sucks." Its one of the very few paranormal shows that can be considered in my view for skeptical believers like myself. Gene thanks for the great programing.

 

[Jay]

.... that swill Americans call beer.

I may not agree with you on everything Paul, but I agree 100% on that! I am a proud supporter of US micro-breweries and do not buy any of the mass marketed stuff (unless it's Canadian of course).
8)

 

[Cabal]

Thanks of your comments, though I find the conclusion out of sync with reality.

In fact, a number of the recent guests include individuals who have been on the show previously, such as Stanton Friedman, Kathleen Marden, Jim Moseley, Allen Greenfield, Richard Dolan, Stan Gordon, Philip Imbrogno, David Jacobs, Budd Hopkins, Nick Pope, Kevin Randle and Ted Phillips. We have Leslie Kean back this weekend and a whole lot of other compelling guests scheduled for the next few weeks.

Talk me out of what? Not constantly attacking guests after their segment is done, engaging in emotional outbursts, telling the audience how awful the UFO field is and dropping off the show before it ends? Asking softball questions of guests whom we are allegedly predisposed to believe in?

I like to think we are far more professional these days.

As to what made us popular, our download count and audience is up 50% over what it was before the co-host changeover — and I'm not including those who can hear us on terrestrial radio or the GCN network's own site. That tells me that the audience by and large accepts what we are doing and how we're doing it. More to the point, our listeners include people who stopped listening, but have now returned.

As to the ads, the number is the same as every other syndicated radio show in the U.S. No difference, and saying don't run the ads is illogical. They are required in our contract, just as they are for other talk shows. It doesn't mean we earn more money (we don't), but it's the price you pay for extra distribution.

That to me is a reality that I am happy to embrace. I hope you will too.

It's always amazing to me how upset people can get when you offer them something of value for free then take it away/change that offering. No good deed goes unpunished! Seriously though while I enjoyed the old format and certainly don't listen for commercials, I hope this helps sustain the Paracast and allow your show to be a success.

One consideration: is there a win-win scenario or at least some way to placate the upset crowd? I know some radio shows offer a paid commercial free podcast. Some may not want to pay - maybe a "suggested donation" commercial-free podcast? Bears some brainstorming - something listeners can contribute to get a commercial free version. I have donated previously and would consider such a offer. Not sure how this might screw up your radio deal.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

One consideration: is there a win-win scenario or at least some way to placate the upset crowd? I know some radio shows offer a paid commercial free podcast. Some may not want to pay - maybe a "suggested donation" commercial-free podcast? Bears some brainstorming - something listeners can contribute to get a commercial free version. I have donated previously and would consider such a offer. Not sure how this might screw up your radio deal.

At this point, there's no way to do that under our contract. It's not as if we're big enough yet to negotiate special terms, and I'd expect the network would want a piece of the action if we did that sort of thing.

 

[Ron Collins]

I may not agree with you on everything Paul, but I agree 100% on that! I am a proud supporter of US micro-breweries and do not buy any of the mass marketed stuff (unless it's Canadian of course).
8)

Skip beer altogether and go straight for the Whisky. The Canadians sure have that down.

---------- Post added at 07:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

I think an official Paracast Drinking Game is really needed. And quite frankly I'm surprised there isn't a forum dedicated to it. Including the commercials in the drinking would promote listening to them so its a fiscally responsible thing to do. (ah-hem)

1. Anytime you hear a commercial trying to scare you into buying something, take a shot.
2. Anytime Gene mentions "dinosaurs" take a shot.
3. ...

I just had a Freshman year flashback.

 

[Han]

When I first saw this thread I could not reply because I was too angry and did'nt want to say anything that got me banned or that made me look like a brown nose.
now i have calmed down(a bit) all I have to say on the matter is Gene, I am sorry that the world is full of such stupid ungratefull and ignorant people and you do not deserve to be insulted like this. You provide an outstanding radio show and a superb forum, all for free to the listeners and users of the forums. thanks a thousand times and be in no doubt that you deserve what ever(positive) comes to you. anyone that says otherwise is a ______!*

for "mikepc" your worthless attempt to put down gene and the show will backfire into galvanising any body with a brain reading your thread into more loyalty to the show. good riddance to bad rubbish is all I can say about you(but as you have left and wont listen/read any more you are also a "knobster"!)

best wishes

* left blank for your choice of expletive

 

[TClaeys]

I think one thing about the "former" show was that many guests were taken to task and asked to answer hard and sometimes unpleasant questions. As Dolan was on recently he wasn't asked about any of these issues and I remember a long thread discussing him, his associations, and endorsements. To my knowledge we still don't have any answers in this regard. I'm wondering if he agreed to come on knowing that the guests would not be allowed to ask about this. I think associations are important as well as background history. A lot of times guests are never asked about these things, but they were always asked before. It is a different show for sure. I'm not saying bad or anything, just different. It seems to play more into what people want to hear, ...a general discussion and make up your own mind. I'll have to listen to more of the shows that I've missed and see if that is true across the board, ... I'll admit I haven't listened to many shows since the change.

I do however appreciate Paul's line of questioning. His and the other co-hosts interviewing is actually refreshing. All of them are pretty knowledgeable and ask good questions. Just not questions that would make the guest want to hang up. I not sure if that is always a good thing or not, but it really keeps them on their feet. Uncomfortable sticky questions are sometimes at the heart of the matter. And certainly some of these people need to be challenged.

Anyway, it is what it is. If you haven't learned how to use a FF button then you probably should practice some. You aren't forced to listen to the ads. After awhile you'll know just how long to hold that button down.

For some reason the audio quality seems worse now, ... is that the case?? Perhaps I'm mistaken.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We could have asked a guilt-by-association question of Dolan. But it could border on a personal attack and it would only serve the interests of shock value. We all have wacky friends.

But we asked the questions that were truly relevant, and Dolan came across as very reasonable, even admitting he'd changed some opinions since the books came out.

As to audio quality, it is slightly worse. The network is using their own encoding system. I need to work with their engineering team to see if we can make it better.

 

[Siani]

The diminished audio quality is my only criticism of the new format. But as all audio players have adjustable volume, it's only a minor concern.

 

[dyingsun]

I'm more then happy with the new format, especially after listening to some 'paranormal show' a few weeks/months ago with our/his guest co-host...I still enjoy the 'older' ep's. but that was unnecessary.

I'm kind of sad that Paul 'dropped' out for now, but I really like and respect the guys Gene brought on as co-hosts.

Gene seems to be talking a lot more as well, so kudos to the whole paracasting crew.

 

[tyder001]

If I were a "guest" on a show (Unless it's about southern sports nuts who read Stephen King novels it's not gonna happen.) Anyway, if I were a guest and I thought the host was simply going to "drill" me then I'd find another show. I think the paracast does a good job of operating in that "middle ground" Matter of fact I think it was starting to get a reputation of harshness and combativness that wasn't helping it in the past. I look forward to next show. Sounds interesting.

 

[exo_doc]

I happen to like the new show format, it's worth putting up with the commercials for, and not slamming on David B. but I think the show is actually more intellectual, sticking to the facts, and not digressing into politics and so forth.
I like it (*shrug), and I'm happy the Paracast is getting so much more exposure.
I do have a beef with the audio though and I hope it gets cleared up.

 

[tyder001]

Agree. Especially about the politics. I don't lean all the way "left" or "right." I don't like being preached to when I'm tuning in for knowledge or entertainment.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Agree. Especially about the politics. I don't lean all the way "left" or "right." I don't like being preached to when I'm tuning in for knowledge or entertainment.

Understand we aren't going to avoid political conspiracies, although we'll focus on those with a paranormal event most of the time. Also, whenever you talk about government secrecy with regard to UFOs and other phenomena, you can't avoid politics. It comes with the territory. But preaching isn't part of our game plan.

 

[tyder001]

I understand. I was talking more about "political zealots" who try to tell you their politics are on the side of the angels. I understand your and agree with your above statement. Can't "avoid" politics or religion when your talking about the "human experience."

 

[FletcherMunson]

I think the show is actually more intellectual, sticking to the facts, and not digressing into politics and so forth.

A couple of questions:

How has the Paracast become "more intellectual" since Biedny left?

Does "sticking to the facts" include just letting some guests rattle off whatever stories they have without providing a strong evidence?

How can a show that often talks about the government's role in the paranormal field not address politics? It seems a little naive to think that the extent of the political content of the show should be confined to the X-Files. Such a shortsighted view could be one of the reasons this field has gone nowhere in the past six or seven decades. (And, it's funny you haven't noticed Gene's little alm to Genesis with the "increasing government spending" comments he's made a couple of times since the changeover. Maybe Biedny's politics just weren't in line with yours, huh?)

if I were a guest and I thought the host was simply going to "drill" me then I'd find another show.

Speaking of problems with the paranormal field...

This sort of attitude is one reason why the field has gone nowhere. People can write a book or throw up a website (or, these days, they don't even have to do that) and then expect to choose where they are interviewed based on how friendly the show will be. If the guests are so sure of their material, why would they be worried about getting drilled by a show?

Being nice and patting each other on the back with a wink isn't always the best way to move forward. Mixing it up now and then only ups the quality of the show, because it tells would-be hucksters (or honest people with lackluster evidence) that they're going to be put to the test.

Sure, I understand the primary thrust of the show is to sell the guests' works. But we're not talking about the latest movie or mystery novel, here. We're talking about works that we are urged to take as fact. And, I think the more dangerous, anything-can-happen quality that the Paracast once had is a more appropriate arena for such works. Otherwise, we're just creating yet another belief system. (We've got enough of those--and they're taking over the planet, right, Kimball?)

And, frankly, I think that dangerous quality is missing from the show since Biedny left. Yes, he sometimes went overboard. Sometimes, he just checked out entirely (which is the worst possible response to an interview). But, for the most part, I think the "harshness and combativeness" you're referring to actually translated to a higher caliber of guests most of the time.

To be perfectly clear, I'm still on board as a Paracast listener. I still find something useful in every episode of the show--even the ones with guests who might be telling tall tales. It's still a great show. It's just different tonally.

As far as commercials and sound quality go, I expected those changes before they happened. Honestly, I check out during the commercials if I'm not in a position to scrub through them, and I use something called a volume button to combat the sound quality issue.

 

[zorthron]

I miss David Biedny. But he quit and it's a free world so the show must go on. My favorite radio interviewer in the "paranormal" field is George Knapp, who seems to bring the kind of rhythm of the old radio news announcers of yesteryear, e.g., Paul Harvey (I think that was his name). Admittedly I haven't been listening as much because the edge is what made it different, and now, quite honestly, it's doesn't actually seem that different from George Noory (who is a nice guy too and doesn't challenge his guests at all, but whose aw shucks gullibillity and friendliness I find kinda nice).

I heard Biedny on another show talking about the "break up" and some of the behind the scenes stuff and it was really shocking. Don't know if it's true, but maybe that's another reason I'm not as loyal of a listener.

Anyway, hope you get back on your feet, Gene. Hope the show continues to progress. We all have our own lives to try and sort out, all of our own crosses to bear, and I want to thank you for all of your hard work.

Peace.