Podcasts – Listening To Two Sides? How New Tech Impacts our Conversation - Part 4 of 3!

A channel of predilection for modeling conversation

I don’t know about you, but in my social circles, it’s rare to have robust conversations on tricky topics. It’s risky business, not just because you can get called out and/or slammed online, but because you can ruin a friendship or family relationship. Stories abound of families being torn asunder by deep divisions on hot-button topics. When looking at a conversation that qualifies as a meaningful debate, I think of three key questions/qualities:

1. What is the topic? For example: how tendentious is it?

2. How qualified are the speakers? (N.B. I am not thinking of diplomas, but more about the reasoning, knowledge, reputation and sources used)

3. How much listening are both sides doing?

When engaging in a conversation, it then behooves me to model the same behavior, and to hold myself accountable. And I know I can do better!

---

I goofed. When I ripped into the role of technology and how it has materially impacted (negatively) our conversation, I forgot to single out the positive potential of the podcast. That is why this is number 4 of 3. The missing piece! In all the vitriol and negativity about the role of technology on conversation (see my earlier articles on the Smartphone, Social Media and Artificial Intelligence), it’s difficult to find examples of robust conversationalists discussing touchy topics. When you look at mainstream media -- based on the business model, editorial bias and a rabid need to snatch our attention -- it’s basically barren when it comes to hosting contentious, yet civil debates. Instead, it’s all about capturing eyeballs, measuring the spillover on social and driving the narrative (although not necessarily in that order).

Podcasts provide some hope

Where mainstream media has few examples of bona fide civil debate, I think we should take a closer look at the world of podcasts. Of course, there are plenty of biased shows, replete with financial interests and backers that corrupt the ability for less constrained topics and meaningful debate. Nonetheless, I feel blessed to have easy access (on my time) to a number of fascinating shows where meaningful conversations are happening. There’s no show that is successful at doing this every time, since it will depend on the topic and participants, but there are at least some shows and episodes that will be worth highlighting and that model great conversations on tricky topics. [See the list below].

Epistemological dysfunction

When engaging in meaningful debate, something that is particularly important is the base of knowledge, facts, figures, studies and research. One of the key issues today is that the excessively easy access to all forms of information has enabled division, because everyone now has their own version of the facts. There’s a site to back every perspective out there. Who’s telling the truth? Not to forget the central philosophical questions of what is truth and what is knowledge? With both the media and universities – the two institutions most important in determining our epistemology - struggling to provide a balanced, broad-based and open approach, the culture wars are being waged with little common ground or few common reference points.

The business model… counts

One should not be naive, though. Nothing is free and no one is totally objective. So, one always has to be attentive to the underlying tensions and prejudices. The platform on which the podcast is hosted will have its particularities (see below in the Joe Rogan case). The podcast may have sponsors or allow advertising. Its host will have a slant or perhaps have something to sell or prove. Knowing about the business model is useful when we listen. One can’t expect neutrality and objectivity. If you can’t find balanced and civil debate inside one podcast, at least make the effort to listen to a broader range of podcasts that cover the spectrum of reasoned opinions.

The power of the podcast

So, what is it that makes the podcast so attractive and inspiring as a medium. I’ve recorded and published over 600 episodes on both of my podcasts, Minter Dialogue, one in English and the other in French, on the subjects of leadership, branding and transformation. Running both these podcasts since 2010, I’ve learned a lot about the art of interviewing. I’ve had the chance to talk with some extraordinary individuals.

The “on” button

As much as I’ve personally focused on interviews, I always seek to make my sessions more of a conversation. In the process I’ve two insights to share:

• The run-up is structuring. In the preparation of the interview, you develop a certain rapport and understanding of the interviewee. During the initial email exchanges or a preliminary Zoom, it becomes obvious to what extent the interviewee is comfortable with the microphone. It also helps to find out how knowledgeable the interviewee is about the given topic and how free they are to riff.

• The record button is powerful. No matter the personality on the other end of the line or Zoom, it seems that the fact that the conversation is being recorded for a semblance of posterity, changes the nature of the chat. You’re on the record. You’re “on air.”

Time to air

In part because of a different business model and dynamic, one of the interesting aspects of the conversations happening on a podcast is that they’re not constrained by the need to insert advertising. In the US, for example, a typical half-hour TV show will include just 22 minutes of programming and eight minutes of ads. Moreover, a typical mainstream media show is highly manicured (edited, stylized…) as producers try to have optimal attention all the time. Meanwhile, a podcast is, at least for now, more basic in its production and more fluid in its time frame. And, if there’s one thing that’s fundamental in enabling a more meaningful discussion is to avoid the constraint of time. The more unbound in time the conversation, the more willing each will be to listen to one another. Otherwise, when time is limited and short, there’s always the impulsion to jam in one’s talking points, regardless of what has preceded.

Give me an earful

One of the most important facets of the podcast medium is that it’s aural, which makes it an individual experience, intimately channelled into our ears. Of course, many have video versions, to tap into the YouTube market, etc. but the aural nature means we’re intent only on listening, free of the impact of video (notwithstanding our eyes are wide open observing life going on around us). This means that, with just the one sense, it demands another kind of focus, one that is so rare these days. When the conversation is intense, you can dial into the emotion and the nuances of expression, including the powerful silences. Siobhan McHugh, one of the titans of the podcasting industry, developed on an episode I was fortunate to record with her about the power of audio. Check out that episode here on Minter Dialogue.

The world of podcasting - A plethora of choice…

Without including China (which has its own and very robust podcast ecosystem), there are now millions of podcasts, ranging from 2.4 to 4.2 million shows. The total will vary depending on your source and definition. [see Podnews]. These are spread out over a dozen or more categories (19 on Apple Podcasts and 13 on Spotify).

Different platforms

There are many types of podcasts. In terms of listening services, there are hundreds of options, but the leader now is Spotify that recently overtook Apple in terms of Monthly Active Podcast Listeners (see eMarketer’s graph below). Importantly, both of these platforms have been running into editorial and ethical issues as publishers, including their responsibility to vet shows and qualify in their own way (and through their algorithms) the bar of free speech.

Publisher responsibility

Earlier in 2022, Joe Rogan was caught in a maelstrom, attacked on two distinct issues, one around Covid and the other about racism. Much was written about this, and, for a decent take on the problem, I’d recommend the Globe & Mail opinion piece, “Joe Rogan, Spotify and the dangers imposed by private threats to free speech,” by Jacob Mchangama, founder and executive director of the Danish think tank Justitia. Mchangama concludes the article:

“As responsible civilians wishing to hear wide-ranging opinions on difficult subjects, we must be wary of the context, including the ownership and politics behind those managing the controls.”

In search of a meaningful podcast conversation

Punching in a search query “meaningful conversation” doesn’t cut it for me. In terms of relevant topics and qualifiers, I certainly don’t seek out  “delicious” conversations (as proposed by Apple, see below).

And I don’t tend to use “sensitive” as a qualification, because it’s likely to be a little too safe to have robust conversation. The podcast, Conversations that don’t suck (that closed down in 2020) was really a lot more about “loving one another” and displaying fears about all the worries out there (e.g. climate change, smog…). Ironically, five of the last seven episodes were just solocasts, hardly a conversation. I’d say that’s a testament to how hard it is to have conversations that don’t suck!

The three qualifiers

As I write at the top of this article, there are three things that I look for to qualify a meaningful conversation, at least as it pertains to a podcast. First, the subject matter must be meaningful, tricky or somewhat controversial. Secondly, it must be between two or more people who have a viable opinion that differs from one another. Thirdly, the individuals holding the conversation should display civility, including most importantly an ability to listen to one another. The equilibrium is difficult because it means juggling passion and conviction with patience and openness. It should not be about beating the other, but about sharing, exchanging and learning. This does not mean acquiescing any more than it means defeating or winning.

Let’s get listening…

Here is a selection of podcasts and episodes that you might want to check out. I would love to have your feedback on any of these. And I’d be very grateful for other suggestions. Please add them in the comments!

The Joe Rogan Experience

Joe Rogan is the biggest name in podcasting, with up to 11 million listeners per show that are remarkable for their length (up to four hours), off-the-beaten-path discussions, and a grand diversity of guests and topics. Now ‘owned’ by Spotify, Rogan has a boss with rules to which he must obey. As a signal of the free speech ‘battle lines,’ Rogan had to agree to clean 42 episodes from his catalogue before moving to Spotify. He’s since had another 70 episodes eliminated in the aftermath of the February flare-up. Rogan has a knack of keeping the conversation flowing, keenly able to listen and equally able to jump in and debate a topic. His guests and topics are never uniform. They cover the gamut of ideas and domains. The average length of his shows is 2h35 (source): so much for short attention spans. Another fact to note is that, among his nearly 1000 guests, 88% are male, knowing that some 180 are related to Rogan’s roots in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). Find out more about Joe Rogan here.

UnHerd, with Freddie Sayers

Freddie Sayers is a British journalist (with Swedish roots), who is Executive Editor, CEO of UnHerd, an online magazine that seeks out top scientists, writers, politicians and thinkers for in-depth interviews to try and help us work out what’s really going on. Sayers and his team are not afraid to dive into the thick of difficult questions and issues -- provoked by the pandemic -- including free speech, science, meaning and the ideas shaping our world. Sayers invites vetted experts, many of whom have opinions that are different if not contrary from the mainstream narrative. And Sayers won’t shy away from disagreeing or at least asking probing questions from the other side of the aisle. Check out the UnHerd podcast via Google Podcasts. It’s also available via YouTube.

Left, Right & Center

As the host, Kimberly Atkins Stohr, describes the show, it’s “a civilized yet provocative antidote to the self-contained opinion bubbles that dominate political debate.” For example, on the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court, rolling back the EPA’s power and overturning Roe v Wade, the three invitees included Sarah Isgur, a staff writer and host of the conservative outlet, The Dispatch, Christine Emba, a Washington Post columnist and editor and Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Check out Left, Right and Center.

Death, Sex & Money with Anna Sale

A show from WNYC Studios part of New York Public Radio, Anna Sale explores the big questions and hard choices that are often left out of polite conversation. Her interviews are well produced and cover (uncover?) many interesting personal stories on difficult issues. Check out Death, Sex & Money

Making Sense with Sam Harris

Previously run under the title of Waking Up with Sam Harris, Making Sense tackles all sorts of topics, many of which are very touchy. Once again, you may or may not agree with Sam Harris or the guests on the show, but Harris has a way of hosting, asking smart questions, listening deeply and is not afraid to push back or argue. To start you off, I’d go with the conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson (hosted by Sam Harris): E67 Meaning & Chaos (March 2017) that was an improvement on their first and rather stalled debate E62 What is True? (Feb 2017). And it’s worth checking out when Sam Harris is invited onto Jordan B. Peterson’s podcast here: S4E81 (November 2021).  What’s interesting is to see the different styles of hosts and how that changes the balance of airtime. Check out Sam Harris’ Making Sense Podcast that has a freemium subscription.

Lex Fridman = Racism, Marxism, and the War on the West With Douglas Murray (episode)

Lex Fridman is a techie, host of nearly 300 episodes on his eponymous show, who’s got a great following. I haven’t listened to so many of his interviews, but recently he had Douglas Murray on. As he says at the end, they disagreed on certain topics and yet had a very fruitful and interesting conversation. It’s a worthwhile listen – here.

Conversations With People Who Hate Me

Hosted by Dylan Marron, this show identifies itself as a podcast “that takes people in conflict and connects them in conversation.” In his show, he actively seeks out individuals who wrote strongly worded negative social media posts directly aimed at him. It’s quite a bold endeavour. And Marron demonstrates and encourages listening.

Conversations with empathy

While not a podcast, I wish to give a plug to one other form of conversation through The Empathy Circle, a structured dialogue process that is designed to practice empathy through active listening. The Empathy Circle was co-created by my fellow empathy activists, Edwin Rutsch and Lidewij Niezink, both of whom I’ve had on my podcast, of course. However, I don’t have any good examples to share of an Empathy Circle explicitly used to deal with conflicting opinions. In the link above, you will find a recorded Empathy Circle in which I participated, to give you a flavor of what one looks like.

Modelling of good conversation IRL

There aren’t that many podcasts that really model robust discussions on the sensitive topics. It would seem that most podcast hosts prefer to stick to their echo chamber. Others are too tentative about openly wading into the difficult subjects (I’d probably characterize my own podcasts as such, although I’ve had plenty of guests with alternative opinions on my shows). Most interview-style podcasts are just Question & Answer, as one might expect about an interview, albeit some with a more biting interviewer. The trick is finding conversations as they might occur in real life, such as at a dinner table, friends at a pub or among colleagues having a coffee. These are the real conversations where people can engage. As we’ll explore later on in this Dialogos, I’ll be keen to set out some good constructs and examples as to how we can have more meaningful conversations together.

When looking at a conversation that qualifies as a meaningful debate, I think of three key questions/qualities:

1. What is the topic? For example: how tendentious is it?

2. How qualified are the speakers? (N.B. I am not thinking of diplomas, but more about the reasoning, knowledge, reputation and sources used)

3. How much listening are both sides doing?

When engaging in a conversation, it then behooves me to model the same behavior, and to hold myself accountable.