Anyone who does podcasts should spend some time listening to talk radio. Not just hearing the words, but analyzing the techniques. There’s a fair amount of skill involved in radio (and especially talk radio) that revolves around the fact that it’s all live and it still has to be good. If you don’t believe me, go spend 15 minutes listening to talk radio and then go listen to one of Dave’s “Sunday Gang” podcasts. The difference is clear.
Radio hosts keep your attention. Radio/podcast is a one-media medium, that is to say it only engages you with audio, so that radio host is competing for attention with things you’re feeling, smelling, and especially seeing. You have to admit, even if you’re very interested in what he’s talking about, Dave lets you space out. He babbles, bumbles, and mumbles.
On the radio, you live with the fact that at any moment, someone could’ve just switched the channel and has no idea what’s going on. The problem is not as severe with podcasts (people don’t typically start listening in the middle), but Dave manages to, in almost every podcast he’s ever done, assume that every listener has been not only paying close attention to everything he’s written about, but also thinks about them the same way. Dave’s podcast with Steve Gillmor today contains very little (if any) summary, sign-posts, or road maps. They just start talking, and if you haven’t been paying close attention to everything Dave has “said” for the past several days, odds are that there will be times that you’ll have no idea what’s going on for some amount of time.
That’s before we even talk about how radio personalities control the conversation. “But that’s why the Sunday Gang is so much better than radio,” Dave would probably argue. He wouldn’t be saying that if Gillmor had wanted to spend the whole talk discussing, say, the NBA, though. A good host will guide guests and listeners through the topics, focus the conversation when appropriate, and generally keep everything between the buoys.
Dave does none of that. Not because he doesn’t want to for some principled reason, but because he simply can’t. He’s far too self-involved and self-absorbed to be capable of the foresight necessary to put out a professional-sounding podcast without heavy editing. Instead of tending to the conversation, he spends all of his time tending to his own thoughts… waiting to talk instead of listening, focusing on himself instead of his “guests”, letting himself go off on tangents.
In short, I’ve changed my opinion about Dave slightly. I used to think that his podcasts were bad because he didn’t edit them. That’s not really the case. His podcasts are bad because he’s bad at playing host (even to just himself) and he doesn’t edit out the cruft that nobody cares about.
If he edited out the cruft that nobody cares about there wouldn’t be anything to post. Radio is a very tough medium, talk hosts even get people to stay through two minute long commercial breaks and 7 minute long news breaks. It’s hard to make it through one of Dave’s shows without any commercials.
Did you hear him on TWiT? Oh. My. God. If it wasn’t him complaining, it was his incredibly bad audio quality. It’s like Dave just uses a speakerphone for his audio, so it makes it more painful to listen too.
Eye On Winer? hahaha. Eye On Winer, that’s a joke right? Is this Dave Winer doing a site to get people to believe that someone would actually put up a site called, Eye On Winer? Hilarious…
I think you make a lot of valid points. Dave doesn’t make himself easy to like.
I have a different point of view, though. Obviously, the Sunday Gang isn’t professional by any means for all the reasons you write about (and probably more). It’s not meant for a wide audience, though. They aren’t trying to grow their listenership week after week by appealing to people who aren’t in the know already. So yeah, maybe it’s a low quality show, but the kind of person who wants quality isn’t who they are shooting for.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he’s ever seriously said that his podcasts are great. (I don’t keep a close eye on him, so I could very well be wrong.) They’re bad, and that’s okay with him. I personally prefer a bad show with an authentic host to a good show with a fakey host. Good shows with good hosts (e.g. Dan Carlin’s shows) are the best, but I’m willing to compromise.
And to JJT: I didn’t mind it. I think he has some good ideas, but he didn’t put them together very cleanly or concisely. And yeah, the audio quality wasn’t very good, but I don’t think that’s a bother to a majority of people. The nice thing about podcasts is that you can always press stop and go to something else if you don’t like it.
dave edit cruft out? He’s more likely to edit the cruft IN. I still remember dave’s notorious podcast where he left the recorder on while he went into the kitchen for a cup of coffee for 10 minutes. He not only likes the cruft, he thinks he can force you to listen to it, just to get to his next pearls of wisdom.
you’re oh so right – again.
i gave a listen to one of his podcasts. it was horrid. an abject waste of time…unles,, that is, you like rambling, self-aggrandizing whining (or is that “wining?
it’s getting worse now that he’s yapping about politics, an area where he is so out of his league that it’s embarrassing.
I’ve not listened, but I’ll still side with Dave.
I’ll tend to side with the guy doing stuff rather than the person who has so little to say on his own that he or she sets up an anonymous site dedicated to examining someone in absentia. Anonymous critics should get lives of their own rather than piggybacking on the lives of others.
There’s a big difference between anonymous and pseudonymous.
But even if there weren’t, there’s a flaw in your logic here… the fact that I’m pseudonymous means that you don’t really know what I have or haven’t done. The aim of which is to get people away from ad hominems and get them to focus on the real points at issue.
It’s instructive that you couldn’t manage to do that and chose, instead, to try to use ad hominem arguments against someone whose identity you don’t even know.
One question, though… if “anonymous” critics have no lives, what does that say about people who run around the internet looking for “anonymous” critics to criticize?
At any rate, thank you for your “I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I’d like to try to insult someone anyway” comment, it is much appreciated.
So Phillip Winn doesn’t know what we’re talking about here, because Phillip Winn hasn’t listened to Dave Winer’s execrable podcasts, but Phillip Winn is willing to dismiss us anyway.
If this is the caliber of thought Phillip Winn associates with Phillip Winn’s name, perhaps Phillip Winn should reconsider the issue of pseudonymous publishing.
Eye on Winer has been around for years and can be judged by the body of snark compiled over that time. The fact that it’s written under pen names is so obvious that Phillip Winn figured it out on his first visit. People who have a problem with the nature of this site can accept my sincere invitation to fuck off.
An entire website, with years of archives and many commenters, dedicated to pointing the foibles of a single human being, someone most of the commenters, at least, have never met. Sounds healthy.
I sometimes read scripting.com, sometimes not, and followed a link over and left a comment. Now I’m leaving comment #2 on the same post. I think that’s hardly in the same league. If I start leaving comments criticizing this blog here daily, for years, then you can legitimately suggest that I’m unhinged and “running around the internet looking for anonymous critics to criticize.”
Frankly, I don’t care if the podcast suck or not. I’ll assume they do. I don’t even care if Dave Winer is a stand-up guy or a jackass. I think little of folks who write constantly about how bad is Bush, or before that Clinton. It reveals at least as much about the critic as about the target.
If you want to use Dave’s weblog as a springboard for writing your own views on a subject, then there’s no need to mention Dave at all. By mentioning Dave in every post, you make this blog exactly the personal attacks you claim to abhor.
You’re splitting hairs, by the way, but “anonymous” and “pseudonymous” are identical in the sense I criticize and you hide behind: you lash out from the shadows, which seems unfair.
It’d be different if Dave were, say, the leader of a cult known to kill people who criticize him. He’s just a guy with opinions and an audience of some size or another.
I think you inflate his importance by spending so much time stalking him. He’s jus a guy with opinions. You are all creepy and juvenile.
I have an idea, Phillip. How about you go do some research on what this site is and why it’s here, then come back and try to make some reasonable arguments. Had you done any at all, you’d know what this blog is and what it is not. We’re not afraid to praise Dave when he does something good and we’re not afraid to criticize him when he does something bad.
Most importantly, though, we provide a platform for people who disagree with Dave (or agree with him, for that matter) to do so without subjecting themselves to his echo-chamber requirements.
One of the great things about this blog is the quality (on the whole) of the commenters. “Ewww… you’re creepy and weird because you don’t post under your real name!” doesn’t exactly cut it for intelligent debate around here… that might be the kind of quality they accept over at Blogcritics, but we expect (and routinely receive) more out of the commenters on this blog.
It’d be different if Dave were, say, the leader of a cult known to kill people who criticize him. He’s just a guy with opinions and an audience of some size or another.
Dave Winer regularly tries to get his critics fired from their jobs, going back at least as far as the Carl/Symantec incident in the ’90s.
If you had read this blog for any time at all before commenting, you’d know some of this. But I’m getting the impression that you’re not a person who feels an obligation to know anything about the subjects you talk about.
Winer is mentioned here in every post because that’s the point of the blog, you well-identified dumbass.
Here’s a quote from the guidelines for how to become a writer on BlogCritics: “If this makes sense for you, just send me an email (click on my name below) with your name and/or the name you write under, your site URL, and your primary areas of interest and we’ll get you signed up.” (Emphasis mine).
Are BlogCritics writers who use pen names lashing out from the shadows too?
Some of the comments you’ve made might have some merit — if they weren’t surrounded by utter nonsense that proves my original point.
I showed up and offered a comment, and have been personally attacked and vilified by people who don’t know me, don’t know my history on the web (blogging since 1995, btw), and can’t be bothered to do more than follow a website link I provided and make tenuous connections.
This is my name, this is who I am. I’m not pseudonymous or anonymous, so it shouldn’t be that hard to make more accurate accusations, if you’re willing to google. My blog is no longer online, however; I’ll work on that for you. I’m sure my most embarrassing stuff is there.
I’ve been told commenters here are great and even-handed, but my own brief experience suggests otherwise. I’ve been told I shouldn’t have had the temerity to comment without reading years of site archives, and this on a post complaining that someone tends to “assume that every listener has been not only paying close attention to everything he’s written about, but also thinks about them the same way.” Hmm.
I’m told this is an escape from an echo chamber, and yet when I dissented from the prevailing view, I’ve been personally attacked and had false statements insinuated against me. Somehow this isn’t an echo chamber because… ?
About the only thing you’ve accused Dave of but not demonstrated yourself is an attempt to get me fired. I can save you the trouble: I’m co-owner of Blogcritics.org, and unlikely to fire myself.
Here’s a tip for you, EOW: if you really expect folks to have a better understanding of EOW, more than just a “hey, I remember seeing that site a couple of years ago once,” rather than asking them to read 2+ years of archives, create an About page. Something. You’ve ripped on me for something I still have no ability to rectify.
I’ll say again: I don’t really care about Dave Winer. My point — and I do have one — is that I’ve seen what happens when someone sets up a shadow-blog and spends time trying to pick apart someone else. It’s not healthy. My involvement in similar situations is actually easily documented via google, if you care enough to spend the hours. Know anything about the subjects I talk about? More than you apparently do.
If Dave has ruined your life, you’re not going to make it better by stalking him. Whether your motivation is “somebody is wrong on the internet” or “Dave cost me my job, my wife, and my dog,” this blog isn’t going to be the answer for which you seem to hope. If Dave checks in at all — which he must, since his link brought me here — then you can derive some small satisfaction in knowing you’ve gotten under his skin. Is it worth it, really?
BS Mancuso is belligerent in ways non-trolls can only imagine. I don’t know what could make me so angry, or even want to pretend to be so angry. I can tell you that I’m not going to bother to read several years of archives to find out. There’s nobody I hate enough to bother.
It’s your blog/echo chamber, so feel free to blather on.
If Dave has ruined your life, you’re not going to make it better by stalking him.
This kind of comment is why you’ve been met with contempt, Phillip Winn. This site is several years old and continues to find an audience because Dave Winer’s a worthy subject of criticism who won’t allow open discussion on any of his sites and often treats people horribly. Those of us who frequent the place enjoy playing pin the hypocrisy on the douchebag.
If you think there’s something inappropriate about publishing criticism under a pseudonym, you haven’t demonstrated this on BlogCritics. Pen names are encouraged there.
Your use of the term “stalking” to describe what we’re doing on Eye on Winer is ridiculous. We publish a web site devoted to critical scrutiny of a public figure. Are you always this much of a drama queen?
This ought to be fun.
“utter nonsense that proves my original point.”
Phillip, your original point was “I don’t like anonymous people who criticize others.” You probably meant “validated my opinion”, though that’s really more about how you feel than any sort of logical certainty.
“have been personally attacked and vilified by people who don’t know me”
Pot, meet kettle.
“and can’t be bothered to do more than follow a website link”
That’s funny, since that’s the absolute most you’ve been willing to do as well.
“I’ve been told I shouldn’t have had the temerity to comment without reading years of site archives.”
You’ve been told no such thing. You’re welcome to comment at any time with or without knowing what you’re talking about. What you’ve been told is that criticizing something while knowing nothing about it is, to be kind, foolish. Nobody has asked you to read years of archives, either. There are, indeed, years of archives to read, but you would hardly have to read all of them to get a better idea what’s going on here.
Do you write reviews of books after reading the dedication? Because that’s essentially what you’ve done with your comments here.
“when I dissented from the prevailing view, I’ve been personally attacked”
Technically correct, I suppose, but the implied “because” is patently false. You haven’t been “attacked” for your disagreement, you’ve been “attacked” for your embarrassingly poor arguments and your sheer, unadulterated ignorance about the topic on which you’re commenting. As for those “false statements”… care to point those out for me?
“if you really expect folks to have a better understanding of EOW”
I don’t. This isn’t a navel-gazing blog, it’s a blog about a specific topic. I couldn’t care less what people do or don’t know about me, “me”, or this blog. (To “save you the trouble”: that doesn’t save people from criticism for talking out of school.)
“You’ve ripped on me for something I still have no ability to rectify.”
I sincerely apologize for criticizing you. I didn’t realize you were illiterate or unable to click on links. I think you mean “desire” not “ability”.
“My point — and I do have one — is that I’ve seen what happens when someone sets up a shadow-blog and spends time trying to pick apart someone else. It’s not healthy.”
I didn’t realize that you were so concerned about my mental health. Rest easy: I’m fine, but thank you for thinking of me.
“If Dave has ruined your life, you’re not going to make it better by stalking him.”
He hasn’t, and you need to educate yourself about what “stalking” entails, because this is most certainly not it. I’m sure people who are victims of real stalking would appreciate your trivialization of the terror they feel every waking moment of their lives, though.
“this blog isn’t going to be the answer for which you seem to hope.”
This blog has already accomplished everything I hoped it would, and continues to accomplish those things on a daily basis. Please leave your pseudo-psychoanalysis at home, we’re full up here.
At the end of the day, Phillip, the bottom line is this: you followed the link over, got to feeling a little self-righteous, and made an impulsive, and ill-informed, comment and now you’re just digging the hole deeper. Just quit digging. If you don’t like EOW, BS Mancuso, the other commenters, the purpose of the blog, the color-scheme, or anything else, there’s an easy solution: leave and don’t come back. That’s not a demand, by the way, I hope you continue to check back every day — eventually you’ll figure out why this site exists.
Phillip, you’re a good man. The rest of you are hopeless idiots.