What makes an interview podcast good or great?

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/08/what-makes-a-podcast-good-or-great.html

by jger15 • 5 years ago

76 67 5 years ago

sleavey2• 5 years ago

I got into Lex Fridman's podcast [1] maybe a year ago and was instantly a fan of his depth-first search style. It's often frustrating in other interview style podcasts when something interesting is mentioned but not explored. Lex will often say something like "oh that's interesting, let's talk about that" then that becomes the subject of discussion for 20-30 minutes, but he's good at backing up to the original point after that branch is exhausted. Incidentally he's a computer scientist!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/lexfridman

ceilingcorner2• 5 years ago

I used to like this podcast but two behaviors by the host ultimately turned me off:

- Lex’s weird comments and massive oversimplification of ethical topics. He always seems to ask people if X is Good or Evil, with no consideration of nuance. I get that he’s a computer scientist and not a ethicist, but I somewhat expected more.

- He doesn’t question the guest or curate the discussion very well. Some of the episodes are 3, 4, 5 hours long, which is madness. I want to listen to his guests, but I can’t spend 5 hours on a conversation that has an hour of insight. This is the job of a good host.

Overall the strength of his podcast comes from the quality of guests. I wish he would take his role as journalist/interviewer a little more seriously.

elevenoh2• 5 years ago

To counter:

-unnuanced prompts/questions tend to trigger better responses. highly nuanced questions don't. it's up to the answerer to freely craft their response w/ little cognitive load or host-assumptions to manage.

-some of the longer podcasts are where the veil of persona disappears & one can see the authentic guest. I like long, deep, authentic conversations personally.

jstx13• 5 years ago

Lex was the most obvious example of a bad interviewer that came to mind after I read the title of this post. He's had an impressive selection of people on his podcast but his communication and interviewing style is the worst I've ever come across - very dry delivery, not following up on what the guests says, pointless questions about the meaning of life or good and evil or scifi-technology that doesn't exist, reading from a list of prepared questions, trying too hard to push his own opinions at some points, sucking up too much to Joe Rogan and Elon Musk etc.

I really don't know how he managed to get the selection of guests that he's had especially in the early days of the podcast.

jsackmann• 5 years ago

I have no idea whether this applies to Lex, or if there are better explanations, but... he probably just asks. In my limited experience with my little podcast in the sports analytics world, I'm consistently surprised by who says yes, and how few people say no. ~90% of the people I've asked to be a guest have said yes, and those who have said no haven't done so because they're "too famous" or something like that.

jasode2• 5 years ago

I really don't know how he managed to get the selection of guests

For the later guests who were not colleagues at MIT or his previous contract work at Google, they do what many guests do: they look at the interviewer's previous episodes and see if they like his style. It's a big commitment to spend ~3 hours with someone they don't know so they use the previous episodes as a "résumé" to see if it's worth their time.

, not following up on what the guests says

And the parent comment you replied to said the opposite: >Lex will often say something like "oh that's interesting, let's talk about that"

Not debating you but it's an interesting observation to me that different people will see contradictory evidence.

, reading from a list of prepared questions

The way a lot of these podcasts' preparations work behind-the-scenes with emails/phone calls before the actual interview is that the interviewer will propose a list of topics to talk about. The guest can also add (or subtract) from the list of topics because they are the ones who ultimately agree whether to appear on the podcast at all.

Therefore, using prepared questions is actually respecting the guest's agreement to be interviewed.

Now, if on the other hand you're complaining about the delivery of the prepared questions... such as "Lex should memorize the 50 prepared questions perfectly instead of reading a sheet of paper in front of him" or "Lex should use a cue card or teleprompter off camera to read the prepared question" ... it seems like a really trivial thing to complain about.

NortySpock• 5 years ago

Lex, if you read this, I think improving the questions you ask is the biggest thing that would contribute to improving your interviews.

"The meaning of life" is an ok question, but asking every interviewee about aliens and sci-fi technology, regardless of background, is getting repetitive. It doesn't seem to really give you, or the audience much to work with, and basically encourages the interviewee to spout off random stuff.

Now, the Jim Keller interview, that was good stuff because Jim Keller is an interesting person and a good people manager.

LanternLight83• 5 years ago

I was also drawn in by Lex's selection of guests, but haven't been listening since his interview with Yeonmi Park. I was attentive for the first half, but she abrubtly refers to LGBT culture as regressive and the conversion devolves into rambling praise for Jorden P., who happens to have also had her on his podcast recently (see the comment on Frequency Bias above).

Gatsky• 5 years ago

Well yeah he isn’t the most polished, but he puts the guests at ease and the conversations benefit from that. He reminds me of Tim Ferris in some ways, who was often barely coherent, although Ferris was never quite believably authentic and was clearly building some kind of empire.

jonathanstrange• 5 years ago

I don't like Lex Fridman's podcasts because his interviews are way too long and he cannot and does not want to keep them concise. Interviews are no different from books in that respect, length does not equate to depth. On the contrary, the short ones are usually the gems. There is nothing worse than university professors and billionaires talking for hours about things they don't have much insightful to say about instead of talking for half an hour about the things they know best.

nomel• 5 years ago

I like his interviews because they're long, and it lets me see the the perspective on things outside of the normal boxes the guests get put into, like machine learning guest = talk of research from latest paper only. I can always find another podcast (often duplicates), or even a news interview, where the guests stay within, and quickly burn through, their area of expertise. I like understanding the guest just as much as their day job.

dredmorbius6• 5 years ago

I'd subscribed to Lex based on positive comments I've seen elsewhere and ... am not impressed.

His guest list is impressive.

The topics range from interesting to overhyped (bitcoin/crypto).

Lex's own problems start with his voice: he sounds drugged, slurred, and frankly somewhat dim, the last impression strongly reinforced by his questions and follow-up.

The episodes themselves run too long, and would benefit greatly in my view by much tighter editing. Aiming for a set length (20, 30, or 60 minutes, say), going over that in the interview, and editing down, would be a vast improvement.

lysecret• 5 years ago

omg. I have a econ background and i used to read marginalrevolution religiously. Actually until economistsview shut down :(

Ahhh and they mention EconTalk at the start. I think its time to dive into my past haha

frou_dh• 5 years ago

Briefing the guest beforehand to not begin every spoken answer with "So: "

dredmorbius6• 5 years ago

Postproduction editing is much more effective for removing verbal tics and the like.

On the Media ran a segment a few years back (2007) on the practice, and product, of audio editing:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/129437-pul... (transcript available, click to view)

audio: https://pdst.fm/e/www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wny...

ghaff5• 5 years ago

Having a podcast makes you very aware of verbal tics, including your own. I don't knock myself out over it but I typically spend a couple hours on a podcast removing umms, pauses, general verbal stumbles, etc.

arh68• 5 years ago

It's subjective. I'd say pick three: 1) interviewer knows the topic 2) interviewer knows the person 3) interviewer does not speak for the person 4) neither total agreement nor disagreement. Also, they've got to know how to use a mic. On the other hand, if the person's a really good storyteller, it matters less what the interviewer does.

But so subjective. Personally, I usually can't stand Terry Gross and I've heard many say she's one of the best. I really liked some of Joe Rogan's interviews, but others are train wrecks.

specialist2• 5 years ago

Like all new mediums, podcasting has been DIY. The content creators have had more creative control, are in charge of their own programming.

Though I don't like the Guest of the Week format, I recognize the skills of Terry Gross and others, for their medium.

The phases of experimentation and retrenchment are cyclic. Like all other mediums. The hotness in podcasting will spasm back and forth between indies and studios.

dredmorbius6• 5 years ago

Terry Gross is an institution now, there are both lovers and haters. I've listened to her programme off and on for decades.

The plusses as I see them are:

- Fantastic range of material. She covers arts & culture, news and politics, world events, and science. I strongly suspect the show's staff has a lot to do with this.

- The intereviewer (not always Gross --- Dave Davies stands in fairly frequently and occasionally others) mostly get out of the way of the guest, though Gross herself is known for her five-minute-wind-up question. OK, it's not five minutes, but there's usually a question or two in the show that has a very long preamble.

- The interviews are edited. Not heavily, but just enough to fit format, for continuity, and relevance. This virtually always helps, and most especially avoids all of the live-on-air annoyances of technical glitches and rushing the guest at the end of the time window.

I see these as strong positives.

Gross's voice and intonation may strike people differently. I appreciate the non-shrill, calm manner (most commercial broadcast feels like people screaming or shouting, by contrast). It's instantly soothing. Her politics are clearly left/liberal, though she does try to get out of her comfort zone occasionally, and when she does so the results are far more equitable than what I see with leading interviewers from the right. Most notably Bill O'Reilly, though also Kiss lead man Gene Simmons, off the top of my head. (I heard both when originally aired.)

The format is not especially combative, though Gross will dig gently on occasion. (Contrast, say, Bob Garfield's hard press on occasion, notably an oil-industry apologist and Internet revenge-porn hoster. Even there, Garfield isn't aggressive, but he's very clearly assertive and making his views clear.)

The high consistency of interviews regardless of host is what makes me feel that there's probably a lot of teamwork involved. Gross is pretty good in arts and culture issues, but weaker on technology and science. Despite that, the science and technology interviews still tend to be pretty good, especially in a general-audience venue.

What becomes clear is that Gross has her own favourites and crushes. Some are somewhat surprising (Johnny Cash), others more predictable though understandable and reciprocated --- Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart especially, occasionally other public media names such as This American Life's Ira Glass. Again I find this endearing.

paleite• 5 years ago

I think Charisma on Command nailed it in their video: https://youtu.be/cHyYlFCaXPM

The biggest takeaway for me was: make the interviewee feel comfortable by letting them talk freely about subjects they feel passionate about, and the interviewer should ask genuine and good questions by properly researching the interviewee beforehand.

phreeza2• 5 years ago

One thing I have noticed recently in particular with the coronavirus, but also other topics, is that several interview podcasts fall into a sort of trap where they have guests on that have some sort of contrarian viewpoint, and this gives listeners a dopamine hit for apparently having discovered some sort of truth that is unknown to society. Now this is great if the host finds someone who has something genuinely interesting to say, but it can quickly devolve into having a bunch of crackpots on the show. In fact I think it may go one step further in that the popularity of this format has lead otherwise reasonable (and well-credentialed) people to take more kooky positions because it gives them the chance to appear on these podcasts (I've read it described as "throwing themselves off an epistemic cliff" somewhere).

RubberMullet• 5 years ago

Insight porn is another way of describing it. And these guests tend to do more than one podcast in a short period of time which, coupled with social media, contributes to the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion

phreeza2• 5 years ago

That's a great word for it!

ramraj07• 5 years ago

Aka TED talks

madeofpalk• 5 years ago

It's heard this referred to as "it's a 'as it turns out'"

lovegoblin• 5 years ago

they have guests on that have some sort of contrarian viewpoint ... but it can quickly devolve into having a bunch of crackpots on the show.

Joe Rogan has entered the chat.

fumblebee• 5 years ago

I rate Tyler Cowen's (the author of the linked post) podcast highly because his questions are so incredibly well crafted.

(Incidentally, I just found this article on the blog which suggests a set of guidelines for asking high quality questions. [1])

However, the issue I take with his interviews is that, because the questions are often pre-meditated, the conversation oftentimes fails to flow smoothly as tangential questions follow an interviewee's answer. It sometimes feels more of a Q&A than a conversation.

[1] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/ho...

snakeboy• 5 years ago

I agree, and find it ironic that he explicitly calls his podcast a "conversation", when indeed it's the least conversational podcast around (except when he clearly really likes the person or has a strong opinion on the topic)

thinkharderdev• 5 years ago

I actually really appreciate that aspect of Conversations with Tyler. So many podcast are "bring on someone who just wrote a book and let them pontificate for an hour" which can be interesting if the topic is interesting but it often ends up sounding like a set piece as the guest just "reads their script." Cowen's style of asking really oblique questions and skipping around to topics really allows guests to demonstrate a dynamic range of intellect and often say things that are interesting and "off script." It doesn't always work but when it does it is brilliant.

syspec• 5 years ago

Where can i find Tyler crowns podcast?

wheelinsupial• 5 years ago

Wherever you listen to podcasts?

https://conversationswithtyler.com/

wenc• 5 years ago

Conversations with Tyler are interviews rather than organic conversations per se.

The lack of flow is actually part of Tyler's personality -- I've followed him for years and watched interviews with him. He has a very "economical" style of communication. One of his greatest gifts is that he can answer questions extemporaneously without pausing, with no umms or ahs, and definitely no pleasantries though that doesn't make him unpleasant, merely efficient. Despite that he does still comes across as kind of avuncular and soft.

I actually like that his main questions are pre-meditated and that he isn't afraid to switch topics abruptly. This way he manages to cover a huge span of topics rather than letting the interviewee go down rabbit holes. He packs a lot of insightful content into his podcasts with a minimal of pleasantries. He doesn't waste time dwelling on things.

He often says of his conversations that they are the conversations that "he wants to have, not the one you want to have". And I have to hand it to him, his questions are often way more insightful and high quality than the ones us mortals would ever come up with. He does put in a lot of work though -- in a behind-the-scenes episode, he mentions that he preps for 2 weeks before each interview, and actually reads the interviewee's works and other works related to the topic. He's so thorough that he's even impressed Nassim Taleb.

I've learned so much over the years from the Conversations with Tyler podcast.

savanaly• 5 years ago

One thing to note is that Tyler takes a special pleasure in asking questions in a sequence such that there's no discernible reason to it at first, but when you sit back and think you realize that one informed the next in a non-obvious way. Even the guests occasionally notice in real time and comment on it ("Oh you want to ask my about this movie? But of course you do because its also a weird sort of commentary on that same thing from the economics paper you just asked me about..." etc)

e-brake• 5 years ago

When the interviewer does not attempt to control the conversation but is receptive and genuinely curious about the guest and their perspectives, encouraging a free flowing conversation.

post_break• 5 years ago

I can tell you someone who does the opposite of that and it destroys the interviews is John Gruber. He has guests on I genuinely want to listen to, and John talks more than they do.

TamDenholm• 5 years ago

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this?t=15985...

How i built this is an excellent podcast full of VERY interesting stories and hes had big names on it.

emsy• 5 years ago

I don't want to search through all threads so I'm going to make a separate thread where everyone can add their ONE favorite episode which you think are great interviews. I start with my favorite Chuck Palahniuk on Joe Rogan (which is really more due to the interviewee) https://open.spotify.com/episode/1j5rNNfDQuGjj3EjErwVge

PennRobotics2• 5 years ago

https://www.alieward.com/ologies/phallology

This episode was rock solid.

timoth3y• 5 years ago

I've been running an interview podcast called Disrupting Japan for the last seven years or so. I interview Japanese startup founders in English.

Four things I do with every guest

1) Do real research. Read any other interviews this person has given. It helps you avoid the dumb questions and sparks new ideas.

2) Try to figure out what this person really wants to talk about but never gets asked about. Founders usually have some passion related to, but not really part of, their startup story. I don't always hit tis, but when I do, it's a magical conversation.

3) Challenge your guest. If they say something that seems too fluffy or hyped. Push back and ask them (very politely) to support it.

4) Sketch out the conversation arc beforehand. Know the story you want to tell. The interview will be a series of having the guest go off on interesting tangents, and you pulling them back onto the storyline.

I don't know if my podcast interview skills count as "great" or even "good". But that's the way I approach it.

specialist2• 5 years ago

Hosts should state the date at the very beginning of the episode. Minimally.

Extra credit each for episode number, show URL, guest names, topics, sponsors, sponsor URLs.

ghaff5• 5 years ago

With respect to date and guests (though the latter is usually stated anyway), aren't you typically coming into the episode through some mechanism that provides you with that information?

dredmorbius6• 5 years ago

Quite frequently not. Raw audio exists. (See my earlier response.)

dredmorbius6• 5 years ago

I stumbled across an S3 bucket with a set of historical radio interview archives dating from the 1950s to the 2010s, nearly 1,000 individual recordings (not all full episodes, some are outtakes or short edits).

None have the date indicated, either recording or air.

Their a pretty fascinating cross-section of history, but the task of identifying when and who each recording concerns is tedious.

The total set does correspond to a publicly-accessible interface, though that itself only provides access to a small subset of the total archive. (Likely because the hosting organisation is itself trying to identify and date the segments.)

I can understand how early in the project this might have been acceptable, but after a decade or five, you'd think the host or producers might have had the inspiration to clearly identify their work.

"Hello, I'm X, it's DATE, this is PROGRAM, and I'm talking today to GUEST(S)".

BlameKaneda• 5 years ago

Thinking back, this is what my favorite podcasts have in common:

- Research has been done on the guest, their work, the subject, etc.

- The interviewer asks interesting questions that the guest likely hadn't heard before. For instance, I'd much rather hear about something very specific versus something like, "What was your audition for Killing Eve like?" The latter's probably been asked dozens of times, and I'll bet that the guest's sick of hearing it.

- The interviewer asks their questions but gives the interviewee enough room to answer without interruption. While it's good to find a balance between an interview and a conversation, I think, I can't stand it when the interviewer interrupts.

- Simply put, the interview is the focus. I stopped listening to a knowledge-based podcast because the host interrupted the interview with "fun fact about [Subject]" segues. They were edited in after the interview happened, but it frustrated me because I was way more interested in hearing the guest speak.

candlemas• 5 years ago

You need to get just the right ratio of discussion about MMA, bowhunting, and stand up comedy.

twox2• 5 years ago

The reason I really like shows like Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman are because they get an amazing variety of high profile guests that don't often do long form interviews / discussions.

Rd6n6• 5 years ago

I avoid interview podcasts because they wander across so many topics. If one were to stick strictly to a well defined topic or question, then I would personally be more open to them

jkingsbery• 5 years ago

Russ Roberts is a terrific interviewer. He is excellent at understanding perspectives other than his own and asking questions from that perspective. When he is interjecting with his own bias, he's also very good at acknowledging his bias. The handful of times I've heard him interview someone about a book they wrote and I've gone on to read the book, I feel like I've gotten most of the main point already from listening to the EconTalk interview.

bthallplz• 5 years ago

I agree. However, I've found the topics of his episodes less and less interesting lately.

What makes an interview podcast good or great?

Related Stories