It was a little before five last Wednesday evening when the “tall Mormon” walked into Antarctica, a bar in lower Manhattan (“where the drinks are big and the memories are short”). “Oh, you’re the tall guy,” David Plotz, Slate magazine’s editor, said to him. “Our tall Mormon.”
The tall Mormon had had apparently spoken to Plotz earlier and promised he’d bring four other good-looking Mormons to the event, which was a happy hour with the cast of Slate’s popular podcast, Political Gabfest. Plotz co-hosts the weekly podcast with Emily Bazelon, a senior editor at Slate, and John Dickerson, chief political correspondent at Slate and political director at CBS.
Gabfest hosts Plotz, Bazelon, and Dickerson at their live show last Wednesday. Photo by Steve McFarland, http://photog.stevetm.com
The session cost $25 plus the drinks (the Mormons abstained, naturally), and offered podcast fans a chance to mingle with the Gabfest hosts before they recorded their live show later that night, at the 92nd Street Y Tribeca. Thirty people bought happy hour tickets, most of them young, urbane men.
The notion of a political podcast from an online thought magazine may sound a bit nerdy and, to the tech-savvy, maybe a little antiquated. But since launching in 2007 2005, Slate’s Political Gabfest has grown an audience of 75,000 weekly listeners, including a dedicated community of active listeners who do things like post long, thoughtful, meaty comments or attend $25 happy hours or fly from Alaska to Grinnell, Iowa, in December to attend a live Gabfest. (Others drove from Kentucky and a class of Minnesota high school students bussed in for the occasion.)
The Gabfest has one of the most thoughtfully engaged audiences I have ever encountered online. After Plotz wondered on last week’s show whether there was any connection between religiosity and family size, for example, two separate political scientists looked into the question and sent him their analyses; meanwhile, a PhD student in statistics, after “playing with some GSS data,” posted his own findings on the podcast’s Facebook page. (A Google search turns up evidence that a number of political scientists are avid listeners). “I don’t think we deserve our fans most of the time,” said Dickerson.
At a time when most media organizations are trying to connect with and grow their audiences through social media tools like Twitter and Facebook (more followers, more likes), Slate has taken a more boots-on-the-ground approach by building communities around several podcasts and drawing them to live shows and happy hours, as well as an active Facebook page. This strategy focuses more on building the strength of ties with members of the audience than on the number of them. (The Political Gabfest is the most popular of Slate’s thirteen podcasts, though not all of them are regular).
H
ere is where I should make an admission: I love the Slate Political Gabfest. I started listening to it when I lived abroad and was looking for news on the 2008 election. I don’t think I’ve missed a show since, and while I listen to most of Slate’s podcasts, I particularly like the Political Gabfest. It downloads to my computer late each Thursday night, and once I listen, the number of days until the next gabfest is something I’m conscious of. On occasion, I have resorted to listening to past, no-longer-relevant episodes for lack of fresh ones.
The format of the show is a discussion of three topics—last Wednesday for example, the hosts tackled the state of the Republican race; the idea of a third party entering American politics; and Stephen Glass, the ex-journalist and ostensibly repentant fabricator, and his battle with the California bar to get license to practice law. The format ends with a final “cocktail chatter” segment, in which each host volunteers some bit of miscellany.
Though it is (broadly) a political analysis show, the Politcal Gabfest sometimes makes me laugh out loud. There was one evening last summer where I was that strange person on the subway, giggling maniacally, unable to stop as I listened to the show. The conversation had turned to dogs and mimes. You had to be there.
http://www.rickfacts.com/
Just Saying not very good for a conservative we got to talk. I prefer Romney has it rick does not. Enough said
#1 Posted by Stephen, CJR on Fri 17 Feb 2012 at 11:53 PM
Really, Emily is the legal expert of many minds and many hands:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10150179411656696&set=a.151608006695.128315.10140856695&type=3&theater
And how did you get through this entire article without once mentioning David's not-at-all secret love for Michael Bloomberg?
#2 Posted by Deb, CJR on Sat 18 Feb 2012 at 01:52 PM
It's true: nobody does behind-the-curve middlebrow conventional wisdom disguised as insightful contrarianism like the good folks at Slate. Of course, they mostly have the field to themselves.
#3 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Sat 18 Feb 2012 at 01:54 PM
Damn! I meant to work the word "incisive" in there somehow.
#4 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Sat 18 Feb 2012 at 02:21 PM
As a Scot who has no obvious ties to the States, I am not one of the target audience, but I have also become an avid fan. Coinciding with acquiring my first iPod in 2007, I started listening to a whole bunch of podcast political analysis from the States during the 2007-08 primaries and election cycle (when Olbermann left MSNBC it broke my heart, since Countdown was like an addiction). Bit by bit they have all been dropped except for NBC's Meet The Press, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The Shields and Brooks excerpt from PBS's The News Hour, NPR's It's All Politics and the Gabfest. Meet the Press and PBS are informative; Bill Maher and NPR are entertaining; but the Gabfest is both. The chemistry between the three is phenomenal and utterly genuine - you get the impression they could have the same dynamic over dinner, or a drink in a bar, on a completely non-political subject such as celebrity, the value of walking or the proper use of weekends (the Stephen Glass discussion being a good example). This is probably why the "meetup for a drink" concept works and also why it probably wouldn't work for other podcasts - I would just feel awkward meeting David Gregory, David Brooks or Ron Elving in a bar. Gabfest listeners feel that they already participate passively in that type of conversation. I feel like I know David, Emily and John well, but certainly don't get that sense from others. The format also allows for the sort of in-depth discussion on a single issue that means you can absorb not only the facts but the subtext of how informed and interested Americans feel about issues - and how strongly. I also love that each of the three is sometimes prepared to change their own minds, or at least reassess their own opinion - something you rarely see or hear elsewhere in an era of professional talking heads armed with scripted and sculpted talking points. It's a broadcasting gem, it's completely free (even to Scots) and it's a delight to listen to. Well done Slate, and keep it up.
#5 Posted by Derek Young, CJR on Sat 18 Feb 2012 at 11:37 PM
Beware popularity. Here be dragons.
#6 Posted by Jim Rego, CJR on Sun 19 Feb 2012 at 02:15 AM
I found it at or near inception while looking for podcasts to listen to during a weekly commute for work that was 3 hours each way. The trips back home on Fridays always included the Gabfest. Now that I've secured work nearer to home, I still never miss it.
Few, if any other groups of people have captured my attention and won my admiration simply with audio. I like the analysis, I appreciate the coverage, and I love the no-holds-barred nature of the conversation. Disagreements aren't frequent, but they happen, and it's not unusual for the result to be more profound look at the issue(s). My very favorite facet of the conversations is that it's absolutely OK for any or all to simply decide "because I like it" or "because I don't like it." I still wonder why hardly anyone else in any mass media has the guts to come out and admit the primary reason behind any political posture.
I listen to the Slate Political Gabfest because I like it. Sometimes I like it because I agree with the positions expressed, sometimes I like it because it's got actual news that I haven't heard yet, sometimes I just like it because it's John, Emily, and David.
PS: Cheers to you, Erika Fry, for using the original meaning of "boots on the ground," addressed quite adroitly by the David, Emily, & John a few years back.
#7 Posted by Brad Morrison, CJR on Tue 21 Feb 2012 at 07:09 AM