Needless to say, this is a much different approach to political punditry than one tends to get on TV and talk radio. (It’s also less ideological.) Dickerson thinks Gabfest listeners appreciate that. “Occasionally we’ll get people who are angry at us for not having all the facts figured out, but in fumbling to a conclusion, more people appreciate it than are offended. You can kind of rumble around in an idea; you don’t have to be so careful about not looking bad or getting something wrong. And it gets you more creative, insightful results.”
Likewise, the hosts agree that their varying expertise leads to a sort of ‘cross-fertilization’ in their conversations that helps free them from thinking within the narrow frameworks of their fields. Bazelon says that helps her think more deeply about the set of assumptions she works with in the legal world; similarly, Dickerson says it helps him “think afresh” about things political junkies tend to take for granted. “Asking interesting questions is something you can become deadened to in political stuff—a lot of time it feels like a tennis match.”
While some media companies seem to be moving away from podcasts, Dickerson, for one, thinks they have unique value: “There’s something about the podcast format that’s intimate and that’s different than a radio program or television. It’s personal, on your time, in your head.” (According to Plotz, they’ve found advertising rates for audio podcasts are actually higher than for most video because of this; Audible, Bing, Carbonite and Stitcher have been among the show’s sponsors).
Slate has no plans to take the Gabfest to video format; Plotz contends that transition is a mistake that been made my too many media outlets before. “There is a lot of questioning about podcasts right now—part of it is the name is terrible,” says Plotz. “But part of it is that I don’t think others have figured out the formula in the way that we figured it out. We lucked into it, but personal connection combined with really strong contact and the sense that you a participant in a conversation is special.”
It worked for me. And the live show at the Y was a lot of fun. You can listen to it here.
Correction: The original version of this piece mentioned that the Slate Political Gabfest was launched in 2007. In fact, the show was launched in 2005. The relevant sentence has been corrected. CJR regrets the error.
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