I wonder what Dick Cavett would make of this discussion. For me, he’s the original media conversationalist — and so stylish, wry, and curious. Charlie Rose went deeper, but I can’t find that genre of conversation on Podcasts yet. You both raise many thought-provoking points here.
Thanks Olivia! Very true. Podcasts offer conversation but too often it is of this very passive, not very intentional variety. Of course compression always creates poetry and the format of a TV show might force better dialogue, vs 3 hour long podcasts...
I love the identified needs of both experts AND generalists. Preferably, people who embody and balance both. Charlie Rose, of course, had a team of producers and editors behind him, and the relatively modest viewership expectations of public television. Are we so saturated, and is it so impossible to go viral, that our new anchors might be stuck in relative ignominy?
I wonder what Dick Cavett would make of this discussion. For me, he’s the original media conversationalist — and so stylish, wry, and curious. Charlie Rose went deeper, but I can’t find that genre of conversation on Podcasts yet. You both raise many thought-provoking points here.
Thanks Olivia! Very true. Podcasts offer conversation but too often it is of this very passive, not very intentional variety. Of course compression always creates poetry and the format of a TV show might force better dialogue, vs 3 hour long podcasts...
I can't listen to other people's voice mails. Period. Podcasts are all that.
And I never gave Netflix a penny and proudly ever will.
This unit of culture I've completely opted out of as a voluntary dinosaur.
I love the identified needs of both experts AND generalists. Preferably, people who embody and balance both. Charlie Rose, of course, had a team of producers and editors behind him, and the relatively modest viewership expectations of public television. Are we so saturated, and is it so impossible to go viral, that our new anchors might be stuck in relative ignominy?