I was excited to listen to this podcast. I really like a good series that goes deep in explaining something I have just a bit of knowledge about.
But I think this podcast could have been four episodes long, instead of seven (at the time of this writing) and been just as powerful. I felt like there were many questions left unanswered, and now, instead of having a great handle on the Spiro T. Agnew situation, I feel like I have to go research myself.
One of the episodes is a roundtable discussion, which feels like Rachel Maddow’s TV show instead of a storytelling podcast. There’s nothing wrong with adding that as a component, but since everyone has limited time, they are pretty picky about what they spend it on. Plus, if you focus your energy on discussing elements from previous episodes, you also forego going deeper into questions left unanswered.
What’s great about podcasting is that it gives creators a forum to actually share what they think about the subject. And in this case, the host does just that.
But her allusions to President Trump, her opinions often left unsupported, and her bias from the very first word should have landed this podcast in the “Opinion” category instead of “News.” Since the days of Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and Dan Rather, though, opinion and bias have become the definition of news.
November 2020 Issue