“an alluring story, done wrong by
(some) uninsightful, dull and leading questions. Made even worse by the interviewee’s struggle to answer them cutting into the already short episode time
the episodes are oddly short. eaten into needlessly by preamble, setting the stage needlessly for things about to come up. worse in all is a constant use of excessively loquacious “newsspeak” in the place of simple, direct talk. “they did x because of y” turns into an 80 word paragraph full of meandering, not necessarily bad but vexxing when overused phrases
to top it all off, for reasons which baffle me whoever put this thing together saw fit to constantly cut off source interviews mid sentence, either having the presenter talking over them, or trying this “thing” where short segments of speech play in sequence, overlapping slightly at either end. whats the purpose? to present the illusion of a plentiful pool of information? yet not letting the listener simply hear an uninterrupted source discourse for a matter of more than a minute.
make the episodes longer, include more unimpeded, less guided by poor questions recounts from the various people interviewed. thats the interesting subject matter. not the dry summing up and threading together of plot points for our
benefit”
innocuouslemon via Apple Podcasts ·
Great Britain ·
07/16/20