“Sorry if there are any typos, this was dictated
This is a really good podcast, it does a great job of investigating a very interesting situation.
In the beginning it is quite nuanced and looks at things from all sides.
But, toward the end, it becomes fairly unbalanced. To be clear, when I say balance, I don’t mean that the podcast should have presented a positive version of the story regardless of what happened. They should tell the truth, no matter how harsh it is.
But, my issue with it, is that they give a ton of time to the critics while barely giving any time to the defenders of Zappos and the project.
For example, she gives a ton of time to three people with extremely personal grievances with the downtown project, but does not interview any actual urban planners or experts about the impact that the project had. I don’t have an issue with her asking the opinions of locals, but I’d be really curious to know what actual academics have to say about whether the downtown project had any positives. And frankly, the same criticism goes for the individuals who spoke positively about the experience they had with the downtown project. Individual people who did (or didn’t) receive grants are useful. But it would be nice to hear from an expert who can talk about the overall impact on Vegas.
Similarly, with the happiness stuff, she basically creates a strawman argument that says that Tony Hsieh’s happiness philosophy is basically just telling people to be happy and punishing them if they’re not or cutting them out if they’re not. And I get that sometimes that did happen in the day downtown project toward the end of his life when he was spiraling. But, Zappos was really highly regarded as a happy times. So I would’ve like to hear about her asking people who would defend him about what his process was for creating happiness there.
Again, it’s not about the conclusions, it’s about presenting a nuanced perspective of what happened.”
Dan T. 123 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
01/13/23