I just started a comments thread over at the Point of Inquiry forums to ask what folks think of my first three programs–on vaccine denial with Paul Offit, on climate denial with Michael Mann, and then on science journalism and disaster with Andrew Revkin. We’ve determined that I’ll be taking next week off, and a D.J. Grothe show that was in the can will air instead. So now is a great time to evaluate strengths and weaknesses and plot new directions. This is, after all, a new experiment, and I want to learn from it and progress. So any thoughts are appreciated. Leave them at the forum thread, or leave them here–and thanks!
March 19th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Another point in my decision to upgrade from dial-up.
March 20th, 2010 at 3:32 am
I thought the shows were great. You had three very interesting guests with very interesting things to say and with your questions you directed the interview in a natural way to those subjects. Of course there is limited time and all that and to please a wide as possible audience you have to compromise, can’t do it all at once.
But I have some trouble to come up with a sensible evaluation at this point because a) I agree with just about anything these particular guests said and the impression was inescapable that the host did too and b) with three shows it is a bit too early to come a with a fair judgement.
As for a) that is not neccessarily a bad thing of course. But then I always feel there needs to be this extra effort on the part of the interviewer to put forth the objections, criticisms and ideas of the then absent party in a way they themselves would have liked it presented. Take an extra shower afterward, but it needs to be done.
I thought with Paul Offit you did a better job on that than with Micheal Mann and Andrew Revkin. But anyway good job, keep ‘em coming!
March 20th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Thanks, folks. Albert, I agree it can only be a partial assessment. It is interesting, you are not the only one who wants to hear more “balance” even when the other side’s view is basically discredited. This is something I have to think about. It tends to be against my principles, and I even said as much in the Michael Mann interview….
March 20th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Chris,
‘Balance” may not be the best word, but rather than being so obviously enthralled by your guests some actual critical questioning along the lines of areas of debate would be nice. Allow them to really lay out how they see these areas, what their thoughts on the technical aspects of them are, and why we should be willing to accept their take on things. That doesn’t mean you have to be confrontational, but rather interested in serious discussion and not willing to settle for the pat answers.
The shows aren’t bad, but you really do mostly come off sounding like a cheer leader worshiping their hero rather than a critical interviewer delving in to the nuts and bolts of theory and knowledge. The end result being that nothing of any great depth is ever broached.
I’d also advise giving a rest to the political slants and “us VS them” mentality. All that does is basically insure those that already agree with you go “yea”, and those that don’t just turn it off as another example of political theater (and don’t we already have enough of that?). Let the science speak. If it’s good you don’t need stoop to that method of group think.
March 20th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Keep the focus – the intersection of science, media and public policy – because these are areas of your expertise and that expertise clearly makes for more probing questions and more revealing answers than if a generalist was conducting the interviews. Oh, and welcome to the BPSS – the Big Pharma Shill Society
March 21st, 2010 at 2:13 am
Hello Chris, I’m a huge fan of Point of Inquiry, and I’m glad you are taking it on. I think your three shows were very good, very interesting, and certainly up to the standards of a POI podcast. Just a suggestion on style: sometimes you sound too formal, like you’re reading from a script. Try to loosen up a bit and sound more conversational. I imagine this will happen naturally as you get used to the format and the role as host instead of guest.
As for the “balance” issue — I’m more interested in the factual truth than the “fairness” of the questioning. DJ would often play devil’s advocate, but only as a means of promoting the details of the argument.
Keep up the GREAT work. I look forward to many wonderful years of listening to you at the intersection!
March 21st, 2010 at 5:17 am
Speaking as a sceptic, I don’t believe there is any point in such an ardent believer trying to fake critical scepticism. You won’t be able to ask and follow up on the strongest points against the orthodoxy, and a weak attempt gives a misleading impression of balance where none exists. Some people can play devil’s advocate well, but overcoming one’s own unconscious biases is not an easy skill.
In addition, people in the centre of such controversy are more likely to open up in a friendly environment to a supporter; perhaps be a little less guarded. Some of the things Mann said in your interview have been reported with interest by AGW-sceptic sites, for example.
Be true to yourself, and know your limits. If people want balance, best they look elsewhere.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Hi Chris, I was skeptical that you’d be able to follow DJ and I’ve found your posts about accommodationism very frustrating but I decided to ignore the accommodationism stuff and pretend that this wasn’t POI at all, but a brand new show that I had no expectations of and see whether I’d like to subscribe to it.
All in all, I’m finding it interesting and enjoyable, I’d subscribe to it if I wasn’t already. My one criticism would be that you don’t ask enough critical questions. One of the things that DJ seems to be good at is posing questions that ask the interviewee to defend their position.
Hope this helps, good luck with future shows.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
That’s high praise….thank you so much. I get the point about being critical frequently, so I am trying to improve in this area. I think there was more of it in the latest show, no?
April 14th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Yes, and I think (though it’s difficult to tell) it was better for it. Very interesting show BTW.