Posted by Zack on Dec 10th, 2014Kind of disappointed with your reaction. Joel I feel like you judged Rob before you even listened to his podcast. I feel like you were looking to give a podcast "0 earbuds" because you had yet to give anything 0 and you wanted some credibility. I feel like you guys thought that you got a lot of negative reaction because you gave a beloved podcast a poor review, and for some people that is true, but for me I'm just kind of pissed you didn't give a fair review.
Posted by The.... What? on Dec 10th, 2014So... Ok. You guys aren't Marc Maron. You're not doing a conversation/interview podcast. You're doing a review podcast. If I'm going to come here looking to find out about podcasts I don't already listen to, I don't see how you having done some *basic* research on the podcast your'e talking about is an advantage to ME. You said most people don't research -- you're right! But if I'm going to take half an hour to listen to a podcast making a recommendation, I figure that podcast is going to tell me some stuff I couldn't find out from going to iTunes and subscribing.
Additionally, I think it would have been nice if you'd cleared up some of the factual mistakes you made, left out the snark about misspellings (basically sounded like you wanted to discredit people who didn't like your show and make them out to be dummies), and considered this: the rating system means nothing to a stranger like me if it is 100% personal. If you rated these shows based on how well you thought they fulfilled their mandate as podcasts, it would provide me with some guidance, even if the podcast isn't directed to your interests. We have the meat of the podcast to hear what your thoughts are and to get an idea of what you thought. 0 earbuds on the face of it would leave me expecting a show that is poorly produced and incompetent, which seemed not to be the opinion being given.
Anyway -- I wasn't left feeling like there was tremendous openness to constructive criticism, what with your decision not to read criticism on the air, and your dismissal of most of the decent points people had, which is disappointing, because conceptually, I think this could be an interesting show.
Posted by B Jones on Dec 10th, 2014Pod on Pod is the Ben Edelman of podcasting and should have done a sincere mea culpa in writing like Mr Edelman on the actual podcast. #epicfail #zeroearbuds
Posted by Matt on Dec 12th, 2014I think that some of the criticisms you guys have gotten were unfair, but I also don't think that you've really properly responded to the valid criticisms that were made. I understand your point about reviewing from the perspective of a new listener, and I think it's actually a good idea. But it's not just that you knew nothing about Rob - you actively treated incorrect information as fact (about him being a winner, etc) and those misconceptions colored your perceptions of him and the podcast. I think that someone discovering RHAP for the first time would either actually know who Rob is already, or they wouldn't know anything about him and it wouldn't really matter. Treating yourself as a new listener means taking the attitude of a new listener, and I think that most people who would choose to listen to RHAP wouldn't go in with the clear anti-reality TV bias that colored Joel's portion of the review. I also don't think that it reflects well on you that your reaction to the criticism is "I won't read bad things about us on the podcast" rather than admitting that mistakes were made.
I will pipe up in support of Josh because I think that he seems to have dealt with the situation much better, and that he's been hit with criticism that is mostly aimed at Joel who was responsible for the zero-earbud review and the comments about Rob that got people angry. The one thing I will rag on Josh about is the thing about broadway actors being referred to as athletes - the players in question are basically acrobats as much as they are actors, so I think that it's really not a stretch at all to think of them as athletes.