Defense Point Security
Washington Media Institute
Stephen R. Fox
Roman Mars and 99% Invisible
Laurie E Wilner
Sarah E Canzoneri
John du Bois
David M Ingalls
Kate Keplinger and Rob Hanson
Diane & David La Voy
Scott A. Lawrence
Justin P. Miller
Sandy & Ken Reinhard
Sonia Meisenheimer Schechter
Tom & Val
Dr. Denny Wilkins
Jean & John Wolf
And then listen to all other episodes of Here Be Monsters
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
It seems to me that all of your podcasts so far have been talking about what you're going to talk about now that you're free from NPR and the "establishment", but not really actually saying anything.
How about actually saying something now that you have had time to settle in?
Thanks for posting this. Nice to discover Jeff's podcast, and great to hear a little more about why you launched Decode DC. As for the show itself, fantastic. Love the tone of it, love the music, the whole package. Wish there were more of them.
How about talking about what they're actually doing rather than all this focus on how stuff looks and feels. Stop being distracted by every bright pebble on the path.
Focus on what the government is DOING and NOT DOING.
Not their demographics. Not the reporters. Not what they say. Not how much you like or dislike what they say. Not the look of their offices. Not how many give interviews. Not how many wires are hanging from the ceiling. Not the color of the rug. Not the food in the cafeteria.
I haven't even listened to one of your podcasts yet, just the interview. I thank you so much for even just the idea that someone out there thinks the same way I do. Which by that I mean actually thinks about what a politician says and does. In the first Obama campaign I was the only person I knew who had been to the candidate's websites and read the position statements. Much less actually done any real research. I live in the back of beyond of a red state. Keep going you are a welcome voice in this crazy world!
Stephanie, I will save you the trouble. Andrea Seabrook is a flaming blue liberal. She doesn't research anything she reports, repeats whatever comprises the blue message of the day and ignores fact when it is inconvenient for her conclusions.
I suggest that you stop reading "position statements" and start looking at what the politicians are actually doing. Words are chum for empty headed ideologues and bait for fools.
Kate, Why, thank you so much. I appreciate you almost reading my comment.
And i appreciate you making a comment about podcasts that you haven't heard. Thanks too for sharing with us that you read the "position papers" of some of the leading leaders in politics these days.
Nothing is quite so incisive as reading what a politician writes on a website.
You know, you and Andrea are going to get along swimmingly. You can shower her with praise without actually listening to her work and she can produce podcasts without doing any research or analysis. Heaven could not make a better match.
Kate...if you dislike the podcast so much, then why are you on the website of said podcast, stomping the ground so hard you'll snap in two? If you think the production/reporting/etc isn't up to par, shouldn't you be telling people that don't frequent the actual site? maybe write up some well thought out reviews on itunes or other websites that make people understand that you aren't just angry?
if you actually want to change hearts and minds, you can't start in your enemy's stronghold. think things through. how can YOU destroy andrea's dream with less effort.
i know you can figure it out. i believe in you.
Sometimes, I imagine people like Kate gnashing their teeth with each keystroke. gnash gnash gnash gnash. gnash gnash gnash. gnash.
How did you wind up here, Kate? I'm actually curious.
Your metaphor is straining under hyperbole.
I do not consider you or Andrea an enemy. Rather, I am disappointed that what was promoted as a different and more incisive look at politics has turned out to be little more than a platform for a staunch liberal to spin issues in exactly the same way as hundreds of other sycophantic liberal media outlets.
Further, I am also disappointed that there seem to be so few that are willing to point this out. It seems to me that the American public has become a herd of sheep willing to lap up whatever slop is served up to them.
A clear example of this is no further than up a couple of posts where Stephanie compliments Andrea on podcasts that she hasn't heard and bubbles up in pride that she is informed because she read the candidates position on a website. While I am sure that Stephanie is sincere about this, it is breathtaking to me that this is what passes for critical thinking these days.
Similarly, Andrea's podcasts are riddled with factual errors, political grandstanding and partisan attacks. From a journalistic point of view they are sloppy at best and dishonest more likely. This is exactly opposite to what she claimed they would be.
I don't understand your comment about Andrea's dream at all. Andrea's work stands on its own. If my criticism is wrong, it and I will be dismissed and ignored. However, it is more likely that I have hit a nerve of truth with you.
Kate, yes i was using hyperbole, because i thought it was funny. i believe the best jokes are primarily ones that you think are funny and hopefully other people will find funny second. so theres that.
and yeah, the reports shes been filing HAVE been one sided as of late. if you read back on the comments on other podcasts, she actually responded saying that she is specifically not trying to present both sides of every issue in every report because thats part of the problem in the first place - not every story has to be presented with both sides having their say. i think of the story about the GOP and how they are better at advertising their ideas and proposals than democrats. there were many good points made there, and some of them were negative towards liberals, and beneficial to conservatives.
in later podcasts she will probably bash on the democatic party. but the one thing that has been consistent is her telling stories in a way that she is seeing them from her years of reporting in washington. i don't know about you, but i hate when vital air time is devoted to both sides "having their say" on an issue. i WANT podcasts that take aim at specific issues that one or the other party are creating, and apparently right now she has done a couple stories on the GOP.
i do wish that she would do more stories about the democratic party, but shes only been able to put out like 5 eps max right now, so that will have to wait.
finally, can you point out some of the factual errors that she has reported? i'm not trying to do a "gotcha" thing, i want to know the problems you are having with the podcast...maybe i can view it in a different light?
Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but I am quite calm. Perhaps you mistake a terse recitation of the truth as hostility.
You know that this is a political website, right? And you are aware that one of the characteristics of political discussion is disagreement, correct?
It seems that you aren't comfortable with criticism or disagreement. Perhaps you might want to consider a website with less of both of these things. There are a large number of websites with cute pictures of kittens you might like, joke sites of all colors and websites on all sorts of interesting crafts you might fancy.
To answer your question, I followed a link from another website that recommended this site as an alternative political site.
Thanks Kate,I do like cats. But I'm not great with the internet. Where should I start looking?
People aren't reacting because you struck a nerve of truth, they are reacting because you are using inflammatory language and an aggressive tone. I enjoy argument and discourse, but all you're doing is trolling. Might I suggest /r/ politics on reddit as an alternative? Your heady mix of bile, angst, and Strunk and White will be better appreciated over there.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.