I’m not so happy. The conversation needed to be tightened up. Perhaps you think it is unethical to edit what is said, but this has to balanced against the pace of natural conversation.

The BBC ran a bit a year ago showing how they did this, much of the editing included taking out pauses and hems and haws, but there was also a bit of removing repetition. I do think they go a bit too far, no one ever takes a breath during their interviews.

I do listen to the podcast of OTM, but this is one of the few. What makes it work is the attitude of the hosts who are willing to mock people and show up hypocrisy. This is the same characteristic that makes Jon Stewart’s show work. I’m not suggesting that funny is the only approach, I listen to the daily BBC business report via a podcast and there is only earnestness on display.

I’m not sure about the audience for this sort of programming. I can see listening in one’s car or while commuting, but listening to interviews on the radio means one can’t be doing much else: no reading, no writing, etc.

I also find the information content per time required for all talk shows to be too low. I much prefer a few hundred words that have been thought about, but I see that I’m in a minority as YouTube and similar efforts bring multi-media to the fore.

Perhaps you should do shorter shows, but more often. The BBC business news podcast is about 10 minutes and treats only one or two topics.

The best part of the show was the real debate between your two guests. The WSJ editor defending her special status wasn’t allowed to slip by without comment, this was refreshing. I also think you should take sides, since you have strong ideas, there is no need for a “neutral” moderator. The mainstream media has plenty of opportunities to justify itself, so coming up against a bit of criticism is fine.

Post a link each time you put up a new show, even with an RSS feed people may miss it otherwise.