Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

Excellent program.  Much to ponder here.  This is a program I will recommend to others.  Keep up the good work.

With respect, not my favorite POI. Didn’t like the soapbox intro. Am bored with Mooney’s thus far narrow purview: First Mann, now this—both largely focusing on climate change. (To be sure, Grothe’s focus on magic started boring me as well.) The style of interview involves too much puff and fluff, meaning softball questions, long responses by the guest, lots of generalities instead more specific facts, little bit too buddy-buddy. I learned very little new.

If Mooney wants to continue with the climate change bit, I’d be much more interested to hear a skeptic/denier. Someone who’s actually considered a scientist, not just a pundit or politico. Maybe have an Oxford style debate like what Intelligence Squared has been doing? Maybe Q&A where the denier asks the global warming proponent a question, then the proponent asks the denier a question, and so on, and Mooney would facilitate and ask follow-ups?

Of course, there’s plenty more in the world of science that Mooney can cover. Just has to sharpen the interview skills and clever-up the topic.

(And where else should I complain about the androgynous introducer’s voice and milquetoast puppet safari theme music?   )

Again, this is meant with much respect. Love the POI.

Hi Jordan,
Just want to say I appreciate this sort of constructive criticism, and will weigh it as I put together new programs. Certainly, I’m trying to do my best; I’m also trying to do new things, and finally, am a bit new to this. Would be interested in whether others felt the same way about the program.

best

chris

Chris,

This will go back to the two questions I proposed, but I would suggest these even if I had not proposed them before the interview.

Revkin talked about how overpopulation is the underlying cause of all our environmental problems, yet you did not follow up on that. The obvious questions are: “What can we do to reduce our population?” and “What are the possible consequences if we do not reduce our population?” This is the core issue of climate change and ecosystem destruction and needs to be addressed as widely as possible. You are in a unique position to get this question into the public arena.

Also, given that the main topic under discussion was science writers having problems finding ways to make a living another obvious question is: “What are the ethical implications of science writers accepting money from religious organizations?” Yes, I know you recently received a Templeton Foundation grant, and as a writer keenly interested in science I understand the problems and pressures of making a living writing about science. You cannot dodge this fundamental question of journalistic ethics.

Sincerely,

Darron Spohn