How come podcasts are never edited, it seems?

Tools    





Whenever I listen to one, they always leave in all the moments where people are thinking of what to say, so you got these awkward pauses, and they always leave in the parts, where they go off on tangents or perhaps laugh way too long, etc.

How come people who make podcasts, just don't cut out all the fluff, ever it seems?



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



currently editing a post...
It's the ones you are listening to. There are different types, some with little production value. People often do a stream of thought, with no direction. Joe Rogan is a good example, even though he does a good job of K.I.M. Then you have someone like Conan O'Brien or Bill Simmons, who puts a little more effort in developing his content and editing it.


You also have to consider that podcasts are generated content. If people can get downloads and subs without editing, it's more profitable than refining the content.



As someone who has had to edit Podcasts, I can tell you it's pretty much just because it's a lot of work to do it properly. I'd crank out those things regularly if I didn't have to edit them afterwards. That's a lot harder (or at least, far more tedious) than preparing for them and recording them.

That, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of demand. People like podcasts for lots of reasons, but one of the underrated ones is that they feel like a person is there in the room with you, which is hurt by production value and helped by a little jank here and there. This is why the conversational, unscripted style is so overwhelmingly popular in all but a few podcast types.

Part of it, too, is that its a nascent form and most of it's just very bad. Most people just want to have a podcast and they do the easy parts and not the hard ones.

But yeah, all the things you describe are present in lots of them, and it can be pretty annoying. The thing is, if you love a podcast, you love all that stuff. If you don't, it's grating. Podcasts can be pretty niche, which means they can get away with a lot of this stuff, at least with the people who like them. But there's little doubting that the absolute best ones are the result of a lot of editing, but editing which works extremely hard to preserve the free-flowing, conversational style mentioned above. That's just a lot of work.
__________________



You ready? You look ready.
Part of it, too, is that its a nascent form and most of it's just very bad. Most people just want to have a podcast and they do the easy parts and not the hard ones.
I love this line.

It's precisely why I don't listen to podcasts: 90% of them are terrible messes.

The better ones usually don't follow a script per se but have people with highly organized notes and the focus to stay on point. It's more NPR than FYJ (flap your jaw).
__________________
Halcyon days are not a thing
Nostalgia is no excuse for stupidity
I don't believe in golden ages
Or presidents that put kids in cages
America awaits on bended knee
Bad Religion



Totally agree. I learned this the heard way: I did a few scripted ones wayyyy back in the day. Did some more freeform ones. And on radio, TV, podcasts, wherever, the best balance is almost always to have basic notes to make sure you hit key points, but let the specific expression of those ideas come out naturally in the moment, so you can react to other people in a normal way. Don't wanna force it, and don't wanna go in without any structure or ideas, either.

It seems obvious and sort of minor but it's really crazy how different it sounds in practice. When it's too structured it sounds stilted, immediately. When it's too loose people just sort of check out after awhile.



Oh okay, it's just that people edit their videos they put on youtube, which are pretty much the same thing as video podcasts, when they talk about things like that. So I thought if you can edit a video podcast, why don't they edit the audio ones?



... helped by a little jank here and there.
Unfamiliar with the word “jank” or is it a typo?
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



Video is a completely different medium, so there's no reason to expect the same rules or trade offs to apply. I feel like most of the answers here are obvious, but just off the top of my head:

1) Video editing can enhance the product in more obvious and overt ways than audio editing (which, when done well, is invisible) can. With audio, all you can do is play other audio. With video, you can show relevant clips, and even talk over them. The editing, then, has more upside.

2) Video is more obviously performative, in that it usually involves someone looking into the camera, so the "just listening in on a conversation" feeling is usually already out the window, which means there's less inherent tolerance for a lack of production/editing.

3) People are more self-conscious about pauses, stumbling, stammering, or digressions while on video.

4) The barriers to entry on videos are higher, because they involve more complicated and potentially expensive tools to edit properly, whereas anyone can fire up Audacity, so videos are already probably self-selecting, upfront, for slightly more engaged or competent creators in aggregate.

5) I'm pretty sure people do post lots of crappy unedited videos, anyway. But a lot of video watching on the Internet is algorithmic, so I'd imagine you're a lot less likely to stumble upon it just browsing YouTube, for example, because it's a lot less likely to recommend it to you.



Unfamiliar with the word “jank” or is it a typo?
Technically it means of low or poor quality, though I think in usage it usually ends up noting a general lack of polish. I hear it in gaming communities a lot. I think it gets a lot more use on the Internet than most other places, since it applies to so many things here.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Oh okay, it's just that people edit their videos they put on youtube, which are pretty much the same thing as video podcasts, when they talk about things like that. So I thought if you can edit a video podcast, why don't they edit the audio ones?
So you're saying that those same people who edit and post videos are also posting unedited audio podcasts?

Audio only is more approachable. Hit record and forget it. It's not that simple, sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if many find it so. Stream of consciousness stuff. Someone already noted that if they're getting hits without the added effort, then why would (some people) want to add effort if they're satisfied with what they already get from it?

Audio and video are different mediums with different levels of access. I'm sure there is a psychological factor where it's easier to dismiss sloppy audio than sloppy video, which I believe is a point Yoda is pointing to. Video is more visible. Literally. So by its nature, it demands more attention and highlights mistakes a bit more than audio alone. Probably.

Thing is, people do people things differently cuz different people are different.

There are a lot of unedited crappy videos on YouTube as well. Why are people not editing videos? If they're already recording the video and making the effort to post it to YouTube, then I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and edit it? Why does everyone eat crackers with tuna salad? I mean, it's easier to just put it on a slice of bread to make a sandwich. I mean, that's how everyone eats a hamburger. On bread. Why would anyone eat crackers on a burger?
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Technically it means of low or poor quality, though I think in usage it usually ends up noting a general lack of polish. I hear it in gaming communities a lot. I think it gets a lot more use on the Internet than most other places, since it applies to so many things here.
That word used to be "bobo" when I was in grade school. Look at those bobo shoes! Not my word, but a word.



I've always depended on the kindness of strangers
Whenever I listen to one, they always leave in all the moments where people are thinking of what to say, so you got these awkward pauses, and they always leave in the parts, where they go off on tangents or perhaps laugh way too long, etc.

How come people who make podcasts, just don't cut out all the fluff, ever it seems?

I like them unedited to make room for some humanity. I only listen to Bill Burr, and just started watching the Matt Barnes/Stephen Jackson one, which had a great start, but the last two have been boring.



The Adventure Starts Here!
That word used to be "bobo" when I was in grade school. Look at those bobo shoes! Not my word, but a word.
You can't be as old as I am, and we definitely used "bobo" in regard to silly shoes. Ironically, back in my childhood, Chuck Taylors were not in vogue and were often called bobo sneakers. They had been in, in the 50s and then were out for a while in the 60s+... but then seemed to come back in fashion and stayed there.

But in that small window of time, they were bobo sneakers! Totally jank.



So you're saying that those same people who edit and post videos are also posting unedited audio podcasts?

Audio only is more approachable. Hit record and forget it. It's not that simple, sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if many find it so. Stream of consciousness stuff. Someone already noted that if they're getting hits without the added effort, then why would (some people) want to add effort if they're satisfied with what they already get from it?

Audio and video are different mediums with different levels of access. I'm sure there is a psychological factor where it's easier to dismiss sloppy audio than sloppy video, which I believe is a point Yoda is pointing to. Video is more visible. Literally. So by its nature, it demands more attention and highlights mistakes a bit more than audio alone. Probably.

Thing is, people do people things differently cuz different people are different.

There are a lot of unedited crappy videos on YouTube as well. Why are people not editing videos? If they're already recording the video and making the effort to post it to YouTube, then I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and edit it? Why does everyone eat crackers with tuna salad? I mean, it's easier to just put it on a slice of bread to make a sandwich. I mean, that's how everyone eats a hamburger. On bread. Why would anyone eat crackers on a burger?
Oh okay. Since I'm into filmmaking and learning more, I listen to other people's podcasts oni it, but there is just all this unnecessary fluff, that should be cut and I wonder, since these people who make them are filmmakers, you think they would understand when there is fluff that needs to be cut out, audio or video wise, that's all.



Many people enjoy the 'fluff' in between the 'facts' on a podcast. Why do you think people like watching DVD extras 'out takes' where actors blow their lines and then have a good laugh. It's just for fun and makes people seem more real and less like their reading a script.



A good thought experiment is to imagine one of your favorite things: book, video game, movie, album, whatever. You probably have a limitless appetite for it. You'd want whatever ridiculous Special Edition Blu-ray director's cut behind-the-scenes nonsense you could get your hands on, no matter how unpolished or off-the-cuff. I think that's how this works, sometimes. If you really like someone, or a certain podcast, or a certain topic, you simply want more, and it doesn't bother you if it isn't particularly good otherwise. We've all got a few things like that.



Well I can understand how leaving in some of the fluff can be good, cause if a person misunderstands or misspeaks and the rest of them laugh about it, it can be funny, or something along those lines. They do that in videos on youtube where people talk about a certain subject. But they leave in the good fluff, and not so much the bad. Where as with audio only podcasts, they leave in all the bad fluff, and have an all fluff must stay in policy, under all circumstances it seems.

I just do not get the distinction why that is for audio podcasts, compared to video.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Why not?

I love listening to crappy demo recordings from bands. It brings things down a few hundred notches and helps to remind me nothing is perfect, no matter what marketing presents.

I'm sure for every one reason you have for not doing something there are 1,000,000 people with 10 reasons why they should. It's a big world out there full of (and the entire choir sings) different people with tastes unlike yours.

Why must everything that someone else may do, think, or feel that you don't be explained? It is self evident.

Why should anyone on earth like anchovies. I hate them. Everyone should. Why do some people wear bow ties? Why do some people travel to Australia. It's hot there. Why do people bother going to theaters? Why do people troll on web forums? ...forever.

People have different motives than yours. Period. And that's the answer for every question you've ever asked and could ever imagine asking in the future.


Off topic: I just beat CONTROL.



I just do not get the distinction why that is for audio podcasts, compared to video.
I listed quite a few reasons, let me know which ones don't make sense to you, I guess.

I think the problem is thinking of these two things as more similar than they are, though. They're totally different mediums and that manifests itself in lots of ways.

It's also possible there's a confirmation bias problem here in what videos you see, which aren't necessarily reflective of the whole, which is another thing I alluded to in my reply.