
Michael Barbaro and the success of “The Daily” - seventyhorses
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/michael-barbaro-the-daily-podcast-new-york-times.html
======
doe88
I still like and often listen The Daily but more and more I'm annoyed by the
sort of insularity or kind of NIH syndrom of this program. By that I mean
almost all the guests are from the NYT and whatever the story is, few credits
are given or mentions are made to outside journalists. Maybe I'm wrong and not
very objective but in the end I find it too much self-centered, it's only my
feeling at least.

~~~
danso
It’s somewhat understandable. The featured journalists are not only
interviewed during work hours, they are collecting audio and notes (including
behind the scenes material) on company time. It’s not just the Daily being
insular, but that other journalism orgs aren’t incentivized to lend their
journalists and work to the NYT for the NYT to profit from.

~~~
doe88
I really think that for instance on a piece of investigative journalism whose
the main author would be a journalist from say wapo, I've hard time thinking
this person would decline an invitation to speak about and promote his/her
article.

~~~
InitialLastName
I'm not familiar with the newspaper industry, but I would assume the issue
wouldn't be with the wapo journalist as much as with their employing paper, in
a twofold way:

\- It's worth assuming that the Washington Post (as an organization) wouldn't
want their employees doing content for a major rival (rather than on Post
Reports, their equivalent of The Daily).

\- As the article mentions, the podcast is in many ways a promotional tool for
the rest of the newspaper, and I can't see NYT (again, as an organization)
wanting to use it to promote a competitor.

~~~
doe88
Concerning your first point, granted I'm not familiar with each internal
guidelines, and overall it may very well be what you describe but just to give
an example that's not totally inconceivable, I routinely observe New Yorker
staffers promoting their longform pieces on Fresh Air (NPR).

For your second point, I guess it really depends on what you want, either
insularity, or diversity, openness and acknowledgement of great works
accomplished elsewhere.

~~~
InitialLastName
The New Yorker (owned by Conde Nast, which is effectively 100% text
publishing) doesn't really compete with NPR (which is effectively 100% radio
publishing). The New Yorker also specializes in long-form written pieces, for
which NPR interviews act as a sort of promotional piece. On the other hand,
even a deep NYT or Wapo investigative report can probably be covered
comprehensively enough for most people in 20 mins.

~~~
doe88
What I was simply trying to express is NYT would greatly enrich their
reporting by linking to or mentioning or discuss others great reportings, for
instance on this episode about the Aghanistan War Papers [1] it would greatly
be valuable to at least have a link to the work of WaPo on the subject which
was kind of lead on the matter.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/podcasts/the-
daily/afghan...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/podcasts/the-
daily/afghanistan.html)

------
e40
I've tried a lot of daily pods that talk about current events. The Daily is
the only one I still listen to. Yeah, there are times when I don't want to be
brought down by the shitty things certain people who dominate the news have
done, but even when I'm not enthusiastic about the subject, I always feel like
I learned something after it is over. To me, that's the important thing.

EDIT: typo

------
unlinked_dll
This is petty of me, but I can't stand the Daily. Not because the content is
bad, but because Michael Barbaro's cadence is grating to my ears. I can't get
over it, and I tune off NPR whenever the Daily comes on.

It brings me back to third grade and reading aloud - some kids just couldn't
follow the natural rhythm of a passage or breath properly. Inserting pauses
where they don't need to be, stretching out words and throwing in meter where
it doesn't make sense... I just can't get over it.

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy. You can notice it when he shifts from reading
off a script to talking with a guest.

~~~
zcdziura
While I still listen to and enjoy The Daily, I'm 100% with you with Barbaro's
cadence and the way he reads from his script. Especially with how he reads off
the ending "Here's what else you need to know today" line after the main story
is over. It sounds like "Here's... What else... You need...
Toknowthcirbfifhskd". I always laugh to myself every time I hear that.

I also understand that teasing someone about the way they speak (even if it's
just to myself, hundreds of miles away from my commute to work) especially
shitty because how you speak is one of the most personal things about someone,
but JEEEZE!

~~~
unlinked_dll
I don't think it's wrong to critique a radio/podcast personality on their
cadence. It's a part of the act, and it's something most pros work on and do
intentionally. A lot of sportscasters talk about this (on podcasts and TV,
ironically) - they put on a voice like an actor puts on a character.

I just don't care for Michael Barbaro's chosen vocal persona and find it
distracting. But he's doing a good job with his show, so some people must like
it.

In a similar vein I really like Terry Gross and Joe Buck but a lot of people
disagree with me on both those counts.

------
Xophmeister
I really like The Daily. When I first started listening to it, I found it a
bit “showy” and Barbaro’s affectations amused me (they still do), but I
persevered — largely to learn more about US current affairs — and I’ve found
the quality of the journalism, for a podcast, to be pretty high. In my
opinion, it’s much better than, for example, Today in Focus, from The
Guardian; it has a similar leaning, albeit UK-centric, and while it is often
very good, it is sometime a bit full-on with the identity politics. I wouldn’t
say The Daily is completely dispassionate, but I think they get the balance
right.

~~~
Scoundreller
You might want to check out CBC’s frontburner for some Canadian bias.

------
halo13245
While I do listen to the daily pretty often, it can be very drawn out and
redundant at times. It's also been especially suffering by excessive
impeachment coverage these last few weeks. But these are just my few
criticisms, it's otherwise one of the few podcasts worth listening to every
day. I also recommend checking out 'The Intelligence' by the economist. Also
daily, but more concise and covers 2-3 topics.

~~~
firloop
I felt similarly about The Daily. I started listening to NPR's "Up First"
podcast and like it a lot better; it's quite similar but less dramatized and
personality-driven.

------
Ericson2314
> He left the NewsGuild of New York, the union that represents the Times, when
> he started the show

Well that's a bummer, or is that a single-craft union extremely narrowly
defined?

------
magwa101
It's a patronizing podcast. He interrupts his subjects a lot. Rife with access
journalistic "both sidism" which has destroyed the NYTimes.

