Hells yeah, do it!
Oh, and the interviews might be interesting too.
I don't like the idea because it takes so much longer to get through the information when it's in audio form. People talk at 300 words-per-minute or so, but most of us can read -- a transcript, say -- much faster than that. Obviously it's more work for the person producing the transcript, especially if they put in the effort to convey the nuances of tone, volume, facial expression, etc in addition to the raw verbiage, but more effort for that one person results in less effort/time for the many readers.
I have little patience for audio files. BUT I just might be amused enough to listen to the first few minutes of Labs and Apostropher reading cock jokes.
15 minutes. and some people read a little slower than others. we're still good people though. mostly.
Interesting. I hadn't even contemplated listening while sitting at my computer. I was thinking of listening while driving, while walking, traveling, cleaning the house, etc. And some people do process what they hear more fully than what they read. But the response here isn't encouraging.
I was thinking of listening while driving, while walking, traveling, cleaning the house, etc.
In fact, I agree with that; I listen to recorded books and downloaded Science Friday shows while driving and walking on the treadmill at the gym. Those activities require just enough of my brain's limited processing power that I don't get bored with the recording. (I have a cute little 256Mb MP3 player that looks just like a cassette, works like one when inserted into my car radio/cassette player, drives an earphone standalone when in the gym.)
MP3 interviews, whether done by bloggers or anyone else are only worthwhile if the interviewer has their act together, and damn few of them do.
If you go to the very impressive podcasting site www.itconversations.com, you will very rapidly learn that by far the most satisfying podcasts are lectures or conference talks, a format where one person has something to say to a presumably interested and educated audience.
Interviews tend to be far far less satisfying for a variety of reasons which basically boil down to the fact that the interviewer is almost always more interested in advertising themselves than in the subject material. Thus the interview starts with a minute of cutesy introduction with some combination of music and funny voices. Every ten minutes or so we'll get this repeated on the off-chance that we might forget that we're listening "One hour of crap with Joe Inflated Ego".
Then we get a minute or two hearing about the interviewer's personal life, weather, kids, sports watching and so on. Once the interview starts it will be punctuated with pathetic jokes and horribly embarassing flubs as the interviewer tries to share the spotlight with the guest but doesn't actually know what he is talking about.
Now while this sort of time-wasting bullshit is what flies on TV and radio, there is a fraction of the population (and I suspect that Unfogged readers reside in this fraction) that are busy people with functioning brains who have better things to do than put up with it.
So in summary --- would I listen to an interview, even with someone as interesting and competent as Brad DeLong? Answer: Only if it were conducted by someone who is not a complete tool, ie only if it bore a whole lot more resemblance to a faculty seminar than to a traditional media interview.
Let me second Bob Munck: "I don't like the idea because it takes so much longer to get through the information when it's in audio form. People talk at 300 words-per-minute or so, but most of us can read -- a transcript, say -- much faster than that. Obviously it's more work for the person producing the transcript, especially if they put in the effort to convey the nuances of tone, volume, facial expression, etc in addition to the raw verbiage, but more effort for that one person results in less effort/time for the many readers..."
I think people talk at about 150 wpm. And I think the information density of normal speech is about 1/3 that of edited prose. Why do I think this. Well, it's complicated, it is. But--Let me start by trying to put it this way. Uh. When one is thinking on the fly--when one is talking, there are lots of false starts and corrections. You wind up taking a surprisingly long time to say the simplest things. At least, uh, that's how I think speech works. Unless, uh, unless you're trying to mousetrap the interviewee, in which the ability to revise and tighten the, um, argument--if there is an argument. What I mean is that catching them unaware and unable to revise is sometimes good...
Brad is right--lately I've started sometimes talking through papers instead of just reading them, and everyone generally agrees that talking through the paper takes longer (even though it's easier to follow in real time). If you've got a prepared text that's all taken care of in advance. And print interviews--or interviews that appear on your computer screen--are easier to follow because the reader can backtrack any time they want.
Really, I'm only posting this so as to drop in this anecdote: After my last talk someone said to me (roughly), "If you're going to give talks about epistemology you shouldn't say 'you know' so much."
(And, I wouldn't download the interview most likely--I don't have away from office listening technology, and when I'm wired for sound in the office I like to listen to music. Jim Hall, Concierto, AOTW.)
Man MW, you're really pimping that AOTW acronym hard.
I really want this to happen. Actually, the thing to do is link back to the original explanation, like this:
AOTW.
Help a brother out!