Three Words Used To Market Podcasts: Unfiltered, Opinionated, Controversial

 When podcast networks want to market their newest interview podcast, they often use these three words: Unfiltered, Opinionated, Controversial. I've lost count of a celebrity who releases an interview podcast where the tagline is "Such and such will have unfiltered conversations with her / his guests."

Or a podcast host is marketed as opinionated and controversial.

Why are these three adjectives used to attract listeners to podcasts? Where has this marketing strategy come from? 

This article will explore the origins of the marketability of the concepts of being Unfiltered, Opinionated, and Controversial. 

Since podcasting is a relatively new medium, we must look to legacy media such as radio and TV.

Shock jocks, such as Don Imus and Howard Stern, began in the 1980s and gained massive popularity based on a simple yet effective strategy. They had no filter. They could say anything. People tuned in to see what they would say and if it would cross the line. Stern found the line and straddled it. Imus sadly went over the line and disappeared.

There are still morning zoo type radio shows, but their zaniness and unpredictability has become -- well -- predictable. 

In today's news landscape, unfiltered, opinionated, and controversial are the three magic words that open the gates for politicians to bask in their tribal lands of socio-political, and too often racial, homogeneity.

Politicians crave media attention and the surest way to attract that attention: Be unfiltered, opinionated, and controversial. Therefore, we have been privy to the rants and ramblings of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Jim Jordan, and a cast of supporting, equally reprehensible characters. 

As one political pundit said: "It's the people in Congress who do the hard work of legislating without any fanfare that should be commended. If you don't know their name, they're probably doing a good job."

Moderation, thoughtfulness, introspection, constant reassessment are traits to be bred out of our politicians and media experts. For example, John Dickerson has been on the Slate Political Gabfest for 19 years with Emily Bazelon and David Plotz.

John Dickerson is also the anchor of CBS News Prime Time, CBS News Chief Political Analyst, Senior National Correspondent, and CBS SUNDAY MORNING Contributor. He recently published his third book, and second New York Times Best-Seller The Hardest Job in the World: The American Presidency.

As a political analyst, Dickerson's thermostat runs cool. He investigates before opining. He excels at seeing multiple points of view. He explains the most extreme actions and rhetoric with the sober clarity of a therapist.

Dickerson is not needlessly controversial, although his views can surprise you because of his expansive worldview. He is not opinionated, but he has myriad opinions that are driven by facts and deductive reasoning. He is not unfiltered, because Dickerson is not a Fox News host masquerading as a journalist. He analyzes because his goal is edification, not subordination of any knowledge that does not fit the tribe's mission statement.

Therefore, as consumers of media, we get sports TV and podcast hosts talking at jet-engine decibel levels and concocting any controversy to juice ratings. A baseball player went 0-4 during last night's game. 

"Worst player ever. Such a disappointment. Not trying. Could be on drugs. Too old. Too dumb. Just plain twisted."

A star quarterback throws two interceptions during a game.

"He's lost it. Trade him while you can. He's hiding an injury. His girlfriend voted for Biden."

Sports podcasters have whined about the attention that WNBA rookie Caitlin Clark receives for weeks. It's a migratory flock, all settling in at the same waterhole. These sports TV hosts and podcasters use Clark's name and drag it around to boost their ratings, all the while reviling the subject of their rant. 

Sports TV host and podcaster PatMcAfee recently called Caitlin Clark of the WNBA a white bitch. Did he mean it? I have no idea. Then he apologized. Did the misogynistic comment and the apology generate ratings for his podcast and show? 

Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith have pre-written apologies for all the stupid shit they say that gets attention and boosts ratings. As a counterpoint, Slate's  Hang Up And Listen is the best sports podcast there is. They achieve that high level of achievement without distraction or hogging the spotlight like a narcissist.

Hosts Joel Anderson, Stefan Fatsis, and Josh Levin excel as quieter, more perceptive versions of Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless. 

What makes this podcast so remarkable is the show's instinct to make listeners think about the covered topic, instead of telling listeners what the hosts think and demanding that listeners then support the ideological line.

Greg Cosell, a frequent guest on the Ross Tucker Football podcast, is one of the most knowledgeable football journalists in the business. Unlike his father, who never met a controversy he couldn't bring to a boil, Greg Cosell avoids value judgments on football players and assesses only what's on the football game tape. Cosell is a frequent podcast guest because his expertise is in analysis, not off-the-cuff wild-eyed opinions of a football player's talents with no data to support his accusations. 

There are now actually 14 podcasts called some version of Unfiltered Conversations. What does that mean? What's a filtered conversation? When the person interviewed actually gives some thought to their words and thoughts before just blurting them out like syntax vomit, and hope that the verbiage doesn't stain any shoes -- or hurt any feelings.

Does an unfiltered conversation mean that the host and guest have not prepared for the podcast interview? 

How about being opinionated? Have you ever met someone -- usually a family member you only see at Thanksgiving -- who has an opinion on every facet of life, from what kind of fork should be used for shrimp cocktail to self-avowed expertise in guns, gender dysphoria or contraception? Is that person fun to be around? Why would I want a media version of that person invading my ears and eyes on a regular basis?

Finally, how do we define the word controversial? And why is being controversial so necessary for TV, radio, and podcast ratings? Is being controversial, saying things that aren't true but enticing to believe? Is being controversial to mean being at odds with any accepted belief? A kind of nihilism that asserts that there is no truth, just opinions. 

As pop singer Miley Cyrus once said, "People like controversy because that what sells."

It may be that Oliver Wendell Holmes knew best about controversy when he said, "Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way -- and the fools know it."

So people can have their unfiltered celebrities on podcasts saying what crazy shit they think will attract listeners. Or people can listen to hear that absolutely nutty opinion some sports podcasters has about an athlete? Truth is not a prerequisite here. Only attention-seeking like a guided missile. I'll pass on the podcaster who strains to be controversial as if they haven't ingested enough fiber. My advice: Eat the Shredded Wheat. Keep the controversy to yourself.

To me, the best podcasters who are ear worthy aim to educate, not infuriate. The best podcasters do not bath listeners in their own confirmation bias cloaked by angry words and hyperventilated rhetoric. The best podcasters --like John Dickerson -- upset conservatives and progressives because they reveal the contradictions in both political ideologies.

After all, people become wiser together through a healthy clash of viewpoints.