To all the people that love to criticize, it's easy for you to criticize, but it's much more difficult to contribute...
I like Dr. Livingston's voice.
The new narrator (who was actually on a prior podcast episode), Dr. Livingston, is nice. That said, I agree with @flyingpoodle's review, it does make it slightly harder to follow, but if you're multi-tasking it tends to break up the segments a bit so you know. The intro of external guest voices in mid-sentence (... "an article titled...") was a bit jarring, more appropriate for, say, a narrator reading a children's storybook to children when a character's voice suddenly appears in the middle of a sentence. Sometimes news radio lead-ins will hand it off as stating a one-sentence summary or lead, and then introducing the next speaker. From a production value standpoint, with external guests, it's odd that they're recording an inbound phone call as opposed to asking the authors to record a Voice Memo on an iPhone or use any more modern high-quality call platform. The back stretch of the most recent podcast in the new format is all Dr. Livingston, though, and it's nice. While I don't dislike Howard Bauchner's voice from prior episodes, I do happen to work in New York -- so not all listeners across the country may be used to his sort of voice. Also, I admit I liked Ed Livingston's voice better, in both intonation and pacing. Like some others, I miss Dr. DeAngelis, but wow, the comments section is all over the place for prior podcast versions featuring her voice! Most recently, the JAMA podcast did away with the cute, quirky intro theme that sounded like a 2010-era iPhone ringtone. The intro theme is now replaced with stock B-roll audio that sounds like we're about to watch an HR training video. While this sounds more "professional", there are probably newer ways of adding audio bumpers to signal the start, transitions, and end of the podcast, and something that's unique to JAMA as opposed to a generic library of stock audio. The broader issue is one of the structure of medical scientific content. We are accustomed to a predictable format -- intro, methods, results, discussion -- that reveals the "so what?" at the end, with titles that tease the question but don't reveal the answer. In audio & news-bulletin type summaries, the emphasis may be more on the "so what?", potentially even inverting the format of abstracts. To each their own, I suppose. Remember how JAMA used to have cover art? Listeners may vary in their appreciation of the artistic & stylistic aspects of the Podcast, versus cold, sterile and relentless "just the facts" formats. But overall, this is a great and high-impact podcast and regardless of the stylistic elements -- the art here is getting the style elements done in a way that helps readers remember the content better. Comments sections will attract nit-pickers (like me), but most likely the vast majority of listeners to the JAMA Editors' Summary are quietly thankful and satisfied.
Great summaries, old format better.
I prefer a single voice throughout the podcast, I can understand the appeal to some of having authors speak about their articles, but it makes it harder for me to follow. I like your podcast because of the single voice format, not in spite of it.
Good, short summary of recent research
I'm a first year medical student trying to get an introduction to current research. This is a very approachable, quick and easy way to see what is going on. I disagree with negative comments about the host. He is great, and is very appropriate for th medium, being the editor in chief of JAMA.
Recent narrators even worse than DeAngelis
I sort of liked Dr DeAngelis's podcast readings, not a professional voice but clear and understandable and sometimes humorous. Since she left the newer narrators are much worse, not at all enjoyable or entertaining. Annals of Internal Medicine podcast also used to be great and now stinks due to lousy readers. Both journals need to get someone better!
Regading the podcast for Vol 307, No. 2: The podcast sounds like it was recorded in brief 30 second segments and at least 2 repeat making the podcast sound like a broken record.
Good journal, bad podcast
It's a good journa; great articles and excellent popular interest pieces. Absolutely terrible narration. It's distractingly bad. I haven't listened in a year and really wish I could. Wish it were more like the Annals podcast; fun narration, interviews, etc
Needs a lot of work
Pod cast little more than a reading of abstracts and titles of articles, not much help. Look at NEJM as an example of a useful podcast - summaries most of the articles nicely so I can select the few I really need to read completely. And if your going to to a short podcast, I think spending 10% of your time discussing a painting I can't really see on my ipod is a waste of time.
Not the Right Person for the Job
Just tuned in this week for the first time, so very disappointed to hear at the end of the podcast that the editor intends to continue as the reader/personality. I found it grating; humor that falls completely flat, and a singsong reading style that just doesn't convey meaning very well. I see others like the podcast, so perhaps it's a matter of taste. I will say she sounds like a very nice person. For a more professional, entertaining, information-rich equivalent, try the Johns Hopkins Podmed (relevant, informative), or the Annals of Internal Medicine Podcast (interviews, clear article summaries, and very funny humor).
Too sing-songy a voice
I had to stop listening.
not my fav
The operative term is annoying. I used to read JAMA religiously, I pick and choose now. I keep hoping the podcast will be more informative and less preachy. Also, the inane prattling on about the cover artwork has got to end. JAMA is supposed to be about medicine. An article synopsis would be nice.
I appreciate that Dr. DeAngelis takes the time to make this podcast both informative and entertaining. You definitely won't fall asleep listening to her! Excellent work and hope to see more podcasts from JAMA in the future.
good info but too boring
This journal is full of great info, but I found this podcast difficult to remain focused. It could be presented in a more entertaining way.
Too technical for the layman
I understand that JAMA's audience is medically-inclined. But some of us laity have an interest in health and medical news and it would be nice if JAMA could produce a "consumer" podcast that summarizes the latest week's issue IN PLAIN ENGLISH. If AMA is going to spend millions of dollars pumping out stories for television stations across the country to poach, the least they could do is a consumer podcast. One star only because I cannot rate it zero stars.
Dr. D is a hoot
It is funny to hear her repeatedly butcher the pronunciation of "cannabis" and other words. Overall, the podcast is good for what it is -- a quick survey of each week's JAMA contents.
Its nice to hear these summaries & commentaries. I like Dr D's voice & her manner. She is not dry or boring, like so many medical lectures. Ever fall asleep in Grand Rounds with a speaker that drones on & on? At least this speaker keeps your mind from wandering AND presents important information.
Yuck. Gotta agree with Al.
Her commentary isn't cute. She made a Hooters joke. Seriously this journal is too prestigious for her to be reading it. It doesn't sound professional. Even if she was hilarious, they should hire a reader.
I love her dry wit. She kills me...and makes the pocast great! I wasn't expecting it to be so entertaining!
Just a bunch of B.S. the more I hear, the more I believe the pharm industry is writing this stuff.
Disagree with Al
I've listened to the podcast and quite frankly I am a bit surprised by the idea that the good doctor is not right to voice this program. Podcasts are not meant to be professional in most cases and therein is the beauty of them. What makes Dr. D. qualified to speak is that she is the Editor-in-chief and not that she has a NPR quality voice! Get real, Al. I personally do enjoy her presentations as they are done by her, though it might also be good to do an interview concerning a most important article as mentioned. Great podcast.
Dropping the ball
Dr. De Angelis should put down the mic and let someone with real speaking skills do the job of podcasting. JAMA is an important journal and her cute, homey style is not appropriate. She lacks both presentation and organization skills. (For example, doesn't bother to correctly pronounce names of authors and places and she fails to include an upfront listing of each episode's contents.) This is all very inconsiderate of the listener and and creates a sloppy, stream-of-conciousness feeling to the work. There are very good examples of quality medical/science podcasting and JAMA is failing to make the grade. JAMA has the content, but the delivery is horrible.
your pal Al
very interesting and entertaining
Dr. DeAngelis explains and summarizes the complicated cutting-edge research articles by putting articles into a broader context to general science listeners. She is also very entertaining to listen to! It's a perfect example of what a educational podcast should be.