Yeah, he handled the criticism very well. It's a sign of a confident and accepting person.
I appreciate the kind words @bacchi. I didn't come here to fish for compliments but I'll be happy to take them! :)
For anyone who is interested, I'll share why I do what I do, even as it pertains to a few of the comments/critiques here in this thread. I hope it may be helpful to a few.
I've been there myself.I understand the frustration with content creators. When I started RPF almost 500 episodes ago, I was deeply, deeply frustrated with various financial radio hosts and podcast hosts. I would often find myself shaking my fist/head at my radio/earbuds just thinking, "Man! This guy doesn't get it!" I had tons of criticism of various hosts and ways they could/should do it better.
That was why I started RPF. To do it better.
Now, with a few years of experience, I understand the challenges of "doing it better."
These days, almost all of my criticism of other show hosts has melted away entirely because I understand why they do what they do from the inside. Usually they have a reason why they make the choices they make to say the things they say in the way they say it.
Criticism comes with the territory. The most effective people in the world are usually the most criticized. Just consider what Presidents Obama and Trump have to deal with every day.
If you desire to make a difference, it'll come with criticism.
I want to make a difference in the world. Since I do, I've got to be okay with the criticism.
And, since I used to dish plenty out to financial broadcasters, I'd be a total hypocrite if I were too delicate to handle it myself.
Why are my shows so long?I do two different kinds of shows: solo shows and interview shows. Both tend to be long; often too long.
There's a very important reason why I don't edit interview shows to be shorter: I'm deeply, deeply concerned with increasing strictures on free speech in the United States. I'm also really concerned that peoples' views or opinions are not taken out of context.
It's easy to turn editing into deceptive editing. This happens regularly on the news. I don't want it to happen on my show.
I've worked hard to become a better interviewer but I still have a long way to go. Come back and listen in two years and I'll be way better than I am now.
For solo shows, there's no excuse for them to be long; that's due to a lack of skill as an interviewer and due to the problem of figuring out how much time is optimal to devote to a single episode.
There's an anecdote published about President Woodrow Wilson who was asked about the among of time he spent preparing speeches; his response was this:
"That depends on the speech. If it is a ten-minute speech it takes me all of two weeks to prepare it; if it is a half-hour speech it takes me a week; if I can talk as long as I want to it requires no preparation at all. I am ready now."
I have found that to be true in podcasting as well. It's simply a matter of how much time can I and should I devote to the preparation and polishing of a speech which I'm going to release to the world for free.
I find that a very difficult question to answer.
Why religion?As I stated in the comment above, I discuss religion because I believe that your religious ideology is inseparable from how you spend your money. Thus, if I am going to responsibly discuss money, I have to reference religious ideology where appropriate.
My personal decision has been this: I will never bring religious conflict in to a money subject where it's irrelevant; I will never shy away from the religious conflict where it is relevant.
But, there's a second--and also fundamental--reason why I think it's important to discuss religion: I want to model the ways that adults can respectfully discuss difficult, sensitive subjects in a friendly and agreeable way.
I'm deeply concerned about the growing inability of modern US American citizens to disagree with one another without being disagreeable. We have chosen to sacrifice reasoned, amiable discussion of difficult topics at the altar of group ideology.
Throughout history philosophers have wrestled with the big questions of life and have done it respectfully. Today, we seem--as a culture--to care more about identity politics and only listening to people we agree with than to seriously wrestle with difficult questions.
I'm very concerned about this trend in society. It's destroying families, friendships, and communities. And there's no reason for it.
I want to lead by example and show how reasonable, thoughtful people can wrestle with difficult issues, even in the public square.
I've made mistakes. I regret some things I've said on the show. But I still care more about the dream of living in a respectful, peaceful society than I do about making a few more bucks because I have more mainstream appeal by avoiding difficult topics.
ConclusionI do appreciate the comments and feedback. One thing I love about the internet is that our various publishing platforms give everyone a voice. This is the ultimate democratizing influence and it's a harbinger of ever-increasing freedom.
And I really meant what I said: there's room on the internet for many new financial podcasts and I'd love to be a part of helping any of you start your own show with your own unique ideas and your own unique approach.
Let us use the freedom we now enjoy to help as many other people as possible. There are a lot of broke people who are struggling through their day-to-day existence. They need our help.