David Bovill's Listen Later: Recent Episodes
David Bovill / Listen Notes
Podcast: Under The Skin with Russell Brand (LS 76 · TOP 0.01% what is this?)
Episode: #058 Populist Revolution - Will It Go Left Or Right? (with Candace Owens)
Pub date: 2018-12-15
An explosive conversation with controversial conservative thinker Candace Owen - a staunch advocate for the free market, capitalism and Donald Trump. Listen to some heated debates about the pros and cons of the left and the right and an attempt at negotiating what utopia might look like!
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Russell Brand, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: The Design Of Business | The Business of Design (LS 46 · TOP 1% what is this?)
Episode: S5E9: Manuel Lima
Pub date: 2018-11-27
Manuel Lima is a UX design manager at Google and the founder of the website Visual Complexity.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Design Observer, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Open Science Talk
Episode: #06 The problem with Peer Review
Pub date: 2018-11-02
In this episode professor at UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Bård Smedsrød, gives us an insight into peer review. How does the system work today, and what's problematic with it? Smedsrød also offers some solutions and encourages Universities to be much more involved in the peer review process. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Open Science Talk, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Devpolicy Talks
Episode: The Social Observatory: integrating the social sciences for adaptive practice
Pub date: 2017-12-15
The Social Observatory (SO) is a unit in the World Bank’s Development Research Group. It has worked for seven years with a $5 billion portfolio of community-based livelihoods projects in India. This work combines rigorous impact evaluations with ethnography, process evaluations, and the development of new citizen-led data systems to transform how such projects learn and adapt. This talk reports on some aspects of this work, showing how randomised control trials (RCTs) and ethnographies can be meaningfully combined, and demonstrating new tools to deepen collective action.
For more see: http://socialobservatory.worldbank.org/about
Vijayendra Rao is a Lead Economist in the Development Research Group of the World Bank. His research has spanned subjects that include gender inequality, mixed-methods, culture, decentralisation, community development, and deliberative democracy. He obtained a PhD in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania and taught at the University of Chicago, Michigan, and Williams College before joining the World Bank.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Development Policy Centre, ANU, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Real Democracy Now! a podcast (LS 31 · TOP 5% what is this?)
Episode: Bonus Ep1 Deliberation Culture Context - Jensen Sass
Pub date: 2017-12-21
This is a the first episode in a bonus series of Real Democracy Now! a podcast talking about Deliberation, Culture and Context. This bonus series has been made in collaboration with the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra here in Australia. In this series I speak with a number of people who participated in the Centre's recent conference which brought together scholars from around the world to examine the different forms, meanings, and significance associated to deliberation in various cultures and contexts. A copy of the conference program is available here. This Conference was supported by John Dryzek's ARC Laureate Fellowship entitled "Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System." In this episode I’m speaking with Jensen Sass one of the conference organisers. Jensen is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. In future episodes in this bonus series I’ll be speaking to people who presented at the conference about their papers, as well as some of those who were on the final roundtable reflecting on the conference overall. These episodes will be released in early 2018. I hope you’ll join me then.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Nivek Thompson, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Democracy Works (LS 41 · TOP 2% what is this?)
Episode: Winning the “democracy lottery”
Pub date: 2018-11-19
Robin Teater
It’s not the Powerball or the Mega Millions, but this democracy lottery does give people the chance to directly impact information that appears on the ballot in their state. Like a lot of things we talk about on this show, the Citizens Initiative Review (CIR) is not easy, but as you’ll hear from this week’s guests, is work worth doing.
CIRs, which organizers called the “democracy lottery,” bring together groups of voters in an intensive four-day, jury-like setting to research the basic facts of initiatives and referenda on the ballot. These citizen panels draft joint statements that provide clear, concise, and accurate information to their fellow voters, removed from campaign messaging and financial influence. It’s been implemented in Oregon, Arizona, and California, and is currently in a pilot phase in Massachusetts. Our guests have been at the forefront of making this process happen.
John Gastil Robin Teater is the Executive Director of Healthy Democracy, an organization that designs and coordinates innovative deliberative democracy programs. The organization helped implement the CIR process and remains committed to helping it expand across the United States.
John Gastil is a Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences and Political Science at Penn State and an expert on deliberative democracy. He’s studied CIRs throughout the United States and Europe. His research gauges how effective CIRs are at making voters more informed, and how being part of a CIR impacts participants.
This is our first show on deliberative democracy. It’s a topic we hope to return to soon.
Additional Information Healthy Democracy
John Gastil’s work on the Citizens Initiative Review
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think the Citizens Initiative Review is an effective way to educate people about complicated or numerous ballot initiatives? * Would you prefer to read the measure yourself or have a summary provided for you? * Do you trust the process as described as being non-partisan or free from the influence of interest groups? * Could the CIR process work in your state or country? Why or why not? * What other applications do you think this program could have beyond its current use in the area of ballot initiatives?
Interview Highlights [5:00] What is a Citizens Initiative Review? Robin: It involves a randomly selected group of registered voters between the ages of twenty and twenty four. They’ll spend roughly four days measuring a ballot measure. They’re selected based on demographics of a particular state. The relevant factors are age, party affiliation, gender, and geography. They’re job is to be representatives for their fellow voters throughout the state they’re in. The final result is a summary of the key facts concerning the ballot initiative. They also produce arguments for and against the ballot initiative.
[7:00] What are the motivations people have for wanting to do this? Robin: Reasons why people respond to our recruitment mailer include curiosity amongst others. Also, there is a stipend paid to participants. We also have some young people who are either looking for the money or who are getting pushed to do it by their parents while they’re home from school.
John: We’ve also heard from mothers who participate that it is a chance for them to get away from the home for a few days. There are also some who admit that they participated because of the financial incentive.
[8:50] Can you speak to the need for this program and how this program fits a need? John: We wanted to bring about a more deliberative democracy. However, you can’t ask all voters to be engaged in deliberation on ballot measures. What we know is that those people in the electorate who have the time and willingness to deliberate can do a very good job. In just a few days, people can say very insightful things about random topics such as highway budget planning measures. This was a good place to start because legislatures realized that the voting public was at a loss as to these long ballot measures that voters had to make a quick decision on when in the booth. Some people got the ball rolling independently in Oregon, and here we are.
[11:50] What does the relationship with special interests look like since this program has been operating? Robin: It is tricky because they make enormous investment into their own messaging. They realize that this program is a great opportunity to have influence on how people see initiative as well as to get feed back from actual voters.
John: These are professional campaigners who spend a lot of money crafting very detailed messages. They also have almost no control over this program. They can bring a good message to our participants, but they have little to no influence after that.
[13:35] On the first day, participants listen to presentations from groups on measures. How do you go from this first day to the final product? Robin: Even before the first day, participants are engaged in training to teach them how to ask good questions and get the relevant information they need in order to make good decisions. Part of this process is just making sure these participants are comfortable working in such a diverse group. After that, they hear the opening statements from the campaigns on each side of the ballot issues. The next day is a question and answer panel with the campaigns. The panelists actually rank their questions ahead of time before asking them of the campaign representatives. This is then followed by a panel of policy experts. Day two ends with a discussion with the participants trying to glean from them the information that stuck with them from the presentations throughout the day. Day three is a series of editing groups. Participants look at the written claims of the campaigns of each issue and decide what should make the cut for the final summary and what shouldn’t. At the end of this day, we do a key vote on the findings. This includes the eight most reliable comments on a particular ballot measure. Day four is all about writing the pro and con aspects of the measure.
[21:21] Where else has the CIR been used? Robin: Massachusetts, learning from the mistakes of Oregon, passed legislation to fun the program through state funds. We’ve also been in Arizona which is publicly funded by the elections commission. They are the first state to publicly fund the CIR. We’ve also done pilots in Colorado and California.
John: There was also legislation in the state of Washington, but it didn’t come to a full vote. The program has also been talked about in other nations. One example is England to run a possible re-vote of the Brexit measure.
[22:50] How do you measure whether voters were impacted by the CIR or not? John: We’ve had funding from a number of sources which enable us to conduct polling on voters responses to this program. We poll people who read the ballot initiative both with and without the CIR summary. What we find is that those who read the measure along with the CIR summary are more knowledgeable on the issues. They have a better factual grasp of the issue.
24:30: What is the process to get people to believe what they see on the CIR?
Robin: It is baked into the process because the panel is randomly selected. The also can’t have any ties to campaigns or interests groups. This enables us to tell the voters that the summaries they’re reading are by accurate representatives of the people. Our tag line is that this is work by the people for the people. There are other entities that produce good summaries of these measures, but they aren’t completely unbiased. They still have a stake and an angel on the issues. The credibility to these reports is strengthened by the diversity of the participants in the program. It is also strengthened by the fact that these are not professional consumers of this sort of information.
John: The average voter seeing this page on the ballot gets the general idea that this was prepared by a body of citizens.
[27:20] How can this program develop in the future? Can it become a mechanize for candidate selection? John: That is something that has been experimented with here and abroad. This has considerable applicability in terms of candidates in the primary races where someone can’t just pick the republican or democrat as they normally would in a general election. This is also the situation people face in many judicial races or places where candidates don’t have an official party endorsement. Therefore, I think this process could be very powerful in the lower visibility elections.
Robin: I agree. I think there are infinite applications of this program.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Penn State McCourtney Institute for Democracy, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Daily Crypto - Bitcoin, Blockchain, Ethereum, Altcoin & Digital Cryptocurrency World News
Episode: GUEST: Kleros, Decentralized Arbitration Dispute Resolution via Smart Contracts
Pub date: 2018-04-11
Federico Ast, Ph.D is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires. Federico was early team member at MATERIABIZ, one of Latin America’s online media pioneers. Federico researched deliberative democracy and collective decision making. Federico pioneered the concept of Crowdjury, the use of blockchain and collective intelligence to …
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from dailycrypto.io, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: ASEN Podcast
Episode: Responses to Discrimination - Michèle Lamont (2012, ASEN Conference)
Pub date: 2016-07-15
Responses to Discrimination - Michèle Lamont (2012, ASEN Conference)
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from ASEN, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Open Society Foundations Podcast (LS 27 · TOP 10% what is this?)
Episode: Getting Respect: Responding to Stigma and Discrimination in the United States, Brazil, and Israel
Pub date: 2017-04-25
Michèle Lamont discusses her most recent book, which examines the extent to which racial identity overshadows the daily experiences of stigmatized groups across contexts. Speakers: Michèle Lamont, Chris Stone. (Recorded: Feb 13, 2017)
Learn more at http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Open Society Foundations, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: See id.
Episode: #1: Foxes First
Pub date: 2018-09-13
In this episode, Ryan and Luke talk about our goals for the pod, dive into Pierson v. Post, and reflect on why we went to law school. Take a listen!
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Not Suspicious Media, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: StarTalk Radio (LS 78 · TOP 0.01% what is this?)
Episode: The Truthiness, with Stephen Colbert
Pub date: 2018-09-28
Uncover the truthiness and nothing but the truthiness as Neil deGrasse Tyson sits down with Stephen Colbert, comic co-host Adam Conover, author Sophia McClennen, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and Rev. James Martin, SJ, to investigate the science of satire.
NOTE: StarTalk All-Access subscribers can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://www.startalkradio.net/all-access/the-truthiness-with-stephen-colbert/
Photo Credit: Brandon Royal.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Neil deGrasse Tyson, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Radiolab (LS 86 · TOP 0.01% what is this?)
Episode: Smarty Plants
Pub date: 2018-02-14
Do you really need a brain to sense the world around you? To remember? Or even learn? Well, it depends on who you ask. Jad and Robert, they are split on this one. Today, Robert drags Jad along on a parade for the surprising feats of brainless plants. Along with a home-inspection duo, a science writer, and some enterprising scientists at Princeton University, we dig into the work of evolutionary ecologist Monica Gagliano, who turns our brain-centered worldview on its head through a series of clever experiments that show plants doing things we never would've imagined. Can Robert get Jad to join the march?
This episode was produced by Annie McEwen.
Support Radiolab today at Radiolab.org/donate.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from WNYC Studios, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Pod Save America (LS 90 · TOP 0.01% what is this?)
Episode: "We believe Christine Blasey Ford."
Pub date: 2018-09-28
Jon, Dan, and Erin Ryan discuss the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then Katie Couric talks to Jon about her new podcast documentary that reflects on the tenth anniversary of her famous interviews with Sarah Palin.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Crooked Media, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Political Gabfest (LS 75 · TOP 0.05% what is this?)
Episode: The “One Hundred Percent Certain” Edition
Pub date: 2018-09-28
Emily Bazelon, David Plotz, and John Dickerson discuss the testimony of both Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.
Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today at www.slate.com/gabfestplus.
Twitter: @SlateGabfest
Facebook: facebook.com/Gabfest
Email: gabfest@slate.com
Show notes at slate.com/gabfest
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Slate Podcasts, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Podcast: Unconfirmed (LS 54 · TOP 0.5% what is this?)
Episode: Rune Christensen of MakerDao on Its $15 Million From Andreessen Horowitz - Ep.039
Pub date: 2018-09-28
Rune Christensen, founder and CEO of MakerDao, explains what Andreessen Horowitz's $15 million investment in its Maker token means for the ecosystem and why they chose to work with a16z and its general partner Kathryn Haun. He also responds to criticism that the process took place behind closed doors despite the fact that MakerDao has a notably open, transparent system otherwise, and concerns about the seeming discount of 40% that the a16z team got. He also talks about whether or not MakerDao could amass too much power in the Ethereum ecosystem, thereby centralizing power around the Dai stablecoin.
If you're interested in sponsoring Unchained or Unconfirmed, reach out to Raelene at laurashinpodcast@gmail.com!
Episode links:
Rune Christensen: https://twitter.com/runekek
MakerDao: https://makerdao.com
Announcement about investment from a16z: https://medium.com/makerdao/a16z-crypto-purchases-6-of-mkr-backing-stablecoin-vanguard-makerdao-ff410a692393
Rune's comments about why MakerDao wants to work with a16z and Kathryn Haun: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/comments/9ihwz0/big_news_az16z_buys_6_of_makerdao/e6jque0/
Critiques from Meltem Demirors about the process for deciding upon this investment: https://twitter.com/Melt_Dem/status/1044217806043181057
MakerDao being ready to move to multi-collateralized Dai: https://medium.com/makerdao/the-code-is-ready-2aee2aa62e73
A previous episode of Unchained with Rune: http://unchainedpodcast.co/why-its-so-hard-to-keep-stablecoins-stable
A previous episode of Unconfirmed with Katie Haun:
http://unconfirmed.libsyn.com/sxsw-episode-former-doj-prosecutor-kathryn-haun-on-what-the-sec-subpoenas-and-fincen-letter-likely-mean
A previous episode of Unchained with Katie Haun, when she was a federal prosecutor:
http://unchainedpodcast.co/federal-prosecutor-kathryn-haun-on-how-criminals-use-bitcoin-and-how-she-catches-them
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Laura Shin, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.