[DubiousPusher]

Bragg can be downright blunt when one of his guests is floating around some questiom he wants a concrete answer to. It's very helpful.

I'm so glad to see this here. Bragg has what appears to be the best job in the world to me.

[skywal_l]

It can also be annoying. Sometimes you want the guests to wander on interesting subjects.

'On our time' could benefit from being a podcast and not a radio show limited by time. They actually have, at the end of each podcasts, an additional chat session where Bragg asks the guests what they wanted to add to the conversation.

[ImaCake]

Sufficient space to say things cuts both ways. I see it all the time in scientific papers. Brevity forces you to say what you need without extra things, this can be efficent and even end up being very clear. But it is easy to screw up your explanation and lose the reader.

Conversely, having a lot of space means you can carefully introduce each idea leading towards the concept or story you wish to convey. But it is easy to waffle about things that are not actually important to the story and you lose the reader because they are confused about something they never even needed to know in order to get to the point.

I am glad In Our Time is restricted like this, because I find podcasts make it too easy to waffle and insert pointless sidelines that just distract from the story. Since podcasts way outnumber radio shows today, it's good to have a few things to counterbalance the mass of time-unlimited podcasts.