A Note to Podcast Hosts Who Deep-Six Interviews

Photo by Matt Botsford on Unsplash

I’ve been generous with my time in recent months, sitting for podcast interviews where hosts seemed genuinely interested in the ideas I’ve been developing. Substantive conversations about democracy, oligarchy, the epistemic crisis we’re facing. Good faith exchanges, or so I thought.

Then silence. No follow-up. No publication. No explanation.

I understand editorial decisions. I understand when interviews don’t work out, when technical issues arise, when content doesn’t fit the direction a show is taking. These things happen. What I don’t understand is the courtesy vacuum that follows.

A simple email would suffice: “Thanks for your time, but we’ve decided not to move forward with publication.” Basic professional courtesy. The kind of respect you’d show someone who carved out hours from their schedule to engage seriously with your questions.

Instead: nothing. Radio silence. As if the conversation never happened.

This isn’t just rude—though it is that. It suggests something more concerning about how intellectual discourse operates in our current environment. When substantive analysis becomes uncomfortable to publish, when documented patterns threaten comfortable narratives, when moral clarity about oligarchic capture makes hosts nervous about their own positions within captured systems.

I’m not naming names. I’m not burning bridges. I’m simply noting a pattern that reveals something about the intellectual climate we’re operating in.

From now on, I’ll be requesting copies of recordings before agreeing to interviews. Not because I distrust people’s intentions—though perhaps I should—but because when someone invests time in good-faith conversation, they deserve the courtesy of explanation if that conversation doesn’t see light of day.

And if explanation isn’t forthcoming, they deserve the option to let people hear what was said anyway.

This is a courtesy notice, not a threat. I value intellectual discourse too much to let it be hijacked by people who commission conversations they’re not prepared to publish.

If you invite someone to speak, have the decency to tell them why you chose not to let anyone hear what they said. If you can’t extend that courtesy, don’t waste their time in the first place.

The ideas stand on their own merit. They don’t need protection from uncomfortable questions or challenging conversations. But they do deserve to be heard by people willing to engage with them seriously—not disappeared because they make hosts uncomfortable about their own positions within systems of power.

Consider this a gentle reminder that intellectual integrity includes basic professional courtesy. And that when courtesy fails, other options remain available.

The conversation continues. With or without you.

If you’re one of them reading this: consider the fact I’m not submitting you to a public airing of this grievance that I have with you, a further extension of my—albeit strained—generosity.