Attribution is real meaningful, but even OP is discontent for reasons other than lack of attribution. Missing attribution ruins even my day, and this website is the spiritual descendant of “Carol’s Abyssinian Cat Homepage”, not nine years of research. Cite your damn sources.

So let’s narrow the scope to what opinions might actually differ on, and consider how we should think about podcasts that are transparent about their sourcing, and the extent (or lack) of their original research.

I listen to Maintenance Phase even when I’m pretty confident I’m not going to hear any reporting that’s new to me on a topic. Now, they do a cool amount of original reporting where they dig up unique angles, like with their protein episode, but the real reason I listen is because their chattery dynamic and chemistry between hosts is fantastic. It’s not like learning about a topic, it’s like learning about a topic and riffing on it with your friends. Even if they were presenting info from a single source, it just wouldn’t be the same thing as that source, which is probably reflected by all the people who’d prefer a just-the-facts-ma’am style.

But… but. I’ve long been uncomfortable with reaction videos on YouTube, how they present a low-effort way to scrape monetization away from an original work. It seems like IP law is firmly on the side of the reactors, but that doesn’t make it not slimy. Is this the same as that?

Should we think about it differently when something that supposedly isn’t entertainment is being turned into something that supposedly is?