Wow! Listening to these people trying to justify having a discussion about Jeopardy is downright painful. I think you should stick to the topics you are most comfortable discussing.
And I am confident none of you would qualify to be a contestant. Since you searched for a way to demean Jeopardy followers, I might add that this is the only time I have listened to any portion of Sonny's Bulwark podcast.
As a longtime Jeopardy fan, describing this podcast as "disappointing" is a real understatement.
Within the first few minutes each of the cohosts divulges that he or she knows nothing or little about nor cares about nor can even understand why people care about Jeopardy or its host. So the immediate question is why they chose to "discuss" the topic in the first place. The answer to that question is never disclosed.
So I would like to politely suggest that perhaps choosing to discuss topics that you care and know about might make for a potentially interesting show.
Appreciate the feedback. I'll be honest: We are not huge Jeopardy fans! (I like the show but don't really have time to watch with two young kids.) What's interesting to us is less how the guest hosts perform on Jeopardy as what the overall controversy reveals about a.) corporate standards and b.) the general bubbling undercurrent of perpetual outrage.
Thanks for your courteous response, and my apologies for probably being a bit too snitty in my comments. I agree with you regarding the corporate standards matter, as well as the comments about Ms. Bialik's past stance on vaccines being problematic. Even though Ms. Bialik was one of my personal top three preferences for replacing Mr. Trebek, I believe that Ms. Rosenberg made a valid point.
I also thought that Mr. Suderman's reference to the hosting of Jeopardy to "a cue card reader" was demeaning, though it did square with his early confession of not understanding the appeal of the show. That obvious lack of understanding was also apparent in his suggestion that people were "demanding that Aaron Rodgers give up his multi-million NFL paycheck" to take the job. Mr. Rodgers, and other guest hosts, were actively seeking the job with the understanding that they would need to leave existing jobs.
Again, thank you for your polite response. I am a devoted and appreciative Bulwark member.
No worries, glad to have you on board! And I get it: people are very protective of Jeopardy, and for good reason.
For what it's worth, I don't think Rodgers or Anderson Cooper or most of the other guests were ever really in the running; they seemed mostly to be doing it for fun. I do think there's a larger question about what we really *expect* from people. Very few of us would survive serious scrutiny of every utterance, every partnership. (Even Ken Jennings has come under fire in this regard.) I dunno, it's an interesting question.
Wow! Listening to these people trying to justify having a discussion about Jeopardy is downright painful. I think you should stick to the topics you are most comfortable discussing.
And I am confident none of you would qualify to be a contestant. Since you searched for a way to demean Jeopardy followers, I might add that this is the only time I have listened to any portion of Sonny's Bulwark podcast.
Bulwark subscriber,
Sharon Pugh
Hopefully you’ll give us another shot!
As a longtime Jeopardy fan, describing this podcast as "disappointing" is a real understatement.
Within the first few minutes each of the cohosts divulges that he or she knows nothing or little about nor cares about nor can even understand why people care about Jeopardy or its host. So the immediate question is why they chose to "discuss" the topic in the first place. The answer to that question is never disclosed.
So I would like to politely suggest that perhaps choosing to discuss topics that you care and know about might make for a potentially interesting show.
Appreciate the feedback. I'll be honest: We are not huge Jeopardy fans! (I like the show but don't really have time to watch with two young kids.) What's interesting to us is less how the guest hosts perform on Jeopardy as what the overall controversy reveals about a.) corporate standards and b.) the general bubbling undercurrent of perpetual outrage.
Thanks for your courteous response, and my apologies for probably being a bit too snitty in my comments. I agree with you regarding the corporate standards matter, as well as the comments about Ms. Bialik's past stance on vaccines being problematic. Even though Ms. Bialik was one of my personal top three preferences for replacing Mr. Trebek, I believe that Ms. Rosenberg made a valid point.
I also thought that Mr. Suderman's reference to the hosting of Jeopardy to "a cue card reader" was demeaning, though it did square with his early confession of not understanding the appeal of the show. That obvious lack of understanding was also apparent in his suggestion that people were "demanding that Aaron Rodgers give up his multi-million NFL paycheck" to take the job. Mr. Rodgers, and other guest hosts, were actively seeking the job with the understanding that they would need to leave existing jobs.
Again, thank you for your polite response. I am a devoted and appreciative Bulwark member.
No worries, glad to have you on board! And I get it: people are very protective of Jeopardy, and for good reason.
For what it's worth, I don't think Rodgers or Anderson Cooper or most of the other guests were ever really in the running; they seemed mostly to be doing it for fun. I do think there's a larger question about what we really *expect* from people. Very few of us would survive serious scrutiny of every utterance, every partnership. (Even Ken Jennings has come under fire in this regard.) I dunno, it's an interesting question.
Terrible.