“Throughline”, hosted by Rund Abdelfatah and Ramtin Arablouei, is a podcast that tells stories of the past to illuminate parts of our world today. The most recent episode focuses on the electoral college – how it came to be, and how it affects our voting process today. It tells the story of the Constitutional Convention, and the compromises that the founders took to create the imperfect document that the Constitution is. The hosts discuss the early failures of the electoral college, mainly the election of 1800, in which a federalist House of Representatives ended up choosing between two Democratic-Republican presidential candidates. After this, the 12th Amendment was issued, which required the president and vice-president to be voted for separately. The hosts also discuss more modern effects of the electoral college, such as the multiple recent elections in which the popular vote winner lost the electoral college, as well as the attempts to abolish it and the potential resulting effects.
“Throughline” is a nonfiction podcast that focuses on conveying information through stories. However, the historical stories that it tells are not the type that most people would dive into for fun. The team behind the podcast implements various techniques to tell these stories in a manner that is both digestible and enjoyable to the public.
One of the foremost narrative techniques used in “Throughline” is the modern, non-technical language used by the hosts that is in sharp contrast to the dry, textbook-manner in which history is usually conveyed. Most of the time, the hosts speak in a clear-cut and conversational vernacular, as in “They all had different interests, yet they all had a stake in the success of the union. So it wasn’t going to be easy to agree on anything, especially on how to elect the country’s chief executive or president.” This style of narration makes it easy to follow the story and makes the listener feel as though it’s more of a casual conversation than a formal presentation. Even the experts who offer deeper insight into the stories stay away from formal and technical language. Occasionally, the hosts throw in some slang, such as this section referring to George Washington’s doubts about the success of the Constitutional Convention: “Even he was unsure the damn thing was going to work. That was the vibe.” The use of such slang helps foster a very casual *vibe*, which makes the content easier to listen to.
The main breaks from the modern language in the podcast are through direct historical quotations and recordings. For example, one extremely dense quote by Alexander Hamilton begins, “It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation…” Direct quotes are always read by voice actors rather than the hosts, which separates them from the rest of the show. The main role that the quotes serve is to make the story feel more immersive, as if the listener is closer to being in the room. However, they are always summarized in common language afterwards by the hosts, so that the listener isn’t forced to decipher the formal and dated language of the past in real-time.
Along with the narrative style and tone, other features such as background music at dramatic moments, expert testimonials, pauses to show jumps in historical eras, and applications of the stories to the present world make “Throughline” a well-made and entertaining podcast to listen to. It has an ideal combination of information density, drama, and real-world connections, and I’m looking forward to discussing some of these other aspects as I follow it through future episodes.
Word count: 610 words
Hi Kavel, I was drawn to reading about the podcast you chose, when I saw the title, “Electoral College.” With the presidential election approaching all across the United States, it seems that many different podcasts are incorporating topics around the election in their recent podcast episodes. In the podcast I am listening to, “This American Life,” I noticed that the most recent episode, released on Sunday–“The Moment After This Moment”–includes a section where a producer interviews voters in Florida. Also, the podcast episode that I analyzed for this assignment was about beach stories, and was released at the end of summer, a time when many people like to go to the beach. I find that matching the subject of the podcast to current events is a very effective way to draw interest to the episode, and this technique seems to be used well in the podcasts we each analyzed. I liked how you talked about the effect of the modern language on the way that the listeners understand and engage with the narrative. From the quotes that you mentioned, it seems that the narrators create a casual and fun atmosphere. However, you also mention that the topics discussed in the episode may not be topics that would normally be considered to be fun or casual. So, I think it is really interesting to see how the producers of this podcast take potentially serious, complicated or boring topics and engage the listeners so that they both understand the content and have the desire to continue listening to each episode. Overall, I thought that the podcast you chose was quite intriguing and it seems that there are many techniques that the producers use to engage readers in the material. I think that when I make my own podcast I will also want to think about how to create the atmosphere I want, with the language I use, the way I incorporate possible quotes from other sources, as well as with the music and sound effects which you also briefly mentioned towards the end of your analysis.
Word Count: 346
Hey Kavel, I enjoyed reading this post, especially because none of the podcasts I’ve listened to have been informative in the sense “Throughline” was. It’s interesting to hear the techniques the hosts used to make political science and antiquated language more accessible.
One narrative technique you mention is that the hosts speak casually, avoiding overly-technical language so they don’t alienate viewers. From a learning perspective, the choice helps readers understand complex political ideas in layman’s terms, improving how much knowledge they can take away from the episode. But it’s also fun to think about this choice from a business perspective: how can I get the most people to watch this podcast, and keep watching it for the longest? Well, a lecture isn’t going to hold anyone’s attention for long. Speaking conversationally, using slang, making difficult topics seem simple—this will hold someone’s attention. This will entertain the viewer and make them feel smart, and so they stay for more.
Speaking casually in itself has such an engrossing effect on listeners. One reason I enjoyed Serial so much more than Criminal was, confusingly, because I just like Koenig’s voice. She’s fun to listen to, and the teenagers she interviews are fun as well, so I found myself captivated by the stories they told. It’s cool to hear the hosts of Thoroughline utilized the same technique in their podcast, even if it could make them seem less “intellectual.”
You mention later that the hosts used historical quotes to supplement their narration, which works to add variety to the podcast. And probably credibility too. Listening to the same two voices for an hour gets boring, as I’ve learned from my own choice of podcast, S-Town. As a listener, I’d appreciate the occasional voice actor to break things up. Moving on from the quote, though, explaining its meaning afterwards a crucially important choice the hosts made. When listening to podcasts, thoughts can get pretty volatile so it helps to have the host recap what’s going on—especially if it’s convoluted 17th century political English. Seems like the hosts did a good job keeping viewers on the same page.
I’ve never considered subscribing to podcasts as a source of information but after reading your post, I think I might have a listen. I’m curious to hear what the hosts will sound like.
(386)
Hello Kavel,
This sounds like a really cool podcast! The electoral college is quite a timely topic. It’s really important that information about voting and the American system of government be spread in an easily-digestible way and a variety of mediums. I think it’s especially important that podcasts, more than other forms of media like articles or television, use plain and comprehensible language, because it’s so easy to get distracted from them and harder to skip backwards when you lose the thread than if you were reading text. I think this will be a good technique for when we make our own podcasts, too–it can be easy to get bogged down in complex terminology when discussing literature, but we should prefer being clear over using the precise specialized literary words for everything. And particularly since the electoral college is something a lot of people are intimidated by, with its reputation for being complicated and confusing, I see how a conversational tone (and even use of slang like “vibe”) would help make people want to keep listening and feel like understanding the concepts was something they could do. I love the idea of including quotes from people like Hamilton in their original language but summarizing them afterwards.
The podcast I listened to, This American Life, did use multiple narrators, but none of them were voice actors like the ones you mentioned in Throughline. Voice actors don’t necessarily fit This American Life’s style, being more interested in hearing people’s honest, unpolished stories, but I would consider changing my voice when reading Sherlock quotes for our podcasts. This American Life also seemed to focus less on phrasing and wording, perhaps because its basis is interviews, and lean more on the musical aspect than Throughline does.
(292 words)