If the mythical they (the editors of the podcast) existed, they might gesture vaguely towards an implied substantial pile of drivel that has been removed from any given podcast recording.
They might indicate that all potential drivel is graded on a complex scale which takes many factors into account including, but not limited to:
- Was removal of said drivel specifically requested.
- Who will be embarrassed by said drivel1.
- How long said drivel drivels on for.
- How much context does said drivel provide for other sections of the podcast (both so called real and other potential drivel).
- How much of the podcast would actually remain if said drivel and, optionally, related segments were removed.
- How interesting is said drivel.
- How funny is said drivel.
- How dry the so called real content of the episode in question might be if said drivel was removed.
- Did the recording of the episode in question accidentally end in a premature fashion requiring major reconstructive surgery, a subtle re-write of history, and an outlandish conspiracy theory designed to obscure the truth.
- What mood the mythical they (the editors of the podcast) are in.
They (the editors of the podcast) might point out that they strive to strike a healthy balance between interest and entertainment, between information and amusement, between so called real content and drivel. Removing as much as is arbitrarily deemed necessary to achieve this balance, while erring toward removing as little so called real material as possible.
Ultimately, they (the editors of the podcast) would remind you that they (the editors of the podcast) can only work with the material they are provided.2
However, since they (the editors of the podcast) do not exist, what you hear must be exactly how the team sounds when they huddle around a single laptop in a noisy office and talk for approximately 58 minutes and 21.03 seconds about whatever drivel is in their heads at that time.
1See Grading Scale 2b: How to determine if this host has said nice things about the mythical they (the editors of the podcast) recently, and Formulae JF which attempts to determine the likelihood of Joel firing someone because of said drivel (or it's removal) and how likely that is to be an audio editor.
2Or can they?
(Too much drivel; didn't read):
As the editor of the podcast I consider it my job to keep what's relevant
and remove what's boring
, while maintaining and polishing the flow and continuity of a dynamic conversation. Hopefully to the point where it seems as though I didn't have to touch the recording in the first place.
Outside of specific segments which are occasionally marked for removal, editing is generally left to my judgement and I am not given a specific goal of taking the final content in any particular direction. Although, obviously, the initial conversation dictates how much of any given type of material is available for the episode.
Also, as someone who isn't deeply involved in the site, I tend to listen to the podcast for comedic value; this may have helped to shape the symbiotic relationship.