Hey Scott,

Since you, like me, are a longtime subscriber to the Observer and regular listener of Observer Radio, I want to know if you've noticed something that's really been bothering me over the past couple of years in particular. Doesn't it seem like Dave falls back on the "if you only knew the actual story behind this situation" crutch a lot more than he used to? I understand that there is a necessity of protecting your sources when you're a journalist, but it feels like, more often than not, Dave will say that and then never actually get into the backstory of whatever it was he was originally referencing — even when things have eventually played out. I still enjoy Dave's perspective and institutional knowledge, but WOR feels more like a review show than it used to. Wouldn't it be nice for Dave to actually break these stories that he claims to have insider knowledge about once in a while instead of waiting for everything to happen and then giving a half-assed tick-tock of how things went down? He has gotten worse about this lately, right? 

Oh yeah, for sure.  One of the main criticisms levied against the show, even by the F4W Board, is that Dave treats it like a barker advertisement for the newsletter a lot of the time, when in fact anyone listening to the show already subscribes to the newsletter.  Basically it should be an audio version of what we're already paying for.  Which actually it was during the couple of weeks when Dave broke his hand recently and it was just him and the amazing Garrett Gonzalez doing a news recap for an hour every day, which was then transcribed into the Observer for that week. That was a great week for the show.  That's why I prefer the Garrett shows to the Bryan ones, because Garrett asks follow-up questions and coaxes information out of Dave whereas Bryan lets him ramble and then moves onto the next point.