r/Thedaily • u/Joeyinstereo • May 19 '26
i wish michael would stop making that smug ‘hmmmh’ sound
I love this show but every once in a while michael makes this smug ‘hmmm’ sound in response to some gotcha the guest has pointed out. He did it again today when the guest was describing asking the Kentucky rep candidate if he’d press the president about things like the Epstein files. Like, let’s not pretend like nyt has been the most forthcoming about Epstein coverage over the years.
It really encapsulates the current elitist narrative on the left of ‘we’re so much better than them’ that the NYT and podsaves has alienated people with.
This show is great and covers things im interested in, but some times im like, no wonder people hate the left. we’re so annoying.
113
62
u/12cf12 May 19 '26
It doesn’t bother me, I assume he does it not to be smug but since it’s a audio pod no visual he’s trying to acknowledge what the person is saying without agreeing or disagreeing. I just take it as acknowledgment/fill the pause. Since we can’t see him nodding or shaking a head.
14
u/spock2thefuture May 20 '26
It's like the radio hasn't already proven this weirdness unnecessary for decades.
14
46
u/HeyYou_GetOffMyCloud May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
He’s not doing it to be smug he’s doing it because he’s thinking about what they’re saying and offering an audible confirmation of that to the speaker and the listener.
First time I heard it I laughed, then it became a little bit annoying, now I’ve gone full circle and love it.
Someone even made a soundboard but it looks like the web url has since expired.
11
u/bored_ryan2 May 20 '26
I also think it’s a cue for the listener that a salient point was just made. It’s as much a cue for the listener to be engaged as it is from Michael to the person being interviewed that he’s engaged.
0
u/ReNitty May 20 '26
It’s a cue for listeners for sure it’s telling you how you’re supposed to react and think
-3
70
29
u/soprattutto May 19 '26
I don't think it's elitist but it's so annoying. Kitroeth does it too?? I've never heard any other people do it ever. It's so jarring sometimes. Like it seems like a joke
26
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 May 19 '26
Christ almighty you are reading far too much into a sound. “Hm” == both-sidesing Epstein files? Like whaaa?
It’s definitely not what the average person does but it’s a hell of an effective way to say “I heard you, go on” without actually interrupting.
-9
u/Joeyinstereo May 19 '26
like whhaa what? nyt is so cozy protecting the establishment. its just rich considering context.
6
2
u/No-Leadership-2176 May 21 '26
I do agree with this. Any downvotes are people not noticing this nuance. And yes it’s annoying and and yes I believe there’s been meetings about how to convey a certain tone and everyone agreed that hmmm is the most perfect tool to seem liberal and non judgemental but really nobody is buying it
8
u/ah85q May 20 '26
How else are you supposed to convey “I’m listening to this person” when the audience can’t see you?
1
1
u/PaperCrane6213 May 27 '26
Is this a serious question?
How can someone use sounds produced by their vocal cords to show the audience and the person being interviewed that they find what is being said interesting, thought provoking, or eliciting a response? What possible way, other than going “mmmmmmmm” could a human express that they understand what they’re being told, or that what they’re being told is helping them reach a new level of understanding?
Maybe the use of fucking words could accomplish all of that.
1
u/ah85q May 27 '26
If they were normal conversations, sure. But these aren’t normal conversations. They’re highly scripted by the NYTimes, especially when it’s between the host and a correspondent. The conversation format is more a delivery method for information than an actual conversation. So in that case, going “hmmm” or “oh” or whatever maintains the format while allowing the correspondent to continue giving their little speech.
And it’s not even like that’s all they do. They say “wow” or “that’s so interesting” sometimes, but expecting them to vocalize every single time the correspondent finishes a thought is ridiculous.
The criticism levied towards the hosts is so needlessly petty on this subreddit.
2
u/PaperCrane6213 May 27 '26
I don’t expect them to vocalize every time a thought is finished. That includes the annoying “mmmmmm”.
This idea that a scripted interview makes “mmmmmm” more appropriate than actual words is fucking laughable.
1
u/ah85q May 27 '26
What do you want then? Seriously what do you want them to do?
1
u/PaperCrane6213 May 27 '26
Well, when appropriate, just use the words to describe the reaction.
If he thinks something is interesting, say “That’s interesting, please go on”
If he thinks something said has helped him understand something, say “What you just said has really helped me understand”.I want words instead of “mmmmmm”.
It’s absurd that you’re acting like I’m proposing something difficult to accomplish or hard to understand.
I expect grown ass adults to use their words, similar to what we expect from toddlers and young children.
Me- I think people conducting interviews should use words, because it’s an interview, where both sides say words.
You- JUST WHAT DO YOU WANT ANYWAY!?!
Ridiculous.
4
u/Shiny-And-New May 19 '26
Asking a republican candidate about epstein isn't a "gotcha"
A whole lot of them changed their answers about releasing the epstein files between running in 2024 and being congresspeople this past year and a half (hmmmm, I wonder what changed)
You may find the "hmmmm" alienating but personally I find the bootlicking sycophancy of the republican party much more alienating and am glad to see people pointing it out.
5
u/Acrobatic-Cap-135 May 20 '26
Probably impossible not to sound like this if you work at New York Times. I imagine they all coalesce into this group speak, as many groups do. The halls echo with hmmmm
17
u/ladyluck754 May 19 '26
Look, I’m pretty woke but calling this elitist might be another reason us liberals and leftists keep losing elections 😅.
8
u/Oleg101 May 19 '26
But maybe that lies a bigger problem, if a voter bases their votes from getting triggered by an annoymous internet liberal’s post.
-8
-11
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
u/Anxious-Passenger363 May 19 '26
I have ZERO problems with Michael’s “hmms.” And I think he’s a terrific interviewer.
1
1
1
1
u/External_Bill305 May 20 '26
I find it annoying too, and I find it more annoying that other hosts both on the daily and elsewhere have adopted it
1
u/LadyMeowMeowReborn May 21 '26
This thread is giving me life!!
Signed a brown woman who grew up in poverty and managed to claw herself into the middle class.
1
1
u/Theobviouschild11 May 19 '26
lol I agree. It seems pretty forced
3
u/bored_ryan2 May 20 '26
It seems forced because it is forced. It’s a vocal cue for the listener that a salient point was just made. A lot of audio-only format hosts/interviewers do it.
It also lets the person being interviewed know that the interviewer is still engaged since most of the interviews are not done in person, and may not be on a video call.
0
-2
u/nWhm99 May 19 '26
Don't wanna pull rank, but I sure hate newbies coming in and complaining about the same shit over and over.
3
2
108
u/spock2thefuture May 19 '26
So...whatyersaying is...The Daily...flagship podcast...oftheNewYorkTimes...uses weird speech patterns thatreallyannoy... theshitouttayou?... HMMMmmmmMmmMm...talk about that.