Yeah, I wouldn't want that, either.

Another pet peeve, which sometimes comes up in text as well, is padding to make the material look like it has more substance than it really does. This often involves explaining the obvious for a long period of time before getting to the five minutes or so of actionable advice. I could see that if the intended audience is total newbs, but in that case, the presentation should be labeled that way.

I'd take--and I've given when I experimented with video--a little background if it's relevant to the subject. In other words, I want to know a person who is discussing technical matters has the expertise to understand them. But yeah, if that runs very long, I too would give up.

I'm still an article kind of guy for nonfiction. That's partly because of the points that PDD just made. But it's also just in general because it's faster. If the purpose is getting information, I can read faster than I can listen. I can also skim to relevant parts if it's an article that touches on many subjects. I developed this pattern while I was teaching and needed to assimilate information quickly to make enough room for things like planning and essay grading. My situation is less stressful now, but since I also work more slowly and can't concentrate for as long periods, the need to process information quickly is still there. I get frustrated with things that are only available in audio or video. Give me the transcript every time! (It's also faster to search text than audio if I need to find a specific thing.)

For the same reason, I prefer text to audiobooks. I can see their utility for something like a long commute, or for long tasks that can be performed via habit and/or muscle memory. (One of my friends listens to audiobooks while cooking. She needs free hands but not a free mind for it.)

Am I a regular podcast listener? No, not at all.

I don't care for most podcasts because I want to skim, which is easier with a book (at least for me).

So many podcasts just...wander?  I'm sure there are some great ones out there, but I sat through an hour of "meh" to get to the titled subject, which was underwhelmingly presented.  I could have skimmed and seen that in five minutes. Just saying. 

In a good and entertaining way, podcasts rely on sensationalism and cherry-picking the juicy info.

I disagree.  It's very difficult to sit and bullsh*t a podcaster to his face for three hours straight without tripping yourself up at some point.  For a few minutes, sure, but three hours is a Herculean challenge.  We also have the advantage, when the podcast is in video form, of reading facial expressions and body language to gauge credibility.  Furthermore, the comment sections at those sites allow the viewers to immediately discuss any lies or contradictions, so debunking happens essentially immediately.  Long-form podcasts are one of the better vehicles we have for quickly sussing out the poseurs and charlatans.

The "sensationalism and cherry-picking" you mention is what legacy media do.  It's the stuff of newspapers and television, not unedited long-form podcasts.  I'm old enough to remember stuff like this (which was only debunked because GM had deep pockets and a whistleblower and was able to gather forensic evidence from junkyards; most media lies go unchallenged due to the expense and lack of whistleblowers and available forensic evidence). 

Non-fiction books are extremely valuable and irreplaceable, but that's only the case if they're factual and written in good faith.  An awful lot of "non-fiction" is in fact nothing but convincingly-told lies--I mean, for almost any polemic, you can find another book taking the opposite position, and they obviously can't both be true--and the format doesn't lend itself to immediate pushback like podcasts do, and that's a weakness of the format.

No, I think podcasts are a superior format for disseminating information, and I think they're here to stay until the government decides to censor--I mean, "regulate"--them in order to protect their corporate, NGO, and foreign friends and prevent their own dirty laundry from being aired.

I still love reading non-fiction books, by the way.  For example, The Mutiny on the Bounty and The Ballad of the Whiskey Robber are highly entertaining and utterly fascinating, and I'll recommend them to anyone.  I learned to play the banjo from reading how-to books.  I gave three family members non-fiction books--two how-to books, one sports-related motivational book--for Christmas just a few days ago.  And I've read plenty of more scholarly things, too, in the fields of politics and philosophy and history and economics.  I obviously value that stuff.  I simply recognize the format's limitations, that's all.