You don't have to convince me Greg. I love what you're doing and everyone just like you. Its about these Deans and granting agencies and other academia-internal review agencies. If they can be on board with the value of reviewers outside of academia, all the better. I'll add you to my list.

Sorry Karl, I must not have read the original comment correctly. For soundtracking purposes, all music must be licensed or freely distributed without further license. For music you talk about educationally or critically, as in the mashups episode, the music falls under fair use.

Good to hear from you Sam. Sometimes both of the things you mentioned, sometimes others. I'm not trying to say that there is something special about philosophy here. These are questions journalists face all the time, its just that philosophers aren't journalists nor is our work journalistic. Its the nature of our work to offer a thesis or analysis, sometimes a refutation. Example: if I did an episode on atheism, and I sought out somebody and recorded them telling their story about some profound religious experience they had and put it on my show, I'd feel I'd have to be really careful about how I approached it. If I had evidence and arguments about why such experiences are not veridical or what not, I could frame it as a take-down of religious experience of this kind. Maybe that's fair game, but I found it a more difficult decision than just sitting down and writing some paper for a journal. I'm not even sure if its about what subjects themselves do or do not like. Maybe they're strong people and don't give a crap. I do think your second solution is correct.