While they are making an annoying mistake here, I want to stress that you are also making a mistake here, which is assuming that they are talking about the objective view of the story when in reality they are not. (They don't know this, but you do.)
Now, not every scene has a hero and a villain. (That's kind of dumb.) But you can see that scenes with conflict and stakes and whatnot can loosely breakdown this way, and once you see that, maybe you can actually get advice from these podcasts about storytelling if nothing else.
I'm stressing this idea of giving people a break in this thread, because I recently looked at something I heard from a story guru and:
• It was so easily disprovable that it is almost unbelievable that this person believes and teaches it; and yet,
• Despite that, once it was married with Dramatica it actually became something workable. Without understanding the difference between MC/IC/Prot/Antag the whole idea could be so misleading, but you know these things, so you can take ideas further. Not only that, but studying it actually helped me understand Dramatica better.
This bothers me so much. But, truth be told, this happens everywhere. My wife was once asked to edit a paper for a top business school professor, and she went back to him and said, "You never back up your assertion that small businesses create jobs" and he shrugged it off and said, "I can't back it up, but it has to be true, or my paper has no value."
This is the point I'm trying to get at here, said better. Shawn drives me crazy with his analyses of the "Love Story" in "Kramer vs Kramer", but I think he's developed his skills through so much experience that he's probably right about things. That said, he also talks about "creating new genres" and I can't stand the idea of working in a theoretical framework that is always capable of expanding, plus... does he ever define what a genre is? He probably does, but I haven't heard it. (Which podcast are you in? I have only listed to a few.)