Explain It to Me

I really loved The Weeds, and the substantive policy conversation that used to take place on this channel. This is now at least the 3rd “Explain” themed podcast Vox puts out, at the expense of deeper more complex content. This pod is fine for background listening, but I’d like to see more variety in Vox’s offerings, especially for those of us who gravitate towards deeper, wonkier conversations.

First of all, I love any podcast with Jonquilyn Hill — she’s real, compassionate, and funny! I appreciate always hearing the warmth in her voice. Second, I love the work Vox does! And third, it’s just a fascinating show! Thank you for covering a wide variety of topics and doing so in an up-beat way!!

This podcast is one of my favorites to listen to on my way to and from the office. Jonquilyn does a great job of tackling tough questions without bias. She also adds just the right amount of humor to lighten things up. If you’re the type of person who likes to understand the “why” behind things, subscribe! Plus, it’s really fun to call in questions & get them answered. I truly look forward to every episode.

In general this isn’t the best Vox podcast, but it’s fine. The “interviews” feel more like tee-ball practice rather than critical dialogues aiming at getting to the heart of an issue or topic. For example: I’m a bit annoyed by the “Zoo” episode. Oddly there was no real discussion of the value of zoos for small children. Are zoos worthwhile for 20-something? As the guest argued, probably not. However, are they valuable for introducing children to conservation and animal advocacy? I’d argue that the guest evaded this question by noting that surveys of zoo-goers show no meaningful change in their attitudes toward conservation before and after their visit. Did a lot of 4 year olds fill out these surveys? Both the guest and the interviewer dismissed the value of having children see real animals and build empathy toward other creatures (not something they can really do by watching “nature documentaries” as the guest suggests). Unless I’m mistaken, this is the point of the listener Dave’s story about having a deeply meaningful interaction with another non-human primate at the zoo. This interaction helped him form a lifelong attitude toward animal welfare and advocacy. Of course this is a complicated issue, but the efforts to steelman the affirmative position were half-hearted and lazy at best, leading to a pretty unconvincing discussion of the topic. Anyhow, maybe the producers of this show should take some notes from the consistently excellent “Grey Area” or the erstwhile Ezra Klein show. That said, I’ll still subscribe and listen to all of the Vox content.

It feels like this show is losing its secret sauce. As others noted, I used to love this pod because it felt like there was a strong emphasis on nuance, complexity, and unexpected realizations. Basically I loved when the show really got into the nerdy, messy weeds and data, the stuff below the mainstream top line. Lately, the show has had a strong focus on inequality and systemic inequities. These are very important topics but it has felt like the discussion is demanding of more complexity and fewer easy answers. Maybe this content is revelatory to some, but to me I feel like the episodes have had a sort of no-duh quality (yes, racism is bad, pervasive, and systemic, you don’t need to convince me. I’m sold!). I think there’s a lot of value in talking about these topics, I just wish the discussion was more nuanced. Like the DEI episode, would have loved to hear host and guests talk about the research showing DEI trainings don’t work, what that means, is this research right, and what is path forward? Basically vox has a well read, liberal audience and folks who tune into the weeds expect complex content. It sometimes feels like there is a discussion over whether something is an issue. You don’t need to convince us inequity is an issue - we agree. Now let’s talk about the not so easy things, like what to do about it.

I’ve been listening to this show since it began. I’m about to stop. When it started it was very much in the weeds and had more of a focus on actual research and technical details and tended to give a more balanced view. It has lost most of that, most of it seemingly with the big Vox shake up a few years ago. I am a deeply progressive liberal. But I want to understand the facts underneath something and not just listen to something spouting from a left biased perspective, and it feels that that’s where this has gone. I know what my viewpoint is – but I want to understand technical details to understand if I should adjust it, not just listen to confirmation bias