Slow Burn - Podcast Rankings and reviews

I was 20 when Anita Hill testified at Thomas’ confirmation hearings. I remember being outraged that they didn’t believe her but was too young, too inexperienced in the world to really take on the full emotional load of what happened. I am now staring down the barrel of 52 and have practiced as a white, female lawyer since 1997 and experienced my own versions of sexism and sex harassment in the profession even when working amongst fellow liberals and in the court system. I’m only 51 but remember being told not to wear pants to Federal court appearances or I would lose. Never mind the overt harassment I experienced every time I appeared in state court (in ‘liberal’ New York, now less) and at the hands of colleagues and coworkers. And I had white privileged that provided a measure of bubble wrap to my experiences that women of color did/so not.

The humanity you imparted to Professor Hill while laying bare her trauma - no less stunning and painful than that of Christine Blasey-Ford - could not have been in easy tightrope to walk but you did so beautifully. I also so appreciate your vulnerability in conveying your experience as a Black man against the dissonance of Thomas’ evisceration of case law that protected Black and brown students, voters, and others. I have loved all seasons of Slow Burn but this one will stay with me for a very long time. Thank you so much.

I’ve gone through all 6 seasons and this is such an informative, easy to listen to podcast. You really become immersed in each story and come out educated at the end.

I used to really enjoy this podcast. Now it seems to lack discipline to tell the story in a concise manner. Too many voices are brought in to talk about tangents that don’t support what is supposed to be the storyline. Needs a fresh look at editing.

I am old enough to have lived through all of this history, and yet hearing it told through the people working at Fox in its early days is blowing my mind. At first, I was worried that thinking about politics during the election would stress me out, but I’m finding it’s just…explaining a lot. Anyway, it’s riveting.

I listened to 4 hours of content only to find out that I’d have to pay to get the last two episodes. You really need to tell people upfront before they waste their time. Not to mention it’s just sneaky and wrong. You won’t find me giving Slate another chance. I’ve wasted enough of my time already. Shame on you, Slate.

As an avid consumer of the news media (all networks) I was curious about how the Fox News story would be presented. Sadly it’s not the unbiased bio it pretends to be but actually a hit piece against Fox masquerading as a bio.

Here’s just one example: in the first episode the host makes several mentions about how there’s a distinction between the daytime news reporting and the evening opinion shows, but later recounts the story of how Sean Hannity (evening opinion host) quips to a colleague on election night that “…our guy might win this” while referring to George W Bush. The inference made by the podcast host is that this is evidence of a bias at the network across the board (favoring republicans), even though he’d already established that opinion hosts are disconnected from the news bureau.

There are many more examples of the same type of shady, biased storytelling.

If you’re just looking for confirmation bias and already don’t like Fox News, you’ll love this. But if you’re looking for an honest recounting of the early days at Fox…this ain’t it.