Today, Explained - Podcast Rankings and reviews

Sean and the crew are phenomenal at finding the right pitch and tune (they often use tunes and snippets to accentuate the information being shared) to deliver their brand of explanatory journalism. I also truly am thankful for Sean or the guest hosts' ability to humanize the topics and be as serious as the story calls for. For this former journalist and current educator, this is the type of podcast that I wish everyone would listen to.

“Today, Explained” is an exceptional podcast that stands out for its engaging storytelling and in-depth analysis of current events. Each episode dives deep into a single topic, providing listeners with a comprehensive understanding of complex issues. The hosts are not only knowledgeable but also possess a remarkable ability to present information in a clear and captivating manner. What truly sets “Today, Explained” apart is its commitment to unbiased reporting and diverse perspectives, ensuring that every story is told with integrity and balance. The production quality is top-notch, with crisp audio and well-crafted narratives that make each episode a pleasure to listen to. Whether you’re a news junkie or just looking to stay informed, “Today, Explained” is a must-listen that consistently delivers insightful and thought-provoking content.

This podcast perfectly breaks down daily news stories with the context and personality Vox is known for. Shawn and Noel are lovely hosts who ask the questions I wanted to know but was embarrassed to ask and always bring warmth and empathy to their storytelling. Shoutout too to Breakmaster Cylinder for the amazing sound mixing and fun audio easter eggs. This is one of my absolute favorite podcasts!

Normally I love Vox, but the recent episode of Today Explained about climate change and COP26 really left a bad taste in my mouth. It was incompletely-researched, one-sided, and extremely misleading.

First: if you are going to call an episode “the case for climate reparations,” then it should be about reparations. I was excited to hear an episode about the need for wealth countries to provide direct payments to low-emitting and low-lying nations already dealing with the impacts of sea level rise, increased storms, or desertification. I also wanted to hear about reparations to fenceline communities in the US - communities of color that have been overburdened with fossil fuel pollution and have extraordinary asthma and cancer rates. And coal mining communities that helped build this country but who’s health and wealth was stolen by massive fossil fuel corporations. And landback to indigenous communities who have been pushed to marginal land and will be hardest hit by water shortages and extreme heat.

Instead, this episode was about carbon capture. Considering wealthy nations’ hypothetical future promises to capture carbon as a type of reparations is ludicrous. First of all, it is not reparations. Impacts of climate change that are already devastating low-lying nations, fenceline communities, those pushed to marginal land, or those without resources to respond to natural disasters and water shortages are already suffering. Carbon capture in 2050 cannot undo this current suffering, nor the loss of coastal communities and agricultural regimes that will already be lost.

The idea that carbon capture over the next 100 years can reduce atmospheric co2 and therefore “reverse” global warming fails to consider basic climate science and ecology. Climate change is not a linear process. As we continue burning fossil fuels today, we’re setting off climatic “tipping points” that set off feedback loops and lock in further warmer. For example, once glaciers melt and forests are replaced with desert — this is not reversible simply by sucking co2 out of the atmosphere. Without cutting emissions immediately, these devastating impacts will be locked in, regardless of (unproven) future technologies. Banking on carbon capture as a future panacea only lets us off the hook for cutting emissions more quickly today, which is the only really solution. This message is incredibly misleading and irresponsible.

Finally, it’s irresponsible to report on carbon capture without considering the political dynamics. Banking on carbon capture allows fossil fuel polluters to maintain the status quo for as long as possible, continuing to dump co2 into the atmosphere, AND to keep the same bad actors in power as the companies that profit off of this transition. Frontline activists including indigenous and environmental justice organizers are strongly opposed to carbon capture as a false solution. These same activists have raised the alarm about natural gas as a bridge fuel and carbon markets — and they’ve been right every time. People are suffering, and fighting for their communities. These people deserve real reparations. They are decrying carbon capture as a false solution. To call carbon capture “reparations” is an insult.

Someone unfamiliar with climate science, ecology, or clean energy would leave your episode thinking we’ve got it climate change control because of the “relatively cost-effective” promise of removing carbon 50 years from now. That is simply wrong, because of basic ecology AND politics. This episode felt incompletely researched, biased, and insensitive to the real suffering climate change is causing on communities who did not cause this problem — and it completely failed to discuss reparations in any meaningful way, even when that was the title. To the contrary, this episode didn’t even consider the viewpoints of communities reparations should be owed to.

I’m a big fan of Vox and I know you can do better. On climate change, the most urgent existential issue of our generation, you need to do better. I’d recommend checking out reporting by Mary Westervelt, Emily Atkin, Leah Stokes, Mary Anaise Heglar, and your own Dave Roberts. Thanks.

The background music is way too loud. Balancing needs to be much better. I have to turn off about half of the episodes I try to listen to because the background music is drowning out the actual episode content. As someone who is hearing impaired this is deeply frustrating. Would update rating to 5 stars if sound balancing was better.

I used to enjoy this podcast and listen every day but the latest episode (“New variant just dropped” with Keren Landman) is so bad I can finally liberate myself and unsubscribe. It’s wild that this supposed epidemiologist is actively encouraging people to stop isolating after an infection and potentially spread covid to people: “Day 5, I’m feeling fine, I’m probably not shedding virus anymore. You can go out. You can and you should go out.” Friendly reminder: The CDC says you should wear a mask if you are around others through day 10 of your infection. You do not know who around you is high risk and you could lead to someone’s severe illness or death! Super irresponsible podcast episode, really confused what the goal was here.