Dedicating 50% of your income to a mortgage is insane advice.

Is anyone else confused why “Today Explained” and “Explain It to Me” posted the same episode today?

Such a good show with a podcasteress who is easy to listen to, well informed and a great interviewer. I first heard her on Through the Crackd (GREAT podcast about a missing DC child), and was so excited to hear her on Vox. Good journalism that is much needed today!

I want to love the content of this show. There’s good information. And at some point the content does continue for a good block. But there are sections where you can’t go 10 seconds without hearing back to back, redundant sound bites. They are whacky and lengthy and feels like a cheap game show. Vox tends to take themselves seriously in their information so it feels dumbed down, or rather I feel like they are trying to dumb down to meet me. Going to talk about insomnia? Great! What’s the point in an immediate sound bite saying “All in your head man, it’s always in your head” followed by 3 seconds of zombie by the cranberries. It feels like the podcast equivalent of adding subway surfers to a tiktok video.

I just had to unfollow this podcast after the ethics of flying episode. Try finding guests who can get through a sentence without saying “like” twice. By the end of the episode, it had rubbed off on the host. My 13 year old daughter is more eloquent. I expected more from Vox.

Someone just posted that J.Hill over enunciates, I have listen to her on other podcasts. She sounds amazing. I love all of her podcasts. She brings a relaxed energy to things That could be boring. She is a great host. An amazing orator. I want to hear her host more podcast. Her voice and speech was made for radio/podcasts. God Bless!

jonquilyn hill, you do not need to over enunciate every hard syllable. Vox, please train your hosts to not sound irritating. It’s distracting from the good content.

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.

Incredible how stark the contrast between EITM and its previous hosting lineup. Even down to the the structure, the ‘Bite Sized’ episode frontloads 7 full minutes of ads and hosts introducing each other before the episode. The content isn’t any more depth or perspective either, it listens like Wikipedia on easy english mode. No rapport between hosts and guests; it sounds more like a company memo than a show for an audience looking to learn and connect with the host’s interests.

I gave this a try from Sean Illing’s podcast. These kids are adorable, but hard to take them seriously.

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.

I’ve enjoyed the show format and topics thus far. Looking forward to how a new president potentially impacts some of the show’s topics

Not a fan of being told to leave a five star review if the content doesn’t meet that standard. Also don’t enjoy being told that it’s the listeners fault/responsibility for the topics covered.

If you enjoy a person using the word like ad nauseam, this is the podcast for you. Topics are not interesting enough to keep me subscribed.

I really liked the weeds and while I miss it, I liked the *idea of this show. I will hold off on a final opinion for a few more weeks but I’m just not into the questions that have been posed so far. The idea was so interesting, but I feel like it hasn’t quite lived up to it’s potential yet. I will say that I like the format and I like the host. Just hoping for better topics. Weeds was a 10/10 show. So far explain it to me is a 4/10. Hope to see it hit it’s stride soon.

how are you going to get someone like vivian tu on your platform and treat it like salient advice. 'wealthfluencers' are NOT authorities on financial fluency and especially not one that so so so badly wants to be one of the 'wealthy elites' she portrays.

Has such promise. The ads take up way too much time of the show. I'm not sure I would pay for this though. Host talks too much and there is not enough meat.

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.

the use of “like” injected into our vocabulary came from the girl movies & shows of the 80’s ( valley girls)

The Weeds was a great show. Matt, Sarah, Ezra, Jane, were all great. Since then it’s been downhill and now it’s hit bottom. No longer worth listening.

This podcast used to be good, it was my go to and had great conversation with every topic. This new host is painful to listen to and not even a summer break or complete change to the podcast can save it with this host.

Edit: Apparently, the response to falling reviews is to keep the unpopular host and ditch the actual show. Keep the element that is driving away your listeners and get rid of the thing that brought us all here to start with. What a terrible idea. The Weeds used to be a great podcast for getting into the fine detail complex policy issues. Since the change in hosting, it’s just another hour of random people talking about social issues, and in a decidedly dumbed-down way compared to the tone of the old show. While those are important conversations, that’s not what this show was supposed to be, and other podcasts do it far better. I’m out.

After listening to this I am wondering who the target audience is? People who are just idiots? People who are so blinded by their views that they don’t comprehend basic economics? The ‘expert’ on this episode showed zero understanding of basic economics, how businesses work, employee/independent contractor. She was either clueless, or chose to ignore basic things important to the conversation in order to push her ‘workers are getting screwed’ agenda. I feel a lot dumber after listening to this.

I don't know about this one... it took a really long time to meander to the notion of calling the restaurant for pick up and then another 40 minutes to avoid shaming the laziness of if all. Then to top it off to end with the suggestion of tipping even more. It's a pretty privileged discussion when just boycotting the apps to support local businesses is the most obvious solution.

Just listened to the episode about delivery fees and both there host and reporter said “like” as a filler word in every other sentence. It became hard to listen to. It lowered their credibility and unfortunately made them seem very green. If the hosts aren’t trained to not use like all the time, then there are software tools that automatically take words such as “like” and “ummm” out.

Under JQ, the analysis seems to have gotten shallower (she is not bringing out a new white paper every week), but the tone has also grown less appealing. It feels like she begins by feigning more ignorance about the week's topic than should be possible for someone who has been in her job for as long as she has. And that seems to be in service of gently walking the audience toward positions that more or less anyone clicking subscribe on a Vox politics podcast already holds. It makes me miss Yglesias, who despite having a voice made for sign language, had a way of starting from a place of at least some knowledge and digging into whether the latest avaialbe data supported or undermined the positions his acknowledged liberal values were "supposed" to be endorsing. That was a more engaging format than the current iteration.

I’ve been listening to the show since the very beginning. It’s gotten much worse over the last couple years, as has Vox in general. I’ve continued to follow the show and tried listening to select episodes, but I’m disappointed every time. It’s become smug and pretentious and it’s time to just accept that it’s no longer the great show it once was. Only show worth listening from Vox is the Grey Area.

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 completely understand the points you’re making during this episode. Numbers don’t. I honestly, don’t see a clear answer to this problem. Yes, some ppl need help. With that being said, ppl needing help and ppl trying to work the system and get free lodging can look the same. Before I got sober a few years back, I was friends with allot of shady ppl. Most of them tried to get out of paying rent, in one form or another. Most would just hit up church outreach centers. Anyway, I said all that to make the point that ppl are never going to take those in need seriously, until ppl stop trying to use those social programs to skirt their own responsibilities.

I love Kathryn Edward’s’ videos! Thanks for inviting her as a guest. Loved her perspective!!!!!

the episode was basically propaganda. All arguments from those who oppose bds were reduced to “it’s antisemitic.” The host kept referring to the movement being controversial, and then made a bad faith effort to unpack the nuance in such a way that bds didn’t come out looking like a squeaky clean social justice movement.

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

I miss when this show was unashamedly wonky. I didn’t love every single take back then, but it forced me to think more deeply about issues in ways recent episodes just don’t. I was particularly irked by the episode about fast fashion. I think the average Vox listener understands the basic problems with modern clothes production — we’re looking for the next level of analysis. I felt a bit insulted by the lack of depth of the episode’s coverage as someone who cares particularly about this issue. Also, leave the host and her vocal fry alone. Those comments come off as quite misogynistic. I have never in my life been distracted by someone’s vocal fry, if I even notice it at all.

Vocal fry. Is like nails on a blackboard. I am forced to boycott all podcasts who use women that slip into this annoying habit that’s become epidemic. Stop it!

Y’all do a terrific job, really, and I want to keep listening. But you sound like a couple of Valley Girls explaining the news. I just can’t take it anymore. Unsubscribing

I appreciate the information and viewpoints shared in the show, but it makes me sad that their first solution is always to have the government who created our problems fix those same problems……………………………………………. The hosts are Ivy League, privileged intellectuals who debate philosophy while never talking to people actually affected or promoting community over government (they don’t need community, they have everything they need). They don’t understand the problems real people have while they sit in their ivory tower. Recently they highlighted how the government props up pharmaceutical companies with intellectual property law. (Insulin specifically)………………… ……………………….Instead of addressing the fact that government is supporting and protecting companies who sell insulin at steep prices through patent laws preventing others from making those drugs affordably, they celebrate giving the government MORE POWER over our healthcare by having the State produce medicine. If the insulin patents were not enforced by our government (or the government shared the patent they plan to use publicly), then anyone could make insulin. Seems much easier than starting an entirely new drug manufacturing department of the government……… ………….More and more people are losing trust with our government and we need MORE options, not a single centralized option as dictated by the political party in power. Putting decisions like these in the hands of government is why we are so divided, and we can’t get past the 2 party polarization until we stop trying to control everyone with our party politics.

This podcast has grown increasingly introductory in its content. This isn’t really in the weeds, it’s stuck on the surface. I’d prefer the host to actually know more about the topic and have a viewpoint, like Ezra Klein or 538 (back in the day).

I am a therapist and I feel there are a lot of Important nuances that are being left out of the conversation here and elsewhere, including the Biden proposal. It’s frustrating to me that the bulk of this conversation is being led by policy experts and not the people on the ground providing care. First and foremost, the mental health reimbursement rate from most insurance companies is simply inadequate to provide quality care. It’s not just “not lucrative” it’s just not enough. It’s expensive to become a therapist. It’s 2 years in a graduate program plus post graduate supervision as well as licensure fees and continuing education. Then we have to pay for expenses as well as our own livelihoods. A huge chunk of therapists are also small business owners who need to figure out their insurance, retirement, etc, and the reimbursement rate is just too low. So we leave the networks for our own survival. Most therapists really don’t want lucrative, they just want enough to feel financially stable. Second, people come to therapy for a lot of different reasons, just like some people go to the doctor for a lot of different reasons. If you have a therapist seeing mostly low risk patients with strong support networks, they can take a much higher caseload than clients who take high risk or complex cases, yet the reimbursement rate is the same. 45 min of therapy is 45 min of therapy regardless of the diagnosis or work outside of session. Also, none of that work outside of face to face therapy is compensated. If I have a patient who needs to seek inpatient care and I have to coordinate with the care team at the hospital, that could be hours, but I won’t get paid. This is ESPECIALLY burdensome and problematic for therapists of color, who are more likely to have higher student loan debt and less likely to have any generational wealth to lean on. There is a reason people of color cannot find therapists of color and it’s because the system is horrible for them. Horrible behind reimbursement rates but that’s for another day. Yes, insurance providers put up barriers for patients that make it harder for them to access care. That needs to be stop. But until therapists are paid what they are worth for their work, the issue simply will not be solved.

It is near impossible to get an outpatient appointment with either and/or BOTH a psychiatrist and/or a non-MD therapist that is covered by health insurance. It is impossible to do so when your insurance is Managed Medicaid. Many days weeks months hours scouring lists and placing phone calls take your time and take you down bottomless rabbit holes. if one weren’t already mentally I’ll, this thankless task will drive you there. What is changing and when? I eagerly listened to find out.

In alabama on medicaid (not managed care) they will not allow you to choose your provider (for any other medical service on medicaid -except dental for adults- you choose who you see, if they take medicaid). For mental health, you have to go through a state agency and have to be seen in an office. It’s terrible and underfunded and sub par because the need is so high the therapists are so overburdened. It is absolutely not a priority in alabama to care for its residents.

I used to truly appreciate this podcast. Now it’s much less “the weeds”—a deep dive into issues of interest—and much more just self-affirming chatter between progressive left host and guest. The first part of the student loan episode was indistinguishable from just reading twitter outrage. Fine if that’s what you like, but that’s not what I signed up to listen to. Sigh.

Occasionally listen to weeds to balance out the far right news feed I ingest including media companies like the federalist and newsmax. By listening to far left media like the weeds and far right media like news Max, I get closer to the truth and further away from each viewpoints bias “truth”

Seems as though too many people use the word ‘right’ and ‘you know’, to the point of excess and into annoying.

I have been a fan of this podcast since at least 2016 when it stood out from the crowd for its critical thinking, deep dives into complex issues, and discussions of intriguing white papers. In its first iteration, you always had the sense that the hosts—Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Dara Lind, and Sarah Kliff—had meticulously researched their topics rather than relying on Twitter or the media narrative of the moment. I also felt that, while the hosts themselves had fairly openly left-leaning views, they nonetheless strove to present issues as objectively as the could and generally tried to avoid relying too heavily on opinions that couldn’t really be supported except through moralistic appeals. I’ve held on and continued to listen to the show through many changes of hosts and all the upheaval at Vox. I think I’m finally turning in my card after the recent Affirmative Action episode. While I support Affirmative Action in hiring and admissions to various degrees, the whole presentation of the subject was so biased and just disingenuous it really left a terrible taste in my mouth. Aside from essentially equating any opponent of the policy to white supremacists, the podcast also minimized the data Harvard was forced to release in which they systematically downgraded the “personality” scores of applicants of East Asian descent. Moreover, they began the historical discussion of these policies with the civil rights movement, employing an out of context MLK quote in a totally bogus way, conveniently neglecting the checkered origin of “holistic admissions” as a means of minimizing the number of Jewish applicants that Ivy League universities would have been forced in a system based solely on aptitude testing. There was also little to no reckoning with the fact that Affirmative Action has become democratically unpopular across all demographic groups, including 60% of Black Americans who oppose race being a consideration in admissions. At this point, considering race in college admissions has about an identical degree of support and disapproval as the use of legacy admissions (about 5-7% approval for each as a major factor in admissions, and about 75% of Americans saying that both should “not be a factor” in admissions). There are good cases to be made for racial preference in admissions and hiring, but the notion that this is self-evident to anyone but a blatant racist is ridiculous. It’s all just a shame because this really was a great show that seemed to avoid some of the more divisive elements of political debate by drilling down to the facts and embraced complexity. Now it seems to have all the journalistic integrity of Fox News, but just on behalf of the other team.

The US has a huge new child immigration population. Most of these are ESL and high school students. They may have a large payment to pay for their immigration costs and are often feeling obliged to send monies home to their families. Unfortunately, a lot of these children are being forced into the workforce by their own families…

JQ is a delightful young reporter but simply doesn’t have the tenure in this work to bring the kind of nuanced and referenced thought partnership that prior hosts have contributed to the show’s dynamic. This is not a failure of JQ or other who join the show; this is a failure of Vox to be a compelling place for tenured reporters and thoughtleaders to congregate since its founding class has moved on. Vox has become a de facto incubator for reporters who intend to eventually end up at large national outlets and/or writing books. No shade to Vox for taking on that role in the media ecosystem, but it does mean that a show like this, which relies on relatively experienced hosts connecting current events to trends and prior data, flounders. It was by definition wonky and in the weeds as the title suggests, and the current set up just sets a newer reporter up for failure unless they happen to be a political historian on top of being a good journalist.

Unfortunately, the new host (Ms. Hill) has a very limited understanding of the subjects covered on the podcast, so the episodes rise and fall on how clearly and intelligently the guests can explain a subject. Do not expect probing or clarifying follow-up questions from the host.

Ezra, Sarah, Dara, Jane, Matt were incredibly insightful hosts and always brought a deep dive into wonky topics. Dylan, Jerusalem, and German clearly had less experience and gave a slightly less serious tone, but still brought a lot of insightful and useful conversations. Then at some point without notice this became a completely different show under the same name, but bearing more resemblance to Vox’s Today Explained than it did to the Weeds of before. For many months now it has been a surface-level explainer and interview show. Bring back the white papers! Bring back Dylan (and Dara or anyone else if willing). Bring back the nuanced conversations and difficult debates, not just an explanatory narration or question-and-answer interview format.

Very shabby job on the housing discrimination episode. The host and guest dishonestly elide the distinction between de facto and de jure segregation.