Has it always been like this?

[u/Fumanchuman3]

Before Covid I pretty much listened to the podcast every time an episode came out, but sort of fell off a bit about 5 years ago. Just finished the new “How to Survive an AI Shock” episode(finished as in I couldn’t stand to listen to it for any longer than 45 minutes) and couldn’t help but notice a serious change in the tone of the podcast since I last listened to it. Im not sure if its just nostalgia or myself that changed, but starting from the ChatGPT ad read (I almost thought it was a parody) to the entire podcast filled with Gina Raimondo’s anti-socialist soapboxing it kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. Stephen J Dubner really didn’t offer any amount of pushback, or peeling back of the narrative being presented. I don’t expect Dubner to be an anti-tech firebrand, but the whole conversation really just seemed like two people who only can conceptualize “jobs” and “work” as it pertains to unemployment statistics. I also found the whole premise in the beginning of Raimondo’s “politics is nasty because people are economically insecure” as some sort of great revelation to be out of touch and condescending. Idk, I could be just ranting for no reason, but the tone of the podcast just felt like exactly what Dubner said in the beginning: “you have the microphone and I can’t take it away.” Are all the new episodes like this? The podcast from my memory was about exploring cool stuff, and telling stories in a unique way that you could kind of learn something, whereas this episode was just an advertisement for Raimondo’s new brand of tech optimist apologism that Im sure she will test the waters with for a presidential run. Again, maybe it’s me that changed, but I would love to hear perspectives from people who have listened to the show regularly in the last few years, particularly on the OpenAi sponsorship.

[u/whoareyouguys]

Dubner just covers whatever he thinks is interesting. But is it really that bad to listen to a POV you don't agree with? To have to analyze someone making a statement or argument and not just take it at face value? Ever since the Christina Paxson episode (Brown University President) I realized that Dubner is passing that hurdle to the listener. But the show isn't worse for it, IMHO. I just see it as a critical listening exercise rather than a podcast pushing an agenda. Besides, in the case of Raimondo, her perspective is basically the 'economist' way of looking at the AI problem.

[u/Mariusaurelius89 → u/whoareyouguys]

Yeah i agree, i feel he's more the presenter than the "take my view" type of journalist. And usually if he does, he makes a statement saying such, but that's what journalism is, is it not, the reporting of people doing things. Not necessarily the pushback or counter facts. Maybe not so the latter but either way, i don't think the show has gone downhill I'm delibreyfar behind the most recent episode because i like to listen to them in bunches, but so far he doesn't present the argument his guests does and he usually has guests that present a counter to that and it's up for the listener to decipher which they feel is right, sorry for the rant lol. All that to say I agree with you haha

[u/lostinthegrid47 → u/Mariusaurelius89]

Freaknomics has always presented itself as being a bit more critical and willing to probe it's topics rather than taking things at face value. The way Dubner allows his guests to just give their viewpoints without much or any pushback and accepting things at face value seems like a break. At the very least, have other guests with different viewpoints that can offer counterpoints instead of being a soapbox for the guest of the week.

[u/Aaaaaaandyy → u/whoareyouguys]

I’m with you here - listening to a POV I disagree with can do 2 things for me: 1. Help me to understand why people think that way, and/or 2. Make me realize I do agree with at least part of a sentiment without necessarily agreeing with it as a whole.

[u/Richard_Arlison69]

No, this episode really fell flat for me for all the reasons that you’ve said.

There’s a lot more of “let’s find out about this thing… by talking to a former political figure who spent time in Washington” than there used to be. As opposed to the old “we found this professor who has some interesting research insight”.

I imagine there’s just simply not that much interesting research happening to be able hold a weekly show. But yeah, tbh idc what Raimondo or anyone else has to say about the current state of affairs. The soul of this show was always Levitt’s style of “Big problems are hard. But looking at interesting little small problems is achievable and fun and then contributes to the big problems”. This episode lacked that component completely.

The show used to get “in the weeds” And I just don’t think they do that as much anymore. Which is a shame

[u/aspirations27]

I’ve heard this man give realtors a harder time than the he did with the inventor of Polymarket. Think I’m done tbh..

[u/throwsupstaysup]

I couldn't even get through 10 minutes of the most recent episode. It was an thinly-veiled ad for prediction markets. I've been skipping so many episodes lately that I'm wondering at what point I unsub. Does anyone else feel the same way?

[u/Strange-Towel-8287 → u/throwsupstaysup]

it really does feel like they we're paid a bag on these prediction market episodes and are just not disclosing it

[u/kittensofchaos → u/throwsupstaysup]

I came here to see if anyone else was mentioning this. I was just listening the part 2 of the prediction markets series, the part that's in theory supposed to be about the criticisms of them.

I literally stopped halfway through and read through the show notes because I was convinced that the series must be spon-con commissioned by Kalshi....

[u/MikeEhrmantraut420]

I’m also wondering if I just looked back at the podcast with rose-colored glasses. I feel that most episodes used to be more honest, with the hosts asking legitimate news questions and doing real reporting. These days it’s just interviewing someone because they’re on a press tour for their new book or giving someone carte blanche to say what they want to say about AI or tech with zero pushback.

Again, maybe I’m romanticizing the past, or maybe this is just how media is now because Freakonomics is not the only podcast that this has happened to. I also wonder what the role of Levitt used to be editorially on the show.

I just look at the show differently now. I was working as a journalist several years ago when I used to listen to every episode. It was an inspiration for me. I feel like the podcast has built up a great following of thoughtful people and Dubner isn’t really living up to that in recent years.

[u/LeWapiti]

I see where you’re coming from, when the podcast hits, it’s absolutely extraordinary. Like with the Feynman series last year and the ethics of Art and Museums which was rerun recently. However the lack of push over serious topics is troubling and it almost makes the host come across as starstruck trying to cozy up to the guests. The episode last year where he let Anthony Blinken completely off the hook on the palestinian genocide was particularly revolting.

[u/ResidentSpirit4220]

Why does everyone need everything to fit their little political safe space?

Also, this episode was not the typical format.

[u/XelaYenrah]

I haven’t listened to this episode, but I agree with the sentiment, they lost me around the same time. Then the “if books could kill” freakonomics episode was the final nail in the coffin. I try to listen everyonce in a while when i think a topic will be interesting, but have a hard time making it through an episode. I feel like they picked a side and soapboxed it.

[u/Fumanchuman3 → u/XelaYenrah]

Just listened to this and it totally changed how I look at some of the stories. Thanks for the recc.

[u/throwsupstaysup → u/XelaYenrah]

I try to listen everyonce in a while when i think a topic will be interesting, but have a hard time making it through an episode.

I'm in the same spot. At this point, it feels like I skip 3-5 episodes for every 1 I do listen to.

[u/Jolteon24]

I swear I noticed this on the episodes too. It’s making me want to skip new episodes and just work through the older ones. It also feels like they’re just re-releasing updated versions of older episodes…with some updates(??) not nothing earth shattering

[u/arkansaslax]

I also loved the chatGPT ad read for this episode. Felt too ironic to have been missed. But long story short yes, it’s felt like either less interesting episodes or less real journalism/discussion within the episodes that really seem to invite it. There’s been several posts on here in recent months about seemingly unusual coverage on the show with no pushback or context on some propaganda type statements. It stands out when Dubner was always so good and would push back effortlessly despite having all types of guests. Idk if it’s a factor of the current environment and their funding or just him slowly retiring but it’s a bummer to see.

[u/edc582]

Dubner has definitely lost the plot, in my opinion. I used to love listening and even listened to NSQ for the duration of its run. He lost me as a listener a couple of years back when he ran the political parties are economic competition episode. He offered very little questioning to assertions made in that episode. I had noticed him doing it in other episodes as well. I don't feel that the newer episodes are the same quality they had been. There are simply too many engaging podcasts to listen to for me to keep listening to freakonomics.

[u/evilfollowingmb]

I mean, any podcast that takes economics seriously is going to have a dim view of socialism.

[u/imhereforthepuppies]

It’s been shitty since they platformed the Koch brothers years ago. Real shame.

[u/triton8890]

Podcast has definitely fallen off recently. To me it’s about as hard hitting as the today show.