> I would totally expect the interviewer to push back
Are you confusing expectation with desire? I can understand why you might prefer to listen to a podcast like that – and nothing says you can't – but that isn't necessarily on brand with the specific product in question.
In the same vein, you might prefer fine dining, but you wouldn't expect McDonalds to offer you fine dining. It is quite clearly not the product they sell.
So, I guess the question is: What is it about "People I (Mostly) Admire" that has given you the impression that it is normally the metaphorical fine dining restaurant and not the McDonalds it turned out to be here?
Are you like the king of awful, straw-man analogies or something? Will just say I think your attempt to redefine this podcast and the Freakonomics brand to just "light, fluffy entertainment" is BS. These other comments put it better:
> Are you like the king of awful, straw-man analogies or something?
Yes...? Comes with not understanding the subject very well. I mean, logically, if I were an expert I wouldn't be here wasting my time talking about what I already know, would I? That would be a pointless waste of time. Obviously if I am going to talk about something I am going to struggle to talk about it in an effort to learn.
> These other comments put it better:
These other comments don't even try to answer the question...? Wrong links? Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough? I can try again: What is it about this particular podcast that has given you the impression that it normally asks the hard hitting questions? Be specific.
The type of journalism that involves saying "This person makes an incredible claim" and then goes on to allow the person to present said claims uncritically is called "tabloid journalism[1]." Yes, I would expect a podcast hosted by a NYT Journalist and University of Chicago Economist to have higher standards, particularly in the field of academic research.
That's a fun tangent, but doesn't answer the question. What in particular about this podcast has indicated that it is not "tabloid journalism"? You clearly recognize that tabloid journalism exists, so you know that this podcast could theoretically intend to be. But what, specifically, has indicated that it normally isn't?
The background of the people involved is irrelevant to the nature of the product. Someone who works on developing a cure for cancer by day can very well go home and build a fart app at night. There is no reason why you have to constrain yourself to just one thing.
Are you confusing expectation with desire? I can understand why you might prefer to listen to a podcast like that – and nothing says you can't – but that isn't necessarily on brand with the specific product in question.
In the same vein, you might prefer fine dining, but you wouldn't expect McDonalds to offer you fine dining. It is quite clearly not the product they sell.
So, I guess the question is: What is it about "People I (Mostly) Admire" that has given you the impression that it is normally the metaphorical fine dining restaurant and not the McDonalds it turned out to be here?