The Freakonomics guys have podcasts and they are fairly good. There’s no boiling things down to a simple sound bite.

Have not reads the books.

There are plenty of counterpoints to freakonomics conclusions as well. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/freakonomics-what-...

It's not about soundbytes but making a good story for entertainment instead of seeking truth.

This happens very broadly with "popular" science kinds of media. A disturbingly high amount of what you read in them is distorted for presentation and entertainment.

Here's another Freakonomics critique:

  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/16/hosed

And this excerpt from the above certainly rings true:

> "But what’s most troubling about “SuperFreakonomics” isn’t the authors’ many blunders; it’s the whole spirit of the enterprise. Though climate change is a grave problem, Levitt and Dubner treat it mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are."

I have not read the Freakonomics books. I have not read any Gladwell books either. But I have listened to Gladwell's podcast. Gladwell by comparison seems to be, to use what other people have said, a story teller. An easy listening story teller.

Dubner and Levitt's podcasts in comparison, are more likely to interview interesting people, and I leave with more things to consider. This isn't to say they are infallible. And you don't have to agree with everything they say or write.

But Galdwell seems more interested in a neat narrative.