I want to like it because she chooses interesting subject topics. But the former is so god awful. It’s just dry bland blathering like listening to a mediocre high school student read off a book report. It’s just unengaging. Try a story method like other podcasts do

I used to LOVE this podcast and I still enjoy listening to it. I think it’s well-researched and well- written! It’s very solid content wise. However, the personal commentary provided by the creator can get off track even from the podcast subject. It seems like part of the podcast is historical based and research driven and then the other half is for the creator to vent all her feelings. For years I have supported the podcast as a Patreon follower but after her very out of line defense of the Germanwings pilot in a recent episode I decided to pull my financial support.

It is very clear she does a ton of research, and is very passionate about educating others. That’s awesome! But I was only able to get through about 20 min of a 1+ HR episode. The tongue sucking and lip smacks were making me so uncomfortable I had to turn it off. A few sessions with a vocal coach could help and since she’s been doing this so long it could be worth considering. Actors and voice actors do this all the time. Over all, deeply researched podcast but it wasn’t for me in its current form.

Great and informative podcast about various disasters throughout history. There are a lot of cases covered on this one that other podcasts haven’t touched. Jennifer does a good job presenting the background and details of every case. She does go off on side tangents here and there, which I don’t mind because it shows her personality and is a reminder that there is a human being behind the microphone with their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences. I appreciate the casual nature of her delivery rather than the flat, stoic, monotone narration that a lot of podcasters use for this type of subject matter. She does the research and is VERY thorough while also being respectful of the subject matter.

Thorough and interesting! Thank you.

Jennifer does a great job, and I must say I enjoyed the fictional episode on Nakatomi Plaza! She did an excellent job on this one, and it was a great summary, as if it really happened! She’s a dog mom, which I sympathize with, and has a normal life, which she is happy to share. I will listen to more episodes.

Too much lip smacking.

I don’t want to hear about the hosts personal like. I don’t care how old her brother was when Columbine happened. I don’t care what year the city was established or how it was named. For goodness sakes, you got me to start listening, just get to the story. Tried 3 episodes and so much snore and bore, I’m unsubscribing. Great subjects. Horrible delivery.

I love to just really dig into all the aspects of a disaster. Why it happened. Who, if anyone was to blame. The timeline and the backstory. This host is an expert researcher! I love this podcast. And by the way I also enjoy the ramblings, it’s like listening to a best friend talk. I also like the host’s descriptive abilities, she can place me right at the scene. Excellent writing too. Keep up the good work.

Rambling Yakity-yak on lots of things around the topic before you get to the topic. This should be called word salad mixed with seconds before disaster.

I think the host has a personality and does a good job of blending it in her presentation considering the subject matter. Also feel like she has a strong sense of accuracy so important for her to do her research and do it well. Learning what caused a disaster can help prevent future ones and I feel host does her homework to present subject matter in the best way possible.

Tried to listen to an episode on the north Hollywood shootout just to hear her ramble on and on about Henry Kissinger and George Floyd. Holy cow she is annoying and a super Karen. Never listened to something so brief! Stay away! Annoyingly woke

This show should be entitled “This is What I Saw on the Seconds from Disaster” tv series. Just watch the show. It’s a much better presentation.

I’ve watched all free episodes at this point, and I can say conclusively that this show would be greatly improved by an increase in confidence on the hosts part. She has clearly done her research, but she speaks as if she is not sure of what she’s saying almost constantly. This is exemplified by her chronic struggle with the pronunciation of words and names. She often waffles between options rather than opting for what others have utilized when discussing the topics at hand. Overall, I really like the final product! It’s very interesting and Jennifer is a passionate podcaster who takes great care with the subjects she covers. Unfortunately, her lack of confidence leads the product to feel unpolished.

They didn’t follow their “oath.” They’re no longer required to protect anyone, so I don’t understand why they even exist. Your take is f ignorant, privileged, and awful. I wish they had rushed in to stop the murdering of innocent children, but you obviously value cops over victims.

I cannot emphasize enough how well researched and respectful this host is! She has given me so many resources to read and is genuinely empathetic

I found myself irrationally and unfairly critical of this podcast initially. However, I went through a period of great anxiety and Jennifer’s stories were one of the only things I could stand to listen to. She does a passionate amount of research and clearly cares about her subject. Thank you for continuing to create this, mea culpa for my wrongheaded hot take

I listened to two episodes and kept getting so confused because information would be repeated and I kept checking to see if I had hit rewind somehow. But no, the editing is really poorly done. Whole 5-10 minute sections are repeated. Another episode just cut off in the middle of a sentence and it was over. What more the narrator goes off on tangents and talks about her own thoughts way too much. It got more and more irritating as it went. I tried… I really did.

I am so let down. Great subject matter but horrible everything else. The person trying to convey the subject matter is really bad. It’s like she skimmed a book or got the latest gossip and tried to speak from memory. Disjointed with some kind of tooth sucking sound and hitting the mike. I had heard about The Station but never heard the story. After that episode was done I wanted to punch myself in the head. Research, write and get a proper reader. Then redo all the episodes and you will be rolling in money.

Edit, January 2024: the same issues are extant, but I'm now noticing more errors of assumption, which detract further from the topics she covers. You can present a disaster and present the human toll in an emotional, tactile way without going overboard (for instance, Pan Am 103 is tragic enough--erronously droning on and in about how not everyone was killed by the explosion and how they were aware of the plummet (which is not how concussive force OR altitude works) is just trying to be as upsetting as possible, which is a weird choice considering her (under-educated) take on 1908 newspaper and cultural mores in the Collinwood episode.) You're 200+ episodes in at this point. Be better. ORIGINAL: As a long-time disastwr hound, I was on the lookout for a good disaster podcast. Having tried a few others and finding them tedious and impossible to listen to, I stumbled on Disaster Area. I enjoy DA. Or rather, I (mostly) enjoy the first half of any given DA episode. I wish the intro music wasscaled to the podcast itself—I often have the volume up to hear her intro only to be blasted across my car by the intro music—and I wish the host would lean a little more heavily on “a good solid outline that lets your words flow better” and less on “a bunch of notes that tend to make the podcast sound like we’re all just sitting around the table shooting the breeze.” Folksy and informal is fine, if done well. Unfortunately, the informality here too often turns to stumbling and becomes grating after awhile. She would also do well to pay a bit more attention to her delivery, as she sometimes comes off as flippant or redundant in tone. The biggest issue, though—and the issue that turned my four star review to a three star—is the tangents and tedium of the second half of any given episode. The first half is usually a little stumbly, but it generally gives the overview and meat of the chosen disaster along with some framing data. So far so good. But once rhe disaster has “concluded,” there is usually anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes of the host going off on this tangent or that tangent. Some are personal anecdotes, some are about entirely other situations, some are...geography? Psychology? Metaphysics? It varies, and it rarely if ever adds anything to the podcast. All of which would have earned a rounded-up four star review (I’d give 3.5 if I could) until I happened upon an episode wherein the host complained about how she does not care for disaster books that go off on tangents about only semi-related matters. Not five minutes after uttering this jaw-dropping statement, she herself went off on her requisite tangents about only semi-related-if-not-nearly-unrelated matters. I found myself sputtering at the stereo and so frustrated I avoided the podcast for a few weeks. Hence the rounded-down three star review.

There’s something about the host’s non-serious style that made me cringe. I have listened to other podcasts that discuss the same content yet they don’t have flippant approach that this one has. I tried 3 episodes, older and newer, and I didn’t make it through the third one. The host does seem to research the content well, but the rambling at the end of episodes and unserious analogies and judgements do not do justice to the weight of these tragedies.

Listening to the review “Society of the Snow” the first five mins were about how crazy it was that she hadn’t watched the film sooner than she did, another 3mis about how she didn’t even know it was being made, another 5mins about realizing she’s a self described expert on this plane crash, bragging that she can name the survivors by memory, I got to 11mins in she’s still basically talking about herself. I don’t know how long it will take to get to the actual story but I’m not sticking around to find out

I have learned a lot through these episodes but I don’t really care about the host’s opinions. There are entire sections of these that I just skip because I know she’ll be rambling for several minutes before she gets back to the story.

I love listening to Jennifer. I have listened to almost every episode and I really appreciate the research that goes into each episode. I have been exposed to some of these events before but the detail with which she explores the historical background and the people involved is really impressive. My only regret is that i’m running out of episodes!

I’d like to hear about these disasters BUT I could watch an entire documentary in less time. More details less woman-splaining.

It’s not easy to put a lot of passion into such a dark subject matter while still treating it respectfully in regards to the victims, but Jennifer handles each one extraordinarily well. Even when delving into a topic that’s familiar to me, I find myself quite often learning something new thanks to the thorough research that she’s done. I’m looking forward to the future of this show!

The topic areas covered are extremely interesting. However I can only get through some episodes through heavy use of the skip button. The personal political commentary’s are painful to listen to. Even if I sometimes agree with some points, I don’t feel it is appropriate when discussing some of these topics. People died….. As someone who personally had a family member die in a tragedy that caught national attention, a bit of respect would go a long way. Also some of the episodes have entire sections repeat so there seems to be some editing issues, in particular in recent episodes.

Since you referenced people that didn’t get the vaccination (it’s really not a vaccination) and died get the Darwin Award, are you going to say that the people that got the so called vaccination and died get the Darwin Award. Your concept for a podcast is really interesting, but I would stay away from your personal opinions on politics and other issues that are debatable.

She is immature and doesn’t understand that these are real tragedies. She adds inanely unnecessary personal details that just further show how juvenile she is. Her ability to read her own script is lacking as well.

While I appreciate the topics she covers, the host is very annoying. I’m not interested in her “woe is me” act when it comes to her need for money, nor do I appreciate her political insights. She’s annoying. She also goes off on tangents that involve conspiracy theories where she rambles on for long periods of time.

I’ve been binging on Disaster Area for a few weeks now and I’m hooked. Jennifer clearly has a writer’s mind with her descriptive visuals. She also feels like a friend retelling the story rather than the typical documentary style. Also, she sounds *real*, not like she should be doing radio commercials if that makes any sense. Anyway, really enjoying the show and Professor Pancakes 😊

There’s not anything like this one out there at the moment. There are a few that focus on engineering disasters but they seem to skew towards comedy (successfully in the case of Well There’s Your Problem, less so with a few others). I appreciate that Jennifer is empathetic and detailed in her approach and she’s grown so much as a host over the years!

This is a unique true crime show that is well researched and told by a very empathetic yet direct and honest host. Her voice is dynamic but also soothing. She covers events that aren’t covered on every other podcast.

Like other reviewers I desperately want to like this because I find the subject fascinating. But every episode I’ve listened to tonight - all stories I’m knowledgeable about - I keep zoning out because it isn’t told in a gripping way. All the negative reviews I saw were from this year; the episodes I’ve played are from 2016. So she’s been um and uhhing through her stories for seven years. It’s just boring.

Did you seriously just lump all “gamers” into using the “n” word in this episode. I too am a gamer and am bisexual. I love disaster podcasts and have loved your past episodes but this time you stereotyped a whole group of people. Also what’s with all the fat talk. I get it the shooter was fat. Let’s just stick to the facts and maybe leave out some of the bias.

Jennifer has an amazing voice. I can listen to her for hours driving

I used to be a fan of this podcast, but after the most recent episode on the Titan Submersible I don’t think I’ll be subscribing anymore. The lack of quality control in new episodes compared to older ones is staggering. I’m not sure who Jean-Henri Nargeolet is, perhaps he’s related to deep sea explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet? The audacity of the host to paint him off as a generic rich man on the Titanic for kicks when he is one of the leading experts of the wreck and an incredibly experienced deep diver who’s been to the site countless time before. We’re supposed to believe you’re a long-time follower of the Titanic tragedy, but you’ve never heard his name before? But of course it’s the father who forced his teenage son into the submersible we have to have real sympathy for. What a weird take. To have an episode about such a recent event be so poorly researched (which almost anyone else listening will be better educated on the facts) is embarrassing. I’ll be sure to take your advice on googling people to find a better podcast to listen to.

i really dig disasters, to the point of seeking the theme of natural/artificial disaster out in all media i consume, but i just could not get behind this pod. the host meanders nigh incoherently from one bullet point to the next, peppering inane comments (a favorite tends to be, "this isn't a joke/i'm not joking about xyz..") between bits of information haphazardly threaded together within her script. she often stumbles over her words, 'uhmmm's and 'uhhh's her way through moments that would have been full of tension and anticipation otherwise, and that GODAWFUL LIP SMACKING. i couldn't handle it anymore, man. godspeed to any who continue to hang on.

Edit: I understand why the negativity now. The host is super repetitive and just drones on and on about the specifics the more I listen to this podcast the more it with ANGERME that the host would speak so smarmy, sometimes so much so that I would hate seeing a new episode, pop up in my feed. It’s time to let it go. It’s not going to get any better.

I love that this podcast covers a variety of disasters, often ones that aren’t widely covered. Plus there are very few disaster podcasts. However, it drives me nuts how the podcast host applies her cultural outlook to situations and persons, especially given she doesn’t seem to have much experience beyond her little town. From being completely ignorant of the power of the Saudi royal family to assuming that the poor black seniors in 1995 Chicago were scared of the police and scams not violence on the streets to not understanding the motivations of rich Parisian women in the nineteenth century, it is very frustrating. Especially frustrating is that often the information is not esoteric and often in the sources she would be referencing, so I don’t know why she does it. She could also definitely work on her scripts; I often like a random off-topic discussion but there’s often a lot of repeated or completely irrelevant information that just ends up being confusing.

This podcast sounds like a well researched report given by someone with ADHD. She takes two hours to tell a story that could and should be told in one hour (or less). If the tangents were folksy or entertaining, it would almost be forgivable, but it’s just stream-of-conscienceness diarrhea of the mouth for ten minutes at a stretch. This would be a great podcast if it was done with a well-edited script.

Some of the episodes are fantastic. The research is well done and is evident. But the personal rambling, soap box speeches get to me. Literally 25 minutes at the end of episode 189 about Covid and “taking the shot”. Came for a disaster podcast not political views. When the podcasts sticks to the research, the subjects are entertaining but the ramblings is juvenile and often uneducated

Never have listened to a podcast that repeats itself so much. The host rambles on way too much about either family or other things not relevant to the case. First time listening and will be the last.

Wonderful well researched and respectful pod! I enjoy listening on my commute.

Scripted but very unstructured, sounds incoherent at times. The host seems to constantly have great difficulty reading her own script. Not sure if she is intentionally fumbling/ sound hesitant to make it more “conversational”? Unfortunately it just sounds as if she doesn’t have the right glasses on or the font is too small for her to see …

I’m a prolific podcast & audiobook consumer. This is my favorite overall podcast. Sure, I have some like Dr Death or the OG Serial or the Boston Globe Piece on Aaron Hernandez that were incredible but this? This is well researched coverage of disasters that brings you a lot of history with it. I’m overjoyed when a new one comes in my feed. Thanks for the excellent work.

This host doesn't just tell about disasters, but deeply researches every aspect surrounding them: geography, history, details about the era etc. If all you want is trauma porn and gruesome details, this won't be your podcast, but if you appreciate meticulous attention to detail and excellent research, you'll probably like this podcast.

Great detail to factual events and an unbiased view on a situation of great complexity!

…. But sometimes feels like more of a personal commentary than a retelling of an event in history. Commenting on the “flabby” body of a purported runner? Let’s not.

As others have said, you want to like this podcast, but there just comes a point that you can’t. The pacing, editing, and bunny trails that the host goes on get to be way to much. There are many “Uh”and “Um” moments, and in normal conversations is give, but time should be taken to edit out and do multiple takes so that the audience is not distracted. It honestly sounds like a high school student giving a book report they threw together 20 minutes before class. The research is very surface level and biased sometimes at best. The biggest thing that rubbed me the wrong way that the host tries to be a social justice warrior about most topics. If that is how you want to approach a subject, fine, but be deft enough to properly represent and respect the culture or situation you are trying to defend. For example, on the Pioneer Hotel fire episode , almost every single Spanish word was BUTCHERED, and the just had little understanding of the the Hispanic history and influence culturally and economically in Tucson. And trying to relate Taylor’s plight as a black kid being falsely accused to incidences in Los Angeles of racism and brutality when the plight o, and prejudices against, the minorities that live reside in the barriós located literally a few blocks from where this fire occurred, shows that the host is more about being on a high horse, than actually empathizing and understanding.