I disagree that the programme is 'skepticism podcast first, science second' since it is reliance on evidence obtained through rigorous scientific methodology that gives weight to the sceptical argument.
there's only one?
I thought skepticism was quite wide-reaching.
it wasn't selling bad science.
it was just a business model that could make ?customers? angry if they actually knew what was going on...a 'too good to be true' promise worth being skeptical of (maybe some are sometimes rigged, maybe some are fair, and as long as you know how it works, like a lottery, it's ultimately your call if you think it's worth your money). I don't see why there is a need for science in this area of skepticism. nor do I see the point in limiting skepticism beyond what is useful and interesting and helpful to what is merely science, things that warrant skepticism only in the 'press release misinterpretation' form.
For me a lot of the enjoyment of this podcast arises from the panel's discussion of a particular claim or discovery
for me, this potentially practical information about a business model I might encounter is far more interesting than any astronomy discovery I've managed to pay attention to (and these feature on a regular basis, rarely requiring skepticism more than a simple deflation of expectations). each to their own, eh.