Test

I try to listen but I feel you don’t put enough effort into this. In recent episode on WNBA you say “I think it was a $75mm investment”. It’s widely known and reported. Why aren’t you more informed and besides speaking to a few boys who played with Caitlin Clark years ago what else did you do or report we don’t already know

I downloaded the wsj app but it says "no episodes".

I’m a subscriber to the print version of the WSJ but this podcast remains on top of my daily listening queue. Has it been discontinued? Haven’t been able to find a new episode to download for awhile.

You wanna learn about the passive voice, this is your show. Total dereliction of journalistic duty when it comes to reporting the facts. Shameless government propaganda.

This is the best podcast in economy and business. Well explained and relevant content.

Did Ryan Knudsen introduce himself as Kate Linebaugh today? Was that a April fool joke?😏

I’m Ron Burgundy? Ryan is Kate Linebaugh?

It’s good but not very informational, they say the same thing all the time! It’s not even as good as it used to be so… I don’t know what to think of it?

What a nothing episode on SBF. Clearly there was no new information or insight to report. They got me….

Some of the worst kind of “journalism”. They seem to try and be neutral but careful listening to word choice as well as what facts and information get excluded from reporting paint a different picture. Up your game and maybe I’ll come back but I am over bias reporting.

This show used to be relevant. (Sorry to be a killjoy)

None of the hosts irritate. Amazing!

It felt like I was listening to an NPR show: largely one-sided, Liberal hero worship. Almost no true insight/explanation from the other side of the issue. In fact, the title alone — calling these book bans — gives away the author’s and editor’s very strong left-leaning slant. This was not news but rather an editorial. Sad if this is what is happening to the news side of the house at WSJ, my absolute favorite newspaper. Just a few days ago, there was a very interesting and largely balanced episode on the proposed Capital One/Discover deal. Then to turn around and produce this under the WSJ label? It’s a travesty. Please return to reporting news and leave the editorial pieces to the Paul Gigot and colleagues.

If you are going to run a podcast about a publishers suit to make porn available in children’s libraries, you should at least discuss both sides of the issue.

The deepfaked voice of Ryan speaking in Mandarin is so impressive and chillingly authentic. Although being a Taiwanese, the fake voice in the show did sound a lot like when Chinese people speaking Mandarin. I am imprssed because the fake voice have a subtle “-er” sound after words. Also, the deepfake voice somehow retained the personality. Creepy.

This episode was poorly researched and thought through. Failed to mention that the entire influencer landscape changed in 2020, due to the rise in popularity of TikTok. Arielle never adapted and changed with the times - her fall wasn’t properly dissected. You can’t just chalk up her fail to “followers don’t equal sales”. You also didn’t even touch on the rumors about her and her husband split/ embezzlement in 2022 which further led to her downfall and the cracks in her ever so perfect aesthetic continue to crumble.

Terrific podcast about a great man I knew so little about.

I listen to this podcast several times a week. I find the podcast very informative and presented in an understandable way. I only skip a few podcasts. It is great for someone who wants to keep informed but is not looking to get into the details. The podcasts give you enough information that you can decide if you want to learn more.

You could use even more overwhelming, distracting music in the background. More cowbell please!

Shame on you for not critically covering the realities on the ground in Gaza- for not covering Israel’s conduct in this “war” makes the Journal complicit. It’s not a war it’s a genocide- an annihilation of a people, a pivotal story that will have ramifications for decades. You cant find a story here?

The episode on Harvard was more fairly portrayed than the awful coverage they did on Penn State, but they still have a long way to go to earn back their credibility. Used to listen everyday, but can hardly stand to listen to any of their episodes now since they have gone off the rails and present a very one-sided picture in their “reporting”.

Reassuringly competent hosts and fascinating stories reported concisely. Unlike The Daily, not self aggrandizing or with hosts who have distracting vocal peculiarities. Each episode is high impact and a joy to listen to.

Did you guys miss the entire point of what’s happened? The fact that this was solely focused on the precedent of rescinding donations is wild. Donors withdrew because the President would not clearly condemn calls for genocide of Jews, after having issues of antisemitism on campus months before October 7th. I’m not a fan of Elise Stefanic, but she was right that her question was like the easiest yes possible - there is no ambiguity, or context in this kind of speech & if other faculty now feel censored by this, Pen has a way bigger issue. This reporting was insanity, do better.

I realize I’m late to the party, but I was just tipped off to these episodes. I wish I could give 2.5 stars. I’m a Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner and have spent a lot of time on telehealth in the last few years. Also, I’m generally not a fan of Cerebral and some of their ilk (I’m looking at you, Done). However, this topic deserves a much deeper dive and a lot more input from outside sources than was provided. By focusing on the single case of Anthony, they have painted an entire healthcare field with a broad brush instead of focusing on where Cerebral went wrong in the more general sense. Also, there was some real fear-mongering around medications to treat depression. In the case of Anthony, they really harped on “how did a minor get a prescription for an anti-depressant?” This may be a perfectly reasonable question in Missouri, but these rules vary significantly between states. Many states have lower ages of consent for treatment to allow adolescents to receive treatment without parents preventing it. WSJ is a national publication and this is broadcast worldwide, some caveats could have been included. Like, “despite the FDA warning, these treatments for depression have helped millions of people”. The story of Anthony didn’t even have anything to do with controlled substances. They got all into Cerebral’s drive to prescribe controlled substances, and then completely detoured into an admittedly tragic story that had nothing to do with them playing fast and loose with DEA rules. I’m worried that all they did was scratch the surface on this worrisome trend (telehealth companies handing out controlled substances for a subscription fee to maximize profits) and in the end just made people afraid to get treatment. Or even worse, made parents afraid to get treatment for their kids.

I walk mornings listening to this great podcast. In fact, it look forward to what is next on the programs. Keep them flowing. Thank you.

Great episode on emergency rooms treating children. We went through a similar experience with our 6 month old, and wished we would have known about this sooner.

I listen this podcast everyday

I really was hoping that a podcast tied to WSJ would be straight reporting, but between the UAW coverage and the Gaza war coverage I’m convinced that the podcasters go into the story with something to promote. Listened to my last episode after hearing the slanted view in Israel’s rooting out terrorists at the hospital.

Kate Linebaugh is an unprofessional host. She reports on controversial sensitive information without regard to its inherent controversy and adds personal emotional reactions that devalue a) the material she is reporting on b) the listener. I have heard these comments being made from multiple listeners from different political backgrounds. They all, including myself as of now, do not listen to The Journal anymore. Additionally, the WSJ is a great reporting outlet for business and general news, that being said it’s reporting on political matters is severally lacking professionalism.

Why do you bury the fact that the terrorists /Hamas have set up their command center in the hospital? It is not open for interpretation by many experts. Have you spoken to the U.S. intelligence? Why do you not lead with the fact that Hamas has supplies and denies them to the Palestinians? Why do you not state that Israel has the right to defend itself. I am Very disappointed in WSJ podcast. Speak to your print colleagues.

SBF coverage was mediocre. Too many “like” insertions, sounds very amateurish.

Unless I missed it, it seemed that the latest podcast on Oregon’s legalization, only addressed the state’s disillusionment with the policy in terms of Fentanyl. Has the legalization of cannabis and psilocybin caused similar social/heath problems? I doubt it. If not, these substances should not have been grouped together as “hard drugs” and deny folks the benefits of treatment for depression/anxiety via psilocybin, when it’s Fentanyl that is causing the destruction described during the podcast.

Long time listener, the topics covered are typically an interesting assortment of business and politics. If there was breaking news happening yesterday, you could assume there would be a related episode today. The analysis and perspectives, on the other hand, leave much to be desired. Interviews are typically conducted with the journalist relevant to the story, rarely with original sources. If you read the news, there is little nuance offered here. The hosts typically ask the guest very surface level questions instead of deeper analysis. The SBF series is an abomination. Two people with a loose understanding of a courtroom, let alone of the actual case subject matter, try to explain to you what is happening. You’d get better analysis from a hot dog vendor outside the courtroom. It’s insulting to the audience (also love how they decided to destroy their credibility, along with their employer’s credibility, by saying they don’t know what “fiat” is in the first episode…you’re economic reporters).

Very disappointed in those episodes which could’ve been really good. Had you had a lawyer on the staff because U2 seem to just concentrate on the atmospherics and the emotions. I think most of us are looking for the actual facts of what is going on and the legal theories. As an example last week judge started bankman frieds testimony outside of the jury. What was the conclusion? Concentrated too much on the “show” of it.

I’ve this has become one of my favorite podcasts. I have especially enjoyed the Trial of Crypto’s Golden Boy. Ms.s Ostroff and Humphreys have wonderfully woven all the details and intricacies of this case into a captivating story. I’ve loved their court cafeteria discoveries. Excellent!

I have really enjoyed the coverage of the SBF trial. Both journalists did an excellent job of putting the listener inside the courtroom and covering the legal issues.

Coverage on SBF trial is terrific—informative and fun (who knew you could get a home made pie at the courthouse cafeteria)

I find your coverage of the trial both educational and endearing. I’m following 3 other podcasts for the trial but yours is by far the best!

The reporting quality is terrible. The number of times the reporters talk about getting up early to get to the trial along with their banter takes away from what should be a good story. The two act like this is their first reporting assignment. It should not be about them and instead about the story. Hire qualified legal and business reporters for this important story.

I’ve been enjoying the conversational crypto trial coverage, and I like listening to Caitlin and Kimberly.

I used to really love this podcast and still listen to it regularly. But it seems to me recently the content/ POV is slowly changing from balanced (fairly presenting both sides of a political issue) to presenting a more pronounced left wing bias. If I wanted to hear propaganda, I would listen to NPR or Fox News. I just to hear both sides. Please do better.

Honey, you need to stop saying “like” every third word. You sound stupid.

Zero integrity propaganda. Disgusting cowards

Well done on the trial of SBF coverage. Nothing against Rachel, but she’s just not needed here, and it has the cringey feel of the boss not trusting the “employee.” Would love to see Caitlin all on her own. She doesn’t need help or anybody jumping in on her.

Sound like high school reporters and frustrating to listen to. Please improve delivery amd professionalism. Content decent.

The liberal bias of the hosts regularly shines through. I really like a lot about the program, but this bias has me ready to unfollow. If that bias can’t be helped, perhaps including some more conservative-leaning hosts would be prudent.

your coverage of Palestine is absolutely atrocious. and i can see that you are deleting my reviews.

I listen to every podcast that the Journal puts out but this is truly such garbage and I can’t even understand how the editors of such a well-respected institution would dare to allow this to air. Honestly listening to the coverage of the war in Israel from this podcast would make you think you’re living in a completely different reality than reading anything in the actual paper or listening to another podcast. I really hope someone steps in to fix this mess soon because it will be damaging to the WSJ reputation to continue to have this continue to get released as it does today.

Cant get past the vocal fry and uptalk.