I have been listening to this podcast for a long time, but I really have enjoyed all the new voices hosting in the last few weeks. The show has more energy - more of this please!

The usual hosts of this show are decent, but the substitutes they have right now are bad. Weird dramatic effect in their tone and phrasing makes it hard to focus on the story.

Add AP News & one can stay fairly informed in an efficient fashion. BKK NNNews.org #BKK #APNews #NNNews #KISSINGER #VoteBKK4POTUS47 on 5 #November2024 in #USPresidentialElection #2024ElectionWAR

May 24, 2022 pm edition: gratuitous and unprofessional reaction by Dion Rabouin to an audio clip of the House Speaker: “hmm, well then.” Sounds harmless in writing, but Mr. Rabouin is a news reader, his reaction is not needed to cue the rest of the story, and doesn’t belong on What’s News. Degrades otherwise excellent podcast.

Episode on SC abortion law included inaccurate language. In describing the law, the host said at six weeks “people” don’t know they’re pregnant. Do better WSJ. Respect women, say “women.” No other people can be pregnant. It makes it look like you’re pandering to progressive lunacy. Regardless, this content is rather lackluster and redundant with other WSJ podcasts.

April 27AM gender Mental Illness could have been the headline. Your pods seems to have young libs pushing far left tropes.

So many passionate comments with their political views reflected LOL. But for me, this is where I get a quick pulse of the market conditions and macroeconomic trends twice a day. I like how fast anchors speak so I don't have to play at 1.25x speed. Do you love it? I love it!

I have been listening to this podcast as a fairly unbiased reporting of the news, which was a true statement until April 27, 2023. In its report about a couple legislators proposing legislation to require Supreme Court ethics rules, the reporter used biased language against Justice Clarence Thomas, reporting (truthfully) that he “claimed” that he was exempt from reporting personal hospitality gifts, without adding the equally true statement that he was indeed not required to report such. She then went on to add significant inflection in her voice when describing this hospitality, calling it “pretty extravagant.” As a reporter, she should be required to report the facts in an unbiased way, and let the listeners decide if it is extravagant or not, instead of leading listeners with her vocal inflections toward a certain conclusion. If she wants to do that, she can join the WSJ op-ed staff, or have her own opinion podcast. Don’t force me to drop the WSJ too in a search for unbiased news reporting.

Too much coverage of Elon Musk and his businesses. For example, on April 20, the show covered Elon and his businesses for around 13 minutes of an 18 minute show. After this, I KNEW it was time to review. There are many more important things going on in the business and world in general to dedicate so much time to Mr. Musk.

I used to listen to this podcast in the car while picking up and dropping off my kids at school but they started using inappropriate language like "porn star" WITH NO WARNING which of course my kids asked about. Really WSJ? Would you like to explain what a porn star is to my 5, 3 and 2 year old daughters? Can't make this a family friendly podcast? Please just say "adult film star" not that the actual occupation of the woman even matters. Unnecessarily disgusting and perverted, do better.

Well I just gave ya a favorable comment on a WSJ survey for fixing the fake “thank yous for having me” dialogue. Guess I spoke too soon, from the moderator’s lame intro to the guest’s “valley girl’ish” thank yous that we were lucky to have her. A reporter needs to not make it about them.

No news about Hunter Biden buys guns and admitting drug use!!!

If you like a news outlet where reporters skew left on nearly every topic, this one is for you.

Recently the editing has become nearly unlistenable - the recordings of the reporters are slowed down to such an uncomfortable speed that it is difficult to focus on content. Same is true for tech news briefing. If something has changed about editorial methods or staff, might be time for a rethink.

Why does it matter what color the Super Bowl quarterbacks are? How about this? Two amazing quarterbacks will be featured in this year’s Super Bowl. Your Friday, February 10, 2023 pm edition made it a point to say it’s two black guys. Nobody cares. All the fans care about is their teams and seeing a great Super Bowl. I’ll even take a leap and say, I bet people will realize what color the quarterbacks are when they watch the game. Nuts, I know. I’ll also take a leap and say, I bet their hard work, talent, and perseverance was what got them to the top of NFL football and skin color had zero to do with it.

Absolutely ridiculous how you’ll mention Israelis killing Palestinians when it is all in defense and retaliation of the terrorist attacks. So convenient how you ignore the Palestinian attacks on Jewish families in a synagogue this past weekend killing women and children. Not to mention the parades they had after to celebrate the terrorist attacks. Nothing short of anti semitism to spread this narrative. You’re no better than the New York Times.

This podcast is perfect for a summary of pertinent news with professional and interesting reporting. It’s just the right length of time. I listen to the morning episode almost every day.

A must hear in the morning and evening.

I listen to this podcast morning and night during my commute. Great news, succinct, balanced, factual.

My go-to for current events and perspectives. Luke Vargas is sharp and polished, as are some of the other contributors. It’s apparent a lot of work goes into the production of the podcast. Thank you !

I would give this podcast a 5 because it brings good updated content in a concise informative manner. It’s clear the speakers prepare for each show. One small technical issue: I can’t hear you-I use a microphone and it doesn’t improve much. I don’t have this trouble with other WSJ podcasts, so I’m not sure why this one is so difficult to hear.

Listen to this almost everyday after switching over from another news podcast last year. Way less of a political tilt than others and sufficiently delivers the news.

Love this podcast. Perfect dose of news in the AM and PM. Just enough to stay current and updated, short and precise, and top notch reporters.

Excellent show. I’ve been listening since it was created by Anthony Galloway and his team back then. Excellent writers but some of the speakers are not great - especially that Peter G. guy. His voice and attitude is subpar at best. There’s gotta be another producer with a better voice.

This podcast is great for brief bits of news. And for anyone complaining, WSJ is a right-leaning news site.

Great work, keep it up!

Great program.

Love this podcast. It’s a great unbiased alternative to ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc. No spin and great reporting on the most relevant stories of the day. Reports are pertinent, concise and updated EVERY day (unlike some of the aforementioned).

Vote

Just the facts

In a hyper- partisan world, the WSJ presents about as neutral a presentation of the news as you can find. There’s appropriate depth to the reporting and the length of the podcast is economical. That’s all good. The AM edition seems to have a revolving door of hosts. I’m sure Luke Vargas is a good guy, but there’s too much happy talk between him and the contributors. Luke: “Hey Maggie, thanks for being on the program.” Maggie: “Thanks for having me. How are you?“ Luke: “I’m terrific, thanks.” “Let’s meet for drinks.” Just kidding about the last one, but you get the point. This is supposed to be a news program. If I want to banter about the news, I’ll talk to my friends. For the PM edition, AMF does a very good job reading the news, engaging the reporters and keeping the program moving along. Give her a raise! Sometimes the feature stories drone on, either because of the canned interview format or the reporter is trying to sound too conversational. It’s too bad, because the stories can be interesting and timely. And you can do away with the last segment. - it mostly just fluff. Does the WSJ instruct their reporters to start their sentences with “well”, “yea”, “so”? Maybe the WSJ wants this podcast to be less about news reporting and more about news chit chat. If that’s the case, it’s working, particularly in the AM edition.

The 10/25 PM edition story by Daniella Cheslow may as well have been a paid advertisement for the Democratic Party. I listen to this podcast daily and enjoy this podcast due to the general balance and non-partisan nature of your coverage. “News stories” like this one though will turn off listeners looking for non-partisan, intelligent coverage. Summary of Story - - look how great the diverse food scene is in this town due to immigrants. - The Republican candidate is telling lies about how bad immigrants are in order to rile up his racist base. - cite two sources to confirm that the Republican candidate is wrong. - queue Democratic candidate’s sound bite saying how wrong and racist the Republican candidate is. - state that the Republican’s messaging is really resonating with some voters (implying that if a listener agrees with republicans on immigration, they must too be a racist.) - end by saying how close and important this election is. WSJ - as a genuinely good news outlet, do better. This is pathetic. What if you maybe brought in statistics about how many undocumented immigrants entered the US, the number of immigrant deaths this year, or the effects on community services that immigrants are having? Maybe if you provide a little context on the issue, this could provide some balance to the story? Maybe if you actually cover with some perspective and nuance, you can represent Republicans as more than misinformed racists.

I really appreciate this podcast, a great selection of stories with clear explanation and insights. I listen every morning.

As far as neutrality goes, it seems impossible to find it in news outlets nowadays. This podcast is the closest I’ve found and I listen to it daily. I’ve recommended it to friends and family as well.

This is a go to source for me first thing in the morning and at night. LOVE Luke and Anne Marie. But Peter not a great fill in host. Wish Peter would stop trying to sound like a country western singer. Makes me crazy because I’m from Milwaukee too. The G at the end of ING is NOT silent.

This is my favorite news podcast, but please bring back Luke Vargas for the AM edition. Peter Granitz is just not as good, period, not even as a substitute.

Found this podcast about a month ago and love it! I listen to it every morning. Is there a place where we can comment on each show?

While in general, this podcast attempts to present news from both sides, the reporters and moderators can’t help but interject their own personal left-slanted bias. This podcast, and journalism in general, would be much better served by the removal of opinion and focus on factual statements.

My favorite news podcast! I dont pay for ad free, so the one drawback is that the person who does the ad reads has the most grating voice… I dont know how else to explain other than her voice is the worst. But love Luke (I only listen in the morning but im sure Annie is great too) and the guests are always on point!

I love the WSJ and was happy to find the podcast, which is always interesting/informative. Lately tho, two things are bugging me - first, the woman doing the voiceovers for the ads (amazon lately) has absolutely the most grating voice. It makes me cringe — esp when I can’t hit fast forward! There are SO many good voices out there, please give that job to someone else! Second, it feels like the q & a b/w the host and the reporter is getting further dumbed down. They repeat the main points of the story too many times, and leave lots of obvious questions unaddressed. Come on WSJ, we’ve got more discerning ears and better brains than you think! That being said, thanks for providing this podcast gratis, it is appreciated!

I’ve been listening to this podcast for years. It’s the one news source I’ve been able to find that is consistently balanced, offers both sides of the story and has a mix of economic new (which is what I’m into) and regular news. Highly recommend!

Briefly addresses current issues

I listen to the morning and pm podcast of this show. Great review of todays happening and more in-depth with business side that other podcast skip. Then 2nd part of show with in-depth topic is also very interesting.

This is where I get all my best biz news in the mornings Don’t listen to the afternoon version often (try to go news free after work) but when I have listened I appreciate slight differences in delivery. No nonsense, impartial and well paced

Very straightforward, provides information and context without spin.

Sorry I have to give WSJ a big flat F for the Musk Affair story! Turns out to be false.

Just heard a tidbit about Dr Fauci retiring, it sounded like he was some sort of expert on COVID and was a great leader during the crisis. Clown show. 🤡

More than one reporter repeats the phrase, “Ya know.” If I know, why are you telling me? Quit using empty colloquialisms to fill in spaces where you were thinking about what you should have thought about before you opened your mouth.

No mention of Biden’s administration disastrous policies on the border immigration and towards the oil industry. Better than most other left-wing propaganda outlets, but still biased and incomplete reporting and analysis of reality.

I’ve listened to this podcast for over two years, especially once Audible ended its WSJ daily news. I used to notice more professionalism and very rarely any bias. Unfortunately, the trend towards more opinionated questioning and cherry-picked guests has tarnished the independent and professional view I had regarding the WSJ’s non editorial section. I hope this trend does not continue, but I’m not optimistic, especially since some larger stories seem to only be covered in the editorial section while remain uncovered even weeks later in other sections.