5/14 podcast just another example that WSJ has lousy touch with the real world. Less academics who never negotiated or ran a business (or it sounds that way) and more guests who actually have. I am so disappointed with WSJ lately as you have not adapted to finally running the country like a real business. You, Paul, Kyle, Kate , Mary all are looking clueless and I know you all are smarter than that.

Gerry used to be great, one of his greatest characteristics was standing out from the rest of the WSJ, this is no more. He has become an alarmist that speaks in hypothetical hyperbole with zero recognition of reality. Many of his guests propagate mass hysteria, specifically Greg Mankiw, a pretentious elitist hack that lets you know at every turn he’s a Harvard man. Gerry used to be down the middle, fostering conversation of reality, now he invites guests like Greg Mankiw on, to speak exclusively of hypotheticals. Remember, nobody can predict the future, especially not economists, and somehow this guy speaks in absolutes with a morally high ground, better than you attitude. This guy lived in academia, not reality.

Gerard slaaaaaps, like the replay value of 70s rock

Please ask the questions without a lecture between each answer from the guest

Love it

I’ve enjoyed Mr. Baker’s guests and insights for some time but I don’t think his disgust of Trump and finding like minded “moderates” from the credentialed to re-enforce his bias is a good foundation for a podcast. Who wants to listen to the next chicken soup for the soul author anyway?

Good show but I give the admiral a C rating. We have different info sources - I’ve read Signal is SOE for some of the government plus Waltz included the Atlantic’s editor in the chat unbeknownst to Pete. Also, the admiral ignores our long provocative involvement in Ukraine - you don’t have to fire a shot to cause a war. The admiral is rehashed Obama / Biden

A fine podcast. I’ve learned quite a bit since listening to Gerry and the guest speakers. Keep up the good work!

So I unfollowed after 2days.

Your show on Tim Walz had zero balance. Did you even consider a second panelist with an alternative view to balance the conversation? I expect better from a serious podcast from a reputable outlet. Normally I’m a fan of free expression, but that episode was reminiscent of a Fox “News” segment. You are better than that, Gerry.

Gerry, When Mr. Turley says, “and we are living, in my view, the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history. And I think it does eclipse the Adams administration,” I would expect stronger journalistic pushback. If for no other reason, it would make for a more interesting conversation. How about some data: how many more sedition cases are there? Are there other examples of government crackdowns on speech? Instead, we get the same tired talking points about big tech and woke campuses. I listen to and read smart conservative commentary as a San Francisco Democrat to widen my perspective. This episode did not help.

Jerry invites Israelis to criticize campus protesters BUT he never invites a dissenting voice & opinion from the other side. Jerry & his podcast is a joke !

There is not a better, more articulate analyst broadcasting. Excellent show with interesting, unique guests. My criticism is that a WSJ podcast would use mobile phone or computer microphones. PLEASE get studio quality microphones and lend them to your guests as so many podcasts do. Call Me Back with Dan Senor is a good example of a podcast that obviously does this. This criticism is true for all WSJ podcasts. The producers at WSJ are doing an appalling job on this issue

While I applaud Gerry for giving balanced time to multiple points of view…having Marie Harf on for the full 30 min podcast was too much to take. From her days at the State press podium for Obama/Kerry until today she is a one trick pony, endlessly repeating/supporting DNC talking points. Can anyone remember a time she was meaningfully critical of a Dem politician or policy?

Gerry gave a voice to the Biden administration as he tries to provide fair reporting. I think he missed the mark with this interview. Harf is a complete political apologist and excuse driven (hack) that reflected poorly on the basis of a fair analysis of the Biden administration. Harf is a complete and total political democratic-socialist commentator and it would have been better for her to fairly assess the current administration.

This podcast is balanced and provocative and just plain fantastic….Mr Baker is a gift in himself! His editorials often contain literally laugh-out-loud one liners which are always right on point and never gratuitous. I love the man and his many talents…!! We need the kind of perspective only Gerry can bring to a dinner table level of clarity and efficacy. True genius! Thanks WSJ for bringing Mr Baker’s podcast to us…..!

The interview with the Cloudfare CEO sounded like a paid advertisement. The topic was how secure are our elections and yet they didn’t even mention elections until 2/3rd’s of they way through. Very disappointing, WSJ needs to do better!

One of my favorite pod casts and always happy to listen in when a new episode is available! Thanks for inviting so many varied guests and the resulting discussions.

Throughly based podcast. And by based, I mean biased.

It would be nice if the NPR propagandists would at least give a token balance to interviews of leftist politicians.

I do not believe Larry Fink’s statements regarding Blackrock’s position on ESG & DEI. One only has to read his 2023 letter to CEOs to realize his strong activist position on ESG & DEI and his anti fossil fuel demeanor. Couple that with his patterning with the World Economic Forum and his anti Republican / Democracy philosophy becomes clear. I appreciate your attempt to offer some pushback but he’s very good at obfuscating his goals.

This is the best podcast I have found for news and policy discussions on topics that matter. Baker’s intellectual and conservative chops are quite apparent. Yet his interviews are respectful of the topics and guests. No shouting. No gloom. The dialogues are of a quality where the listener - despite personal politics- cannot help but be educated. Baker has earned the trust of his guests and his listeners and he makes the best use of it.

This podcast has been a great addition to the WSJ repertoire, Baker invites, a wide variety of guest experts and is an engaging, but extremely well informed interviewer. As a voracious, consumer of print and other media, I never fail to learn something new from his interviews and commentary.

Free Expression is one of my must-listen podcasts each week. Extremely engaging and thoughtful discussion on pressing topics. Also, very entertaining.

Gerard Baker is an excellent interviewer with a great vibe. Podcasts often fail to challenge their guests, but Baker does so while also offering insight into the topics he is discussing. His voice is pleasant too, which makes it an easy listen. I’ve listened to — and enjoyed — every episode, and have suggested the podcast to all of my politics-loving friends. My only suggestions are: (1) Get some better guests. Robert Kagan, for example, neoconned the US into making some of its worst foreign policy blunders over the past few decades (see “What to do about Iraq?”). Paul Ryan, while not necessarily being as harmful as Kagan, isn’t necessarily one with novel ideas. It’d be interesting to hear from newer, or perhaps those at the forefront of political ideology. (2) I’m not sure what’s going on with the WSJ music department, but, aside from The Journal, the intro music for WSJ podcasts sounds like it was written 50 years ago. You’d be surprised how much this affects the vibe. Luckily, Mr. Baker’s personality and voice makes up for it, but the music team should dream up something a little more.. modern.

When my teenage son came home told me that certain comments about religion cannot be brought up at school as he would be cancelled, I was worried. Love this week’s podcast. It’s right on. We go to school to “how to learn what we don’t know.” Be open to listen, argue, accept and disagree. I also like the discussion on why we need to study subjects other than math and science. Good question, Gerry!

This podcast is a great complement to Gerard Baker’s columns in the WSJ. It is wonderful to hear mature, thoughtful insights from a conservative perspective on critical current issues. I hope this podcast has a long future.

Listened to the Ryan interview. I was disappointed when interviewing a man who is criticizing congress and high deficits, Ryan wasn’t questioned about his own lack fiscal responsibility while he was speaker.

The Conservative movement is still alive and if allowed to be nurtured by level headed guys like Paul Ryan and promoted with brilliant interviews like this one, there is hope. Thank you for deep thought and considered opinions on cultural as well as political spectrum of the Conservative canon.

Free Expression is consistently a superb podcast. Love Gerry’s style and thoughtful, intelligent, and often illuminating questions. Interview of Paul Ryan was especially excellent

Gerry, I really enjoy your podcast. It’s informative and you ask smart questions. Your show with Paul Ryan was excellent. Dear Lord, it would be great to have a clear thinker in our Federal government…!

While searching for a podcast on current events, I came across this one, and am so glad I did! Every week seems to mirror a topic I am interested in hearing more about, with equally interesting guests. I look forward to the next episode.

I love this podcast. He has great guests and is an excellent interviewer.

Wow. My impression of him was generally favorable until I heard this interview. He is darn near as boring and uninspiring and full of platitudes as Mike Pence. As a lifelong Republican it is hard to acknowledge that the party is full of people who are such bad ambassadors.

Excellent podcast interviews. Gerry’s a quick thinking interviewer not afraid to ask tough questions. Interviews are balanced in that he lets his guests speak without interruption. I’m hooked.

Most WSJ Podcasts are fascinating and well balanced. I don’t feel that way about this one. Funny how numbers experts in business and finance can also ignore science and social trends. Sorry old men, but capitalism does need some guardrails to protect both the environment as well as historically marginalized groups of people. That simple point of view seems entirely absent in this. I didn’t find three discussions to be particularly interesting or thought provoking.

I am always looking outside my particular views and enjoy listening and reading outside my comfort zone. How else can I expand my knowledge and understanding? Therefore I was drawn to Gerard Baker’s podcast “The Decline of Men in the Workforce” Which I found enlightening. I then research Baker’s career with WSJ and saw how his strongly held biases created an atmosphere of disinformation and distrust. If I do pay attention to his podcasts I most certainly will be on the lookout for those “blind spots” that are simply a figment of his imagination or “pathology”??

Why just demonize the other political party rather than analyzing issues and thought provoking and challenging questions and discussions. Such a great opportunity to have a great podcast but turns out to be just another lopsided softball performance.

The Tom Cotton interview is a perfect example of why it’s though to have dialogue across ideologies. Jerry asked him a tough question about why some in his own party seem to be very much anti US power projection while he is laying the blame of all US military deficiencies at the feet of democrats and he literally went nowhere near answering the question. Also, why have we all forgotten about sequestration so quickly? Why not provide more than ideological assumptions to support your arguments? The problem with all political opinion programs are the same on both left and right, too much demonization of the other side and not enough analysis. We can disagree on the approach to governance but some honesty in the assessment of outcomes is necessary. I’m fairly certain that if politicians on the left and the right were so on point with there assessment of the other side, the United States would’ve failed a long time ago. Someone in government is doing a decent job. When it comes to keeping us safe, we’ve only been attacked twice and only once on the mainland, and never buy an invading army; pretty friggin solid record. I guess that’s why it’s the opinion section and not the analysis section. It’s a shame, because Jerry has the potential to be a really great interviewer, but as of now, this one is not for me.

Disclosure: Longtime WSJ reader here. Baker is a terrific interviewer and the results are compact but cover the most important issues of the day, from inflation to Ukraine. His [virtual] Rolodex has a lot of VIPs in global politics, finance, and the American experiment. Brisk and to the point, pod after pod.

Gerry provides uncommon insight into current issues via top experts on the issues, some of whom literally wrote the book (and received Pulitzer Prizes for it). Very thought-provoking. If Congress followed this one, we—and world—would be in a much better place; same goes for universities to teach valuable lessons learned.

In the Senator Scott interview, the argument was that FDR didn’t try to prepare America for WWII. FDR had to circumvent the GOP isolationists who were content to let Hitler have a free hand. The interviewer did not even try to challenge the interviewee’s repeated fact gaps like this. And the interviewer didn’t ask any hard questions- e.g., exactly how will the US defend Taiwan if China attacks, etc. The interviewee argued for states’ rights to prevail; the interviewer didn’t ask about the GOP’s post WWII vigorous advocacy for Jim Crow. Why? This isn’t quality journalism. The podcast provides a thoughtful conservative opinion. However, as most commentators today, the other side is always wrong. In the Barr interview, the participants both argued that religion is the only moral force. The error in this is proved by prior guest’s (Ferguson) observations that commentators know only 20th century history. How did the Christian church treat Jews and other non believers historically? Do you know of the church’s war against literacy after the invention of the printing press? How do the holy Hindus treat Muslims in India? How is the life of Muslims in Myanmar? How did those southern churches treat the Blacks? Religious institutions are human-and have human foibles. Some cynicism is warranted. You also correctly argue that the left wing Democrats are totalitarian. The GOP has acted exactly the same but from a different point of view. Both parties engage in gerrymandering, the ultimate improper voting influence. And both parties are in a war against free speech, especially regarding the internet. You ought to interview the author of the recent book Free Speech which proves that the Democratic-GOP position is consistent with the worst tyrants of history. The podcast needs a more balanced approach to achieve the greatness that it could. The other side isn’t always wrong and your side isn’t always pristine. Leonard Singer Overland Park, KS

The episodes are masterfully narrated by a well seasoned and thoughtul moderator having important dialogues with prominent voices from the American Right.

Mr. Baker’s interview of Professor Snead about the Dobbs decision displayed Snead’s mastery of the subject and Mr. Baker’s skills at drawing out information from an interviewee. One quibble: Mr. Baker implied that the Catholic Church teaches that a newly conceived human being is endowed with a soul immediately, that is, at the moment of conception. I believe the question of at what gestational point a human foetus is endowed with a soul remains open to theological debate. Also, the question of when ensoulment occurs is not central, if even relevant, to the Catholic Church’s firm opposition to abortion.

But please refrain from having Elitist Harvard professors pontificate about how their view of reason and logic should prevail. That was a worthless episode

I’m a WSJ subscriber and always enjoy Baker’s column. This podcast…when it’s good, it’s really, really good. This is not the political talk to give you comfort in your beliefs. It’s the political talk that challenges you to think about your beliefs.

I love this podcast. Thank you Gerry for finding such great experts and asking such great questions. Every episode answers my questions in great depth, and better yet answers questions I’m not smart enough to ask. Keep it coming!

Gerry Baker has a wonderful ability to cover current issues in unique ways. This is a podcast I would never miss.

Just the right amount of detail and breadth of ramifications. Thanks!

Topics of interest and importance are presented through thought-provoking interviews with experts in the area of discussion.