I love this podcast. But in discussion about how the Dems have had a failure of imagination about the abortion issue in which Jane mentions Hillary’s speech was 2016 and how the Dem party didn’t make it an important part of the election —- the blame needs to be laid at Bernie’s feet. He said reproductive rights were “a distraction” and even though Hillary got the nomination, Bernie’s toxic influence shaped the election. (And he was the first to talk about election interference in his primary. 🙄) Name him. Say it.

The three members of the panel are smart, at times funny, and know their politics. They seem to genuinely like one another.

Your recent discussion of the political change of Democratic Party Senators and Joe Biden toward any d to Israel failed to mention the primary results in Democratic primaries. The uncommitted voters who cast undecided ballots sent a clear message to the campaign that they needed a change in Borden’s approach to Israel. It needs analysis to determine how much this domestic political influence led to Biden changing course.

Talked at length about the Tik Tok fiasco without mentioning the fact that American Tech Companies will benefit tremendously by forcing Tik Tok into a corner. They spend millions and millions lobbying our government with anti Tik Tok propaganda. Closed door meetings with our clueless gov reps getting advice from the tech scum of our country (the scum responsible for ruining the internet) is obviously going to influence gov in their favor. To solve the problem, we need internet regulating legislation across all tech companies, but it’s not possible because tech scum are in the pockets of nearly everyone including you and me.

Everyone has great insight but SG always shuts down or interrupts the other hosts which is rude and not great to listen to

The Political Scene is the high point of my listening of the week. Susan, Evan, and Jane are the smartest columnists anywhere. The touch of magic that makes the Political Scene special is the affability that is readily evident among three brilliant friends.

Excellent choices, thank you for the enlightening conversation!

I’m finding that Susan’s overall analysis is arrogant and unhelpful. She comes across as a know it all who can’t admit when she’s wrong. She literally comes across as a hyper partisan hack who wrongly assumes her analysis is absolutely correct and the others don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s obvious and unbecoming. Am enjoying this podcast less and less because of Susan Glasser.

Comparing this to other political discussion podcasts (Slate’s, for example), this is actively painful to listen to as the hosts continuously talk over each other and denigrate each others perspectives. Please cut off each others mics when one person is talking or something, because the current format is appalling

I agree with other recent reviews. Susan Glasser who is very smart, for some reason, not only has to always jump in to emphatically voice her prognoses of doom, she often has to drop her insider creds too. Disappointing. I unsubscribed, checked in again and it’s now escalated into combat. We are here at the New Yorker for insights, and an elevated perspective, not punditry, which you can find everywhere else.

Lately I find SG to be too combative. She is very smart, but so are the other two. JM has an amazing amount of reporting experience and she is often shut down or shut out. EO has a great radio voice and is the best moderator. I am listening for their intelligence, experience and respectful interaction. Let’s not lose the latter.

I think these three people are brilliant journalists. Wonderful writing, incredible research, fair perspectives. Two of them have well timed, pleasing voices. One of them is like listening to the proverbial fingernails on the blackboard. And yet she wants to do as much talking as she possibly can by interrupting frequently. I wish she would back off on speaking so much.

Diverse range of topics and guest: consistently worth listening too.

Ty Cobb? Ty Cobb was a baseball player who died in 1961… Am I missing something?

The weekly Friday episode is really the best analysis of its kind I’ve encountered in any medium. The host for any particular episode has obviously created (and gently enforces as needed) a thoughtful structure based on the content. A master class. Intelligent, informed, respectful, and appropriately humorous. “Wielding the blade of an enlightened tongue.” RMG

Some really brilliant work here. I enjoy the podcast throughout the week but think it feels like an afterthought grab-bag other weeks (specifically Monday and Wednesday). Lots of plugging other work or things you can read more cohesively via the magazine if you subscribe. I thoroughly enjoy Friday (who are we kidding - SATURDAYS’ episodes) as the three hosts are so knowledgeable and offer a solid contrast to each other. Bothered slightly by its production delay and seemingly random weeks off, making it less consistent than I’d selfishly like.

Besides being totally biased and one sided, who is editing this show? The Feb 16th episode released on Spotify jumps around, repeats parts and cuts other parts off. Did anyone working there even listen to the podcast before releasing it? You can’t write reviews on Spotify so I came here to leave the review.

Like, one expects like New Yorker contributors to like know more like words than “like”. Like, If you can’t speak like, stick to writing, like.

Osnos,Mayer, Glasser, the best and most experienced journalists with the backup of the New Yorker team.

I do like the Friday podcast - Evan Osnos is smart with a great voice and too kind letting SG hog the show. JM is so great, with such deep experience.

I’m less inclined to listen to any NYer podcasts especially this one when you (especially Susan Glaser) talk and talk about Ukraine funding but not about blank checks to Israel. Why isn’t the connection to the billions of $ for the military war machine and oil not being addressed - especially when the US is implicated in a genocide (if you don’t agree then is ethnic cleansing better? War crimes?)? This status quo, and frankly cover up, reporting is embarrassing. The latest episode on why Biden won’t get re-elected and not one mention of the outrage over Gaza? I know you all are not keeping up with how we’re getting our media over the past decade, but I know you know that the US public is making our voices of discontent quite known, even if the NYer, NYT, etc aren’t covering it. Sad, I used to enjoy the NYer but you’re too reliant on Washington circles who are so out of touch. Where is the ‘news’?

My #1 recommended weekly roundtable. Tune in to hear a deep dive of political news with a caliber of thinking you won’t get anywhere else. I started listening because Jane Mayer is one of my favorite reporters, and I found Evan and Susan to be equally good. Excellent across the board.

enjoying the show: funny, insider scoops, newsworthy. thank you!

I love this podcast, and never miss a program. Evan Osnos, Susan Glasser, and Jane Mayer are so current with their analyses of the state of politics in the United States today. Admittedly they have a bit of a liberal bias, but they know their subjects exceedingly well. For anyone who wants an intelligent conversation, this podcast is for you!

Don't reference a lot of what's going on in Palestine with why Biden so unliked rn and make it seem like his age is the biggest thing. Noticed this for awhile and am finally over it and moving to less biased news.

Love Clare Malone. Please offer an ad-free feed option like ones offered by The Atlantic, Slate, NPR, Crooked Media, etc.

1) Tyler Foggat has a really grating uptalk voice 3) The production is terrrrible—the post production punch-ins, the stilted scripting/pacing, the weird funeral home chain new hire training video soundtrack. Oh and all the sole-sources tUneÿarDzz music on the other one is even worse btw! The New Yorker is great. The content of the podcast is usually pretty good. They should put more into the podcast. It feels like an unbudgeted afterthought that’s been left to the interns.

The New Yorker has in the past few years become a shrill progressive rag that doesn’t even recognize its own self-righteous assumptions. What a far fall. Can you imagine an article or speaker with ideas outside its smug bubble? Evan/Jane/Susan are full of insight, however, but the rest needs an honest dose of intellectual self-analysis and a bit of reading or reporting ideas beyond the campus and a ratified bubble of leftist New York chattering classes. Coverage of Israel’s war against Hamas proves how it has replaced its old storied tradition of serious journalism with a grievously misguided and factually de-contextualized woke agenda. Hamas are Islamic supremacists and genocidaires who took over autonomous Gaza and funneled billions of aid money into building tunnels under dense cities with a singleminded goal: to annihilate Jews. Israel did not make Gaza, a strip of land with a vast mouth to the Mediterranean Sea, universities, malls and luxury hotels, into a ghetto. It blockaded to keep out bloodthirsty killers who don’t want peace or a state unless it is Judenrein - and now the result is war.

Great people. Great discussion.

If you’ve ever wondered what Beltway Brain sounds like, this is the podcast for you.

They have some great topics, but some interviewers make it difficult to listen! Tyler Foggatt talks too fast, as though she’s in a rush Please find some better interviewers!

Susan Glasser just regurgitates weeks-old New York Times insights and speaks in cliches. She should be removed from the show, she is NOT New Yorker caliber.

I am disgusted with this podcast. I am a long time listener and I am simply stunned with how The New Yorker has covered the Israel/Hamas conflict. Have your reporters and editorial staff viewed any of the October 7th footage? On this most recent podcast you basically said (and softballed it to your guest so that they could agree) that Hamas just went a bit too far on October 7th. They simply wanted to attack some Israeli military bases and things got out of hand. How much of an extreme left agenda do you need to have to report on October 7th that way? Hamas terrorists had detailed instructions on them that day that laid out where exactly the Kibbutz’s were - Kibbutz’s filled with innocent families - babies, toddlers, children and elderly holocaust survivors lived. They had groups whose mission was to kidnap as many people as possible. Other groups whose mission was to brutalize, rape, torture, burn and maim civilians. I have no words for your ignorant coverage. You have forever tainted the integrity of your podcast and magazine and I will never believe a single word you report on again. You should be ashamed of yourselves - this is NOT journalism.

Susan Glasser, Jane Mayer

Jane Meyer’s voice might not last a lifetime, but she’s a thoughtful host.

When I heard that Jane Mayer had a new podcast I jumped to sign up. Hers are among the best, most cohesive and well researched books ever. She and Heather Cox Richardson rank up there with the best of the best. Their material ought to be on every American’s reading list. If you want to understand what’s going on politically you need to follow them & read their work.

Very concerning to think this is a government official and listen to her put words in people’s mouths, equating Palestinian and student calls for freedom to their oppression as as antisemitic. Shocking that there will be a rise in antisemitism, when you dilute and cheapen antisemitism to the point where within the span of a month dissenting voices on the left that have been present for years are also now antisemitic. A Palestinian college senior shouting “Let Gaza Live” isn’t doing a Charlottesville. It’s difficult to listen to someone insist that the movements for Palestine are somehow calls to undo the state of Israel itself. She does realize that the state of Israel does and has existed since 1948, correct? Nothing’s changing that. The Israel lobby must realize that we’re not going to let people put words in our mouths such as “we want the state of Israel to cease to exist.” I’ll listen to Deborah when she says that she recognizes Palestine’s right to self determination, statehood, and that Palestinians have a right to exist. Very concerning that such a lack of objectivity is at the helms of the US government. Deborah demonstrates that it’s actually not about protecting Jews from real antisemitism. It’s about protecting the state of Israel from valid criticism. People like Deborah manipulating calls for freedom into false equivalencies is not making Israel safer. And it’s not working. The American population is more intelligent than that. So yeah. No Deborah. Go back and try again.

Do better New Yorker.

I listen to so many political podcasts and my current favorites are The Political Gabfest and Pod Save America. Both are interesting, engaging and the hosts add valuable insights and considered discussions. This is the most frustrating. When the host group comes together, the pacing is SO frantic that I just give up. Are they trying to be done with the show in 10 minutes? The tempo of this show is appalling. It’s as if someone stands before them with sign boards demanding “faster, faster!” All of them, but Susan in particular, talk so fast that no thought is finished. Please limit the topics covered or allow for more time, or at least encourage breaths between sentences. I can’t listen anymore!! On the other hand, David Remnick is so thoughtful with long pauses, as though he has all day. I always hear something new that I think about. This could be a really good podcast, but at the moment, meh.

Israel made the “situation untenable”? Palestinians rejected every opportunity to live peaceably with Israel. And then they started a war with Israel which they lost. I’m disgusted by the weak reporting that is cowing to the loudest voices in the room. And then a comparison to the US displacing the American Indian? Unbelievable cowardice on display by lefties who called for republicans to display political courage under trump. The liberals are failing just as miserably.

…I’d appreciate being able to hear Evan and Jane finish their thoughts and comments without interruption. Otherwise, one of my favorite pods.

This podcast is a 30 minute discussion among three intelligent and like-minded journalists that provides an overview of one current issue in the news. The commentary does not go very deep and sometimes the hosts repeat lines we hear ad nauseam on NPR and every other left-leaning news source. But Evan is so polite and he and his co-commentators know what they are talking about so, it is worthwhile if you just want to think about timely issues a little bit more. This podcast is not going to ramp up your emotions, which is refreshing, but if you already listen to/watch/read the news, it is also not going to give you in-depth new information on most topics.

Sari Nusseibeh said Jews didn’t suffer pogroms in Arab lands. The “farhud” in Iraq dispossessed Jews in 1941. Jews in Arab countries were forced to flee their homes after the creation of the State of Israel.

Overall, I enjoy this podcast. However, on the Evan/Jane/Susan episodes, I find myself overwhelmed sometimes by Susan’s contributions. Very often, she monopolizes the conversation by speaking for what feels like several minutes, and the other co-hosts are unable to get a word in. On more than one occasion, I have stopped listening to an episode because it was too much to listen to Susan going on and on without a single exhalation. If she shared a little more of the airtime with her co-hosts, I’d give this 5 stars. The non-trio episodes are always excellent.

I’ve been listening to The Political Scene since its inception. It’s one of the few podcasts I never miss. That said, the Jane/Susan/Evan gabfest is struggling. I respect all of these writers, particularly Evan, as I’m an old China hand, and I appreciate his levelheaded opinions on the Communist regime, particularly in this time in which Xi is taking things down the toilet there. Jane and Susan are both great writers, and I have enjoyed not only their contributions to the New Yorker, but their books as well. I have read ALL the books each of these three have written. I’ve been trying to put my finger on what is disappointing me with the podcast since David stepped away (a big loss to the podcast). All three of these people have a wealth of knowledge, but something in the chemistry between them doesn’t work. I think the problem is the show lacks a leader. There seems to be some experimenting going on, particularly between Evan and Jane. Of the three, Evan is clearly the person who should be leading the group. Being smart and knowledgeable and a great writer is something they all share, but leading a team discussion requires a differently skill set, and not having a leader turns the podcast into a muddy mess. I get the sense Jane feels herself somehow entitled to be the leader, and wants to lead. It will never work. She can’t do it, and David needs to sit her down and tell her so. If Evan wants to lead the show, then empower him to do it. If he doesn’t, David needs to step back in or find someone who both wants to take the reins and is capable.

I couldn’t give his show the rating I wanted because I don’t hear balance between the speakers. Jane Mayer is a jewel who should be able to speak. I’d like to hear Evan, too, but Susan always has to hear her own voice.

Love the show but I couldn’t finish listening to the episode with Benjamin Wallace-Wells. Please do not invite him back until he learns to speak without vocal fry.

It’s like hosting a dinner with remarkable people. After the plates have been cleared, the conversation scintillates.

Some of the most dialed-in and lucid political analysis available. The Political Scene has become my favorite overall take on what matters politically, my go-to when I have time to listen to one political source. Shout out to Jane Mayer, who is a true legend and reporting Icon.

I would like to listen to these discussions but can’t stand the hosts regularly interrupting each other. Really difficult from a listener point of view. As professional communicators it must be an intentional style of presentation so maybe I am alone in finding it irritating and hard to listen to.