52 episodes
Matter of Opinion The New York Times
-
- News
-
-
4.1 • 6.8K Ratings
-
Thoughts, aloud. Hosted by Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, Carlos Lozada and Lydia Polgreen. Every Friday, from New York Times Opinion.
Listen to this podcast in New York Times Audio, our new iOS app for news subscribers. Download now at nytimes.com/audioapp
-
Thomas Friedman on Iran, Israel and Preventing a ‘Forever War’
Will Israel and Iran’s unprecedented attacks escalate into a wider mideast conflict? A “forever war”? This week, columnist Tom Friedman joins the hosts to unpack the latest developments, what it means for Gaza, and the implications for the region writ large.
-
Abortion, Trump and Religion in Politics
This week, the hosts debate how religious voters will react to Donald Trump’s betrayal of anti-abortion positions, the evolution of Christianity as the domain of the right and whether religion is actually as powerful as it seems in modern U.S. politics.
Plus, Ross finds aliens, again. -
Are Smartphones Just a Scapegoat for Our Unhappy Children?
It’s not just bad vibes — America’s kids are not OK. As study after study shows worsening youth mental health, a popular theory has emerged: The rise of smartphones and the addictive nature of social media is making young people miserable. But can it really be that simple?
This week, the hosts debate the myriad possible factors contributing to teenagers’ unhappiness, and discuss how parents, schools and the government can protect kids without doing further harm. Plus, a sui generis Lozada family vacation. -
Finding the Line Between Celebrity and Politician With Tressie McMillan Cottom
The sociologist and New York Times columnist Tressie McMillan Cottom joins the hosts this week to discuss the role of celebrity in politics. Could Beyoncé and Taylor Swift, with their tens of millions of fans, sway the presidential election? And beyond brand-name pop stars, what role does celebrity play within the political system?
Plus, Tressie goes a little “Dr. Oz” on us. -
Texts From the Swamp
It can often feel as if politicians use a lot of words without saying much of anything. So how do journalists and citizens make sense of what’s said (and unsaid) in the many congressional reports, court decisions and campaign memoirs that pour out of Washington?
This week on “Matter of Opinion,” Carlos Lozada makes the case for reading the Capitol, and uses insights from his new book, “The Washington Book,” to help his co-hosts decode everyone from Donald Trump to Mike Pence to Barack Obama. -
Lydia Finds Hope in a Moment of Crisis
We’re working on this week's episode. While you wait, listen to this audio essay from one of our hosts, Lydia Polgreen, on the situation unfolding in Haiti.
Customer Reviews
Informative political conversations
As a fan of the original Argument, I was excited to see that it was spiritually returning in the form of this podcast. And as political podcasts go, you could do a lot worse. It’s intelligent, civil discussion among co-hosts who aren’t shouting at you or each other. It’s not overly formal and they make jokes. It’s like a conversation among friends, if your friends happen to be elite New York journalists.
I just wish the co-hosts pushed back on Douthat more often. He’s quick to pounce on anything he doesn’t like and argue against it, but the other hosts are too mild-mannered to really call him out on his nonsense. On some episodes, the show feels like an echochamber when it really shouldn’t. Nobody questioned the narrative that the decline of religion is definitely a bad thing, or that we should negotiate with Russia to give them Ukraine’s land. Somebody should have stepped up as the dissenting voice and challenged these assumptions, if only for the sake of us listeners.
Mostly excellent discussions, could use more focus
Some episodes are amazing and fantastic conversations covering fascinating topics. You have four true intellectuals here sharing opinions and having open and honest discussions. However, there are a few episodes where the conversation is unfocused and/or the hosts are talking past each other and not actually listening and responding to each other’s points. I get the sense that hosts may have trouble just admitting a point is valid even if they disagree with the overall argument being made, you can accept a fact or merit to an argument without having to accept the conclusion.
God doesnt exist.
God doesnt exist. You need someone with that opinion too.