The Daily

I have not heard any commentator, mentioning this, but what I think was most important in this debate was what was revealed about the character of each of these candidates.To me, more important than policy, is the character of each candidate. In addition to being competent, are they honest, willing to admit weaknesses, willing to listen to other viewpoints, do they impress one as genuine, and are they able to express themselves in a civil manner? I think Tim Walz led the way in demonstrating all f these desirable character traits: willingness to agree with his opponent on certain points, self-deprecatingly calling himself a “knucklehead” for misspeaking about his presence at the Tiananmen square protests, etc. In this way Tim Walz, projected genuineness and sincerity, and JD Vance then mostly responded in kind.This is a model of the kind of behavior I would like to see from all of our candidates which would give me hope that they have the will and capacity to work together to make the best decisions for the benefit all.

Listened to Lulu Garcia Navarro’s interview with Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and was struck by how much opinion and editorializing was on display by the interviewer. She fawned over former President Trump, failed to address a fair comment from Secretary Buttigieg on the media’s differential treatment of President Biden and former President Trump’s age (essentially treating Trump’s age as inconsequential, despite his clearly diminishing mental capacity). It was clear that she had an editorial bent towards legitimizing and supporting Trump, and showed clear annoyance with Secretary Buttigieg’s forceful and eloquent responses to her quite frankly unfair questions. In her own words “well, its clear in your responses that you’re one of your party’s best communicators.” Much like the Times’ news room, which has trumpeted Biden’s age but concealed Trump’s age concerns, the Daily has unfortunately fallen down a similar rabbit hole or right wing agitprop. I witnessed it in their desire to revive dormant stories favorable of former President Trump, and their clearly critical framing of any story favorable of President Biden, Vice President Harris, or the Democratic party. Although I clearly have my own political preferences, I can respect when reporting needs to be tough on a candidate or party. What I can’t respect is when only one candidate, party, or side is subject to extremely difficult questions while the other his handled with kids gloves. Former daily listener of The Daily, will no longer be following/subscribing due to clear bias on the part of this podcast, its producers, and the paper that supports it. Post Reports is a more fair daily podcast, The Journal is relatively fair despite a light right wing tilt, and Today Explained serves as a more center-left/technocratic view of the news. All are more fair in their reporting than The Daily. Update: the most recent podcast with Maggie Haberman was absolutely unacceptable in its bias. The longshoreman’s strike was ended and the parties were brought back to the negotiating table by a competent administration. But the reporters here fail to acknowledge that progress, imply that the administration was a failure (despite broad successes in wage growth, reducing inflation, and resolving the aforementioned strike) and prognosticate that this strike will universally benefit Trump even though it was successfully resolved. The editorial intent of the Time’s is clear, as is its bias in favor of Trump.

Lackluster analysis. Two thumbs down.

If they stopped doing political episodes this would be a 5 star can’t miss podcast. Their political episodes are so biased I can’t help but laugh while listening to them