The Journal.

I cannot believe you spelled Jason’s company incorrectly in the show notes.

Hahaha some funny bits mixed with deep dives into news. So I listen

I expect serious, high quality, unbiased reporting and content from the WSJ. After listening to a number of episodes from The Journal (~8), which seems like a reasonable sample size, I’m disappointed to say that’s not what I’ve found in The Journal. Here’s what what I’ve heard: - Surface-level reporting of information easily available via other formats (like the websites of any news outlet). Why tell me information I can easily glean from headlines and other outlets? That makes sense where needed to provide context but should then be followed by something deeper. Listening to this show is like attending a seater dinner where only appetizers are served. - Hosts and guests seem to lack gravitas and depth of knowledge and are sometimes cavalier. - Hosts and guests sometimes speculate about states of mind and intentions of their subjects. I like analysis and am fine with such speculation, but it should be clear that its opinion and should be backed up by facts. Not the case in some instances. - Hosts and guests seem left leaning. Matt Gaetz and Pam Bondi were compared as nominees for attorney general with hardly any mention of the dramatic differences between them. Pam served as Florida AG for years, but that qualification was unmentioned (I think). Also, the guest’s commentary about Pam suggested an almost robotic allegiance to and willingness to execute the wishes of Trump. Political reporter Molly Ball also seems left leaning. I hate to be writing a review like this for a program I am inclined to like and to give the benefit of the doubt.

I used to enjoy listening to the Journal - with the reporting now focused on politics over business and money, I find myself simply tuning out and looking elsewhere. As of late, the programming is not entertaining or informative.