Three biggest questions of Trump’s war against Iran: 1) Did Israel war criminal Netanyahu force a weak Trump to bomb Iran? 2) Did compromised Trump bomb Iran to help Putin with oil revenues & Russia’s war against Ukraine? 3) Did yet another Republican President force US into Middle East war by manufacturing false evidence, or to distract from Epstein sexual abuse that incriminates Trump?

I’ve noticed WSJ is using the term “so called” now. I would think if someone names something then it’s not “so called “. It’s actually called that. If you’re going to use that term then explain why. That’s journalism.

So biased

You said on 2/25/26 that Spanberger is a “moderate”. I guess you just totally missed all of her radical proposals. One star.

The markets and financial information is decent and has been worth listening to but at the same time, it often feels like the commentary and analysis of general news items is riddled with hypocrisy

What content is good, but the Commercial to content ratio is much too high. Unfollowed

Luke Vargas every sentence says we are exclusively reporting. Just report it. He’s also alarmingly chipper delivering bad news. Gaza has been bombed constantly he says so enthusiastically, it creeps me out. The news itself is great but the delivery leaves much to be desired.

I typically love listening to this podcast. However it sounds like the reporting is becoming more biased. For example, they reported a shooting in Portland. The reporting by the WSJ lead with it being a traffic stop, and comments from Portland’s mayor about the current administration’s use of force being too aggressive. Why isn’t the WSJ leading with the fact that the two drivers tried to ram the police officers with the vehicle? That’s directly putting a police officers life in danger. It turns out the drivers are connected to a gang. But that aside, put yourself in their shoes. Would you try to run a cop over with your car?

The commentary about changes in public health policy with the Trump’s administration is so biased. Sabrina Sidiqui is a committed lefty that shows it very much in all her commentary and analysis (or lack thereof). Please, get rid of these people, or at least have the opposite point of view to balance your reporting and opinions. Otherwise, WSJ is going down the path the NY Times and Washington Post, fueled by the rage of Trump’s haters.

We have been listening past couple years and so glad to hear Luke Vargas voice again!

At last a discussion on the actual costs of green energy. I applaud your look into the cost of green energy. I’d still like to see a discussion of cost per KW/H. The fact that Germany has the highest cost per Kw and a scary dependence on Russian oil and gas is good to explore. The promise of green energy jobs was also good to explore. But we need to look at actual costs. What is the uncompensated cost of Solar panels, made in China and shipped to the USA or Europe? Vs the cost of coal, traveling efficiently from Wyoming by water or rail to your 90 year old electric plant? I understand the cost is something like 40 cents vs 4 cents. If true, that should be stated. No one is at war with Wyoming or West Virginia so that supply of coal energy is stable and reliable. Coal is also sited as being the most abundant resource. If you must include government subsidies: Do poor renters/households benefit from green energy investments or is it primarily wealthy homeowners who can afford to buy solar panels upfront with big government subsidies which benefit? We are told these are trillion dollar decisions, can the WSJ just tell me the price per K/W of energy sources such as solar, wind, gas, oil, coal, hydro, nuclear. We depend on WSJ for data to support our decisions. Appreciate your looking into this.

Love the WSJ reporting, Im a paying online subscriber and daily podcast listener. Im also a broadcast journalist. The host tone and cadence is robotic and each sentence sounds the same with no interpretation of the copy. The tone at beginning of the sentence goes up, there a pause and then the ends of the sentence has a halting downward tone. Just compare the host delivery to any sound byte and you hear the stark difference.

I listen to this podcast every day twice a day. It’s great, but I can’t stand Kathleen McCabe’s diction. She sounds like someone making a lame impression of a robot. It’s very distracting.

Fantastic efficient reporting. I only wish they focused more on big world news stories, and less stories on very boring, fringe, and repetitive topics like Warner Brothers Discovery… there are so many other more interesting things to report on.

I’ve read the recent posts criticizing the WSJ as shifting left. The reality is that the WSJ is reporting on the increasing authoritarian actions of the Trump administration. True conservatism requires reporting on the news and actions of government and other entities regardless of whether they are on the right or left. Calling a spade a spade is critical to a democracy.

I don’t understand why a journalist must tell us a topic is “super interesting.”

There was a discussion about how long it take the government to get back to full force. With 2.3 million employees excluding the military and post office employees I don’t think 4000 job losses is a big deal. That is less than 2/10 of 1% of the total. I don’t believe that Walmart which has 2.1 million employees, services would suffer if they lost 4000 people. You should put things in a better perspective.

This used to be such a wonderful podcast. It used to be neutral and just reported the news and that was wonderful because the vast majority of our sources are now captured by left or right… Unfortunately, this podcast is now clearly left of center in outlook and reporting.

I just want a short news headline that’s in the center. This is not it. Not just occasional left of center this podcast is left

Shortened version of the news presented like NPR. Were your reporters previous NPR employees?

I started listening to this years ago because I felt like it was a great short, unbiased, just the news, twice a day podcast. In the last couple of months, they’ve changed hosts, and you can hear the bias in her voice and in the content as it is written. It’s really disappointing, because I thought the journal would give it to me straight.

You guys have to check the bias….so DR and Trinidad are “supportive publically “ of strikes on drug boats because they see it as smart to be on trumps good side, yet Colombia is critical since it will destabilize Venezuela??? So the leftist Colombian government considers Venezuela to not be a social and economic basket case, involved/ supportive of the drug trade -and you guys don’t laugh- yet you marginalize smaller Countries that traditionally don’t like the U.S. when they say thanks for eliminating drugs flowing into our nations…ok, got it.

I thought your story was a little biased and that you kept saying that Trump was going after Comey for retribution. How about that the justice department was going after Komi because he lied to Congress he also did a lot of other things that were wrong like making the announcement that there wasn’t anything with Hillary Clinton. He’s a shady character, and if he broke the law, he should be prosecuted. And not just because he’s anti-Trump he was a top policeman in the United States.. He did everything he could to disrupt a duly elected president. I guess you like Comey

Seriously this is just another left wing publication….like another was needed. What laughable headline saying “China is passing the US on clean energy”….talk about being gaslit and then spreading that propaganda lol.

It’s a leftest opinion. Try fact checking yourself.

I don’t agree with Charlie Kirk, but you seem happy about his murder.

Coverage tracks too often with liberal mainstream views.

What is with all the Brits on WSJ? It’s clear these people have gaps in understanding our culture and system of government. Is this more of Emma Tucker’s work? Are there no American reporters left?

It went from an objective look at today news to just another daily dose of orange man bad.

Very disappointed to hear WSJ give so much air time to a man complaining about recent reports on climate as bad science. I work in this field currently finishing my PhD and while people certainly have personal opinions against the Trump administration, the report they published isn't "bad science". Science is all about making opposing arguments to investigate and find the truth. The interview seems to imply that if a large amount of people believe something it must be true and that the truth can't be sophisticated. Science is the place to present an opposing perspective with the data that is available.

But now they seem to be full on Trump Derangement Syndrome

Used to 100% love this podcast, but the commercials are too much & too many

Love the podcast. I hope to never hear “Riva here from Realtor.com” again in my lifetime.” Once with that voice was more than enough.

This podcast could be 5 stars if it left politics out. They don’t even hide how liberal they are. Completely biased information and contributes to the poisoned media we consume. PLEASE make this bipartisan.

It’s like we have forgot about economics and the other factors that have affected this company and competition in the same way. This boycott has had such a small overall impact on earnings yet we spend 2 separate episodes on it? I will change my review from one star to four once you apologize for putting politics ahead of truth. Weird weird move WSJ. We listeners deserve an apology.

Disappointing Host Diminishes the Experience. I had high hopes for this podcast given the subject matter and potential for insightful discussion. Unfortunately, the host, Gunjan Banerji, consistently underdelivers. Her questions often feel surface-level or poorly considered, and rather than fostering meaningful dialogue, she frequently leads responses. Instead of allowing for organic conversations, there’s a noticeable push toward a particular narrative, which detracts from the credibility and balance of the show.

This would have been 5 stars but the sound editor is driving me nuts. Some interviews and narrators sound great, but frequently quests they interview are way too quiet. Boost the volume on quiet speakers!

Excellent way to stay informed and start your mornings.

I’ve been reading the WSJ now for close to 15 years (and listening to this podcast specifically for a good 5-6 years). Still, over the past year, there has been a noticeable and concerning shift further to the right especially when covering politics. I know it has always leaned to the right, but sadly the “news” (non-opinion) department is increasingly partisan and while they portends to share unbiased news, it has consistently chosen to elevate/platform Trump giving him more airtime and visibility (mostly discussing his positives and only glossing over all his negatives) while not giving similar fair coverage to others. It’s divisive and I’m seriously considering listening to another podcast for my news now. Note: The ‘Tech News Briefing’ podcast is mostly still great! Except for its elevation of Elon Musk, it has maintained its news independence well.

One sided. Left leaning and not the middle where most of us are. Unfollowed.

I used to like this podcast but I recently listened to reporting on a topic that intentionally left out certain statements that are public knowledge in order to paint a certain person in a positive light which alters perception and facts. True journalism is dead.

Once again, you’re reporting on the condition of the wealthy in our country being better off is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that they represent 50% of the spending and they’ve increased foreign expenditures by 10% can easily be accounted for in the shift based on the on the harm that inflation over the past four years has significantly damaged those in the 80 percentile and below. And a 10% increase in foreign expenditures can easily be accounted for with inflation. Get your act together.

I listen to this podcast every day but concerned about the objectivity of your Senior Middle East Correspondent and would encourage you to pay attention to the biases . Many thanks

There really is no longer a difference between the WSJ and NYT podcasts now. Neither can correctly use the word “woman.”

I can’t take it anymore, the way every podcast is framed and couched in such a biased, anti-conservative way. Anti-Musk and Anti-DOGE. After listening to the what’s news podcasts you would think the majority of American La were opposed to the work they are doing. What happened to this supposedly unbiased business news media outlet?

This show is absurdly liberal in its views. Does the executive leadership at the WSJ even listen to their own podcasts? If you want a center or center-right news source, this is not your podcast.

Corporate worker here. Just listened to the episode on DEI. Almost everyone I know is in favor of diversity & inclusion. It’s the “E” that’s offensive and problematic. In implementation, it’s led to discrimination and preferences to achieve racial and gender targets. Meritocracy as a philosophy was watered down and , standards were lowered to allow mediocre and sometimes unqualified candidates to advance in their careers…only if they fit a particular profile. Can’t tell me it didn’t happen, I watched it go down.

Report about illegal purges in the treasury department and inspectors generals firings Fraud and abuse.

This reporting is ok. Still subtly bias to the left. I can still see the TDS leaking out. Why is it never a positive store about the US or center -right politics?

The What’s News in Markets commentary is just not funny. Get a better writer or just stick to the facts and skip the jokes and the personal stories.