WSJ What’s News

Reviews For WSJ What’s News

Multi-year listener here with one critique, the new intro music is really horrible. I start my day with What’s News and since the new intro music was added I find myself listening to new episodes less and less. What an affect a 5 second intro can have on the retention of its listeners… please change it back.
Love the content but the audio between the content and ads is not level. Great if you don’t care about the ads but still annoying as a listener.
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.
Challenge politicians responses to questions and do the work to check politicians actual historical voting records. Give complete reviews of actual proposed legislation. Without details response are misleading.
While I sympathize with Evan’s fate, why is he so special? Paul Whelan has been suffering the same loss for years.
I loved hearing Francesca deliver the report today. I hope we can hear more of her!
Re-enable transcriptions
I used to like WSJ analysis on various topics but no longer. Very politically skewed and motivated presenting highly biased news only. Bye bye and never see you again!
Criteria for audio rating: Sonorous, loud, full and rich, projection of voice, crisp & clear. Does the audio quality of the guest on show (if any) also meet this criteria? 5 of 5 meets all criteria. If listener has to strain to hear speaker, 0 out of 5. If guest’s audio is not at least on par with host’s, gets a 0 out of 5. I also consider how effectively speaker makes use of time; i.e., long pauses, lots of uums and uuhs, deviation from point, fluff or superfluous info, and general elocution. About 99% emphasis on audio quality. I use podcast Money Matters with Ken Moraif as 100% standard of AUDIO SOUND QUALITY ONLY, that gets 5 out of 5 rating. Criteria for content: how is this info unique and different from what I can glean from a google search? What advantage can I gain that I can’t from google search? If info is unique & helps elucidate complex and esoteric ideas, gets 5 out of 5. If info is stuff that can be pretty much read off google searches, gets 0 out of 5. I place 1% emphasis on content (good info is useless if can’t be heard or understood). Audio for this podcast is 1⁄5. Audio I not loud enough to hear for passive listening while doing other things. Have to stop all other activities and strain to hear. Host can be louder. Guests audio is terrible. Even worse than host’s, but that changes based on where the guest is communicating from; not my concern, they should fix the end result. And what’s with all the foreign accents?! Is there a dearth of American reporters? Who knows what some of these people are saying with their heavy accents! Content rating: 2out of 5. They share topical content that if you strain to hear, is good. If you can understand the heavy accents and drop everything you’re doing just to focus and hear, may be worthwhile. They get 2/5 simply because most times I can’t understand their thick accents or can’t hear them too well. I highly encourage these people to listed to the podcast that I base my criteria on, and rectify their show accordingly. In general: listen if you can put everything else on hold to give them your undivided attention, otherwise not worth it.
Please bring back the old cover and intro music. I cringe every time the new music plays— it’s as if I’m about to listen to a 1980s lecture on abstract art, not the great journalism that is WSJ. (5 star journalism + 1 star cover/music = 4 star rating)
I’ve always enjoyed listening to the Wall Street Journal; however, each year, it seems to slide further and further left in their reporting. I now get my news from many different sources, and can compare reporting of the same incident across the spectrum. They’ve been increasingly omitting negative details of major world events if it doesn’t fit into a leftist narrative. They simultaneously accentuate any negative stories, or details about the right. I’m all for negative details, but not the obvious bias. They’ve unfortunately become untrustworthy.
Today’a report on immigration is disturbingly unprofessional. The report deliberately blurs legal and illegal migration and implies illegal immgration will benefit our economy like legal will. In the meantime the tremendous cost to support millions of illegals are downplayed or simply dismissed. In our city Boston we have to accommodate the swarms of illegals with the resources from our budget for local schools etc.. this is one example why the left wing journalists help the criminal Donald Trump to achieve the might he enjoys. Shame on you Walen.
I think it is one most unbiased/balanced sources of news summary that I can find. Good listening every morning!
I believe their reporting would benefit from stricter fact-checking and a more transparent approach to identifying potential biases. This would increase the credibility and trustworthiness of their work. Now they just gaslighting and projecting their bias!
I listened to this podcast for years as the last big, mostly unbiased news report. The podcast has gradually started sliding more and more to the Left. This is following the pattern of what the BBC podcast has done. WSJ now has a mellow purple icon. There are increasing reports that sounds like climate disaster cult reporting. This replaces the more rational, “let’s all pay attention to the planet and the environment”, actual science-based reporting WSJ used to have. Even the new music and the overall vibe are starting to sound and feel like NPR. I am not sure what is driving this swing to the left? However, I am beyond tired of the left leaning, cancel culture media. I would love it if WSJ tacked to the middle with a pro-business and economy focus as it traditionally has done. I think I am not alone. Most who listen to you are closer to my view on this than NPR/NY Times lovers. Beware WSJ. Don’t make the same mistake Disney and Bud Light have made. Know thy customer!!!! I doubt you will print this. I am not trying to tear you down. I just want to voice my view and encourage you strongly to stay in your lane.
This is an excellent daily podcast to listen to, I’ve been listening for years. But I think the WSJ underestimates its listeners’ emotional attachment to the old music and cover art! The old music brought me so much comfort and familiarity. Plus the new music sounds cheap and thin. The new cover art looks so much like Odd Lots that I confuse them — a lot of purple and magenta blah. I really liked the blue and orange stripes. I don’t think the WSJ should mess with the brand recognition they have built over the years. Ann Marie Fertoli and Luke Vargas are my favorite anchors. I love the mix of business and world stories, it’s always balanced and practical imo. I could do without the career advice stories at the end, but that’s just me. Thanks for reading my comments.
Have been a long-time listener of this quick and excellent news update. However, the commercials are some of the worst curated selections I have come across. Completely out of touch with the clientele who listen to this podcast.
Show is great, new music is terrible.
Today is the NH primary, they of course covered Haley v Trump but didn’t even so much as mention Dean v Biden… this is supposed to be a news outlet, not a White House propaganda arm
Your writers are weak.
Talking about issues like Harvard scandal, did not even address the plagiarism concerns and academic integrity but only on race and safety. While important, only a part of actual news.
Really enjoyed the holiday reporting without Ms Fortoli. She had a dreadful voice and sounds like she is holding her nose. Otherwise a good snapshot of news items that I can skip reading in the Journal.
Can’t you stop the “up talking” and other reporting practices that make it seem this podcast is put together by junior high schoolers?
Very tight production, but often shallow and bland reporting. See recent story on Chevrolet electric vehicles for an example.
Thank you for the consistent presentation of news. I like the combination of news and in-depth stories and interviews. Thank you for adding the weekend editions.
I just want to hear the news, but this channel like most others has to insert its political leanings into everything and they ignore any contrary facts or opinions.
Love your podcast. But…you’re falling into the stereotype of mainstream media—interesting how you didn’t mention RFK Jr.
I implore you to never use Shelby Holiday or feature nonsense stories like “the inequality of pandemic riches.” WSJ is the last man standing in a sea of silly J-school non-reporting, please hold the line and stick to your high standards.

2/5

By Sabot6
Bad reporting on Elon and how he’s anti Jew. Intellectually dishonest.
Perfect dose of news, helps me stay current and updated, short and precise, top headlines, great reporting!!!
What a weak and inaccurate segment. Utility scale solar wheeled on an old school grid is expensive. Rooftop solar and storage is cheaper than coal. Get you act together WSJ.
Ad reader with nasally voice is TERRIBLE
Your ads on this podcast went from sounding organic to being oppressive seemingly overnight. Please revert.
Ad way too loud. Get rid of this voice. Hurts the ears.
This is the important national and world news in a concise package
Nite episode 9/12/23 No evidence Biden missteps? Lost in Space WSJ News Pod! Danger! Will Robinson!
9 Sep 23 - I’m a fan of WSJ What’s News, I listen daily. It was a great disappointment today to learn in the final segment that personal health and wellness reporter Alex Janin has no clue how to track the nutritional elements in the foods she eats. I hope she is not representative of the level of competence of other WSJ reporters.
Well I just gave ya a favorable comment on a WSJ survey for fixing the fake “thank yous for having me” dialogue. Guess I spoke too soon, from the moderator’s lame intro to the guest’s “valley girl’ish” thank yous that we were lucky to have her. A reporter needs to not make it about them. 8/24 You were doing so well with reporters sticking to the story instead of thinking that listeners should be grateful a junior reporter was thankful “for having me”. Come on, just say thank you if you must say anything or let the host acknowledge the contributing reporter and move on to the next story. Remember, humility is always best.
This is my favorite news podcast. It’s a very news forward listen, and to me it doesn’t seem biased. After reading a lot of the negative reviews, I have to disagree with their critiques l. I like the hosts, and I like that they’re not trying to read as a “news caster,” but make it more of a conversation, as the news should be. I also enjoy that it’s a podcast that assumes that you have a basic knowledge of mundane subjects, so they can go a little further into more topics. I have been listening to this for about 4 years now, and everyone on this team is doing a great job. Keep it up!
Can we replace the female spokesperson reading the ads? It sounds like she’s pinching her nose as she reads
Top quality reporting and analysis, however seems like interviews of reporters are getting longer, especially in PM edition. Much Prefer the shorter stories to get more news into each show. Also, a few reporters raise their voices at the end of every sentence (as if ending with a question mark?) or have a sing-songy cadence, which really distracts from the content.
14 July 2023 AM Edition WSJ, Ken Brown, is putting out misinformation. Heat is not more dangerous than cold, almost twice as many people in the US die of cold each year. Additionally, IPCC report states there is no evidence of an increase in the number or severity of hurricanes. Lastly, according to the US Forestry Service, forest fires have dramatically decreased in number and hectares burn the last 100 years. Please fact check yourselves
With some many other voices available for news, I just want a reliable source that tells me the news not how to think. Keep up the good work. C
I have been listening to this podcast for a long time, but I really have enjoyed all the new voices hosting in the last few weeks. The show has more energy - more of this please!
The usual hosts of this show are decent, but the substitutes they have right now are bad. Weird dramatic effect in their tone and phrasing makes it hard to focus on the story.
May 24, 2022 pm edition: gratuitous and unprofessional reaction by Dion Rabouin to an audio clip of the House Speaker: “hmm, well then.” Sounds harmless in writing, but Mr. Rabouin is a news reader, his reaction is not needed to cue the rest of the story, and doesn’t belong on What’s News. Degrades otherwise excellent podcast.
Episode on SC abortion law included inaccurate language. In describing the law, the host said at six weeks “people” don’t know they’re pregnant. Do better WSJ. Respect women, say “women.” No other people can be pregnant. It makes it look like you’re pandering to progressive lunacy. Regardless, this content is rather lackluster and redundant with other WSJ podcasts.
So many passionate comments with their political views reflected LOL. But for me, this is where I get a quick pulse of the market conditions and macroeconomic trends twice a day. I like how fast anchors speak so I don't have to play at 1.25x speed. Do you love it? I love it!