Best of Today

Reviews For Best of Today

More Topics and interviews please
Would be great if it was more than just business news like it used to
Always fact filled, insightful, global news with the best of high standards of journalism
Reliable source of news in these pandemic times. Fine variety of speakers. More news! Gov’t needs more covid19 testing for accurate statistics.
All you get now is 5 mins business briefing...where did the news content go?!
I used to listen to the daily morning business review while en route in the morning and now it’s only intermittent. My morning routine has changes. Adding other features is fine but what remove the morning business review?
This podcast used to be a go to for me, but since the start of the year the only episodes are the daily business news. What happened?
The only content is now the only thing I never listened to: business news. Please restore news and interviews.
Why is the daily podcast now just a 12 minute review of the financial news? A tiny piece of the Today program. What happened to all the other stories and interviews. Stopped listening weeks ago when there were zero features during the general election. Very disappointing
Love the Today show podcast - an avid listener! But why have the episodes been reduced to only the Daily Business episode? I miss the wide variety that we enjoyed last year! Please bring it back!
The content of the podcast is great. The decision to put a trailer for the same bloody programme after every single episode is infuriating and particular this repetitive and borderline offensive advert from Simon Muncie where they talk about fear as only reasonable when you’re in danger, completely ignoring the debilitating anxiety that many people feel about lack of income, losing their home, their children, their lives. It’s driving me insane. I’ve heard it dozens of times now. I want to smash my iPhone every time I hear it.
Great material. But if I hear that perky recorded announcement, “This PAWED-cahst is supported...” one more time...
The material is interesting but MacGregor is a bit much! When has a guest ever finished a sentence? When has a guest ever had their point acknowledged? This one is too much work for too little return. Best of Today? Naaah!
Very relaxing. I like to listen to this when I at work or dropping it. Helps speed up my day.
No episodes for the last two days, and episodes come later generally. Where are you???


By SF5647
Please start the podcast at the beginning of the interview so we know who is being interviewed. I have listened to numerous Today podcasts without ever knowing who was talking!
…but the podcast labelling is getting worse. Many labelled 'best of today' so you can't tell which is which, some labelled incorrectly or are a repeat of a previous.
Terrific Radio 4
I love listening to these short interviews & discussions. There's always something new to learn.
My link to home as the reporting in the US is so trite (except NPR ). How come the latest updates are available on my PC iTunes yet not when remote on my iPhone? It seems to be a day behind, not good when it's news!
This podcast used to have great interviews, particularly the 8.10am interview. Now, we get days of business news only. When we do get good interviews, they often start without any introduction and appear to be halfway through. As a Brit in America, this used to be my connection to the real news of the day. Disappointing!
The real difference is in how our journalists operate. In the US, the reporter tries very hard to be a friend to the interviewee, or at least to keep things amicable. Particularly when it comes to elected officials, American reporters will be very respectful, deferential, will always address the subject by their title, and will often lob softballs at them just to gain access. This si why the War in Iraq happened, because our press refused to interrogate anyone. in the UK, the reporter is not the subject's friend. Oftentimes, the reporter will be openly hostile, interrupting the subject mid-sentence to announce "that,s a lie" or "That's not at all what you said earlier". The reporters in the UK do not treat elected officials any differently than they do anyone else-I've heard the reporters on thsi show grill PM Brown so harshly I kinda felt sorry for him. Its a very confronttaional style, a bit like a courtroom drama. And I like it. The reporters on this show have teeth, a spine, and appearing on their show means risking getting asked some deeply embarassing questions. They don't seem to care about access-they just wantt he truth, and will stop at nothing to get at it. I so wish we had that style of reporting here in America. We woudl never have entered Vietnam or Iraq if our 'journalists, were as willing as these folks to tell the President, "You're lying".
Oddly enough I am an American living in the US who likes to listen to all things political in the UK. Maybe not so odd....It is good to know that the policiticians in the UK are just as lame as the ones we have in the US. It is very informative program. I listen to it everyday.
The author of the previous review ("Mean Interviewer") writes the following: "The only problem is that the interviewer is mean to the person he interviews! For some reason he seems to think that the more disrespectful he is, the better. Too bad, as for some reason he is able to get very interesting people in his government to show up." She's talking about John Humphrys, the main host/interviewer featured on this podcast. This guy is one of the pillars of British broadcast journalism, and could teach every last mainstream American member of his profession a lesson or two about how to do the job. He can be mean, in a sense, but I disagree entirely with the characterization of him as disrespectful. To the contrary, he gives his interview subjects -- elected government leaders in many cases -- the respect of expecting them to answer straightforward questions straightforwardly. He asks follow-ups that press through the reflexively vague talking points that many respondents offer, and his candor often earns candor from his subjects -- shames them, in a sense, into being candid or appearing foolishly evasive in their answers. THIS IS WHAT AN INTERVIEW SHOULD DO. It should attempt to get past truisms to capture some meaningful information about the subject. The reviewer who wonders at the fact that John Humphrys can consistently get the most important people in Britain (and the world) to agree to be interviewed by him should ask herself whether the fact that he can is, perhaps, not despite but because of this style. He has earned the respect and the credibility of the public -- and thus those who must answer to the public -- precisely by virtue of this candid, BS-resistant interviewing approach. Any American who happened to hear his interview with Condoleezza Rice last year must have thought exactly what I did: What could it do to revive American journalism if he had any counterpart in the US mainstream broadcast press? Needless to add, I highly recommend this podcast.
I find the BBC's reporters to be routinely hostile towards their subjects, behaving like the football hooligans of journalism. They try to hide behind the veneer of 'tough news reporting,' but in reality they most obviously use the interview to promote their own agendas. Thanks, but no thanks guys. Give me the Newshour with Jim Lehrer anyday. That's civilized!
its great to hear news coverage where the interviewers are not afraid to give their political guests a hard time and ask the kind of questions that most intelligent listeners want an answer to. It serves no one to treat guests as if they are somehow superior and worthy of grovelling deference........ as we see all the time on american tv
Previously I wrote that this podcast was not working properly and gave it five stars for content but only one for functionality. Well ... it now seems to be working again. So, I'm giving it five stars all round!
Living in the US as many of the BBC Podcast listeners do, I find it amazing at the lack of quality news programs. I like many, miss the BBC and the challenging methods it inflicts on it's guests. I believe that this demonstrates clearly the difference between a news service which is commercially motivated verses a news service which is not. On several occasions I've had the chance to interview US reporters and have put this question to them. The responses have always been the same. Should a US news service wish to continue to receive invitations to the important briefings and interviews, then it had better ensure that it does not ruffle any feathers. Let's hope the institution of the BBC continues for a long time and continues to ruffle feathers, and what’s more important, let’s hope that other countries follow suit.
As a brit living in the US, this podcast comes as a fresh air. Most in the US media don't seem to realise that their job is to scrutinise politicians rather than pander to them. When a guest comes on the Today programme they are expected to be able to stand up for themselves, and that's what makes it such an important programme. Some reviewers complain that the interviewers are 'mean' but in reality, they do their job, they ask hard questions of powerful people. Their listeners not only deserve that, we need it.
Radio fours Today podcasts are hard hitting but fair. Politicians have little wiggle room when they give vague answers to specific questions. In America we need the same from our interviewers. If the questioner sounds rude, it’s in and effort to make politicians answerable to the voters.
They interview very interesting people. The only problem is that the interviewer is mean to the people he interviews! For some reason he seems to think that the more disrespectful he is, the better. Too bad, as for some reason he is able to get very interesting people in his government to agree to show up.
i enjoy the world news side of this podcast it is not as one sided as our news here in the states.