I agree that one narrator's voice (Bill Fantini) sounds like a 1950's game show host. He doesn't sound "tech" or "hip" at all. Because his voice is a bit monotonous, my mind starts wandering and I have to constantly replay segments when I hear a story on something that's interesting to me (rewinding is not easy on an iPhone). Their other guy is okay, but his voice is kind of Mr. Roger-ish and it's hard to take him seriously.
Even though they write the story, the reporters who call in over the phone for little 10-second soundbites don't really add much value. It's almost like they are calling in to break up the monotony, but it kind of backfires -- they sound like robots reading from a script. Leave the narration to professionals who are trained to use their voice.
I also find it annoying when they have 10-second plugs on EVERY PODCAST to "listen to WSJ podcasts," because I'm already listening to them. They don't need to plug something I'm already listening to. I never get why they to do that. That would save alot of time and avoid insulting the audience. Remember, people are probably listening to 4 or 5 of these things in a row on the train or plane, so make sure all redundancy is taken out.
The WSJ's best narrator is their small business guy (different WSJ podcast). He has a voice and style that is informal and more engaging. I wish they would use him on the Tech report. The "e-Report" with Paul Herman and Tom Dubek (sp?) is okay, but way too long sometimes. Remember, we're trying to plow through these podcasts to get news -- 10-15 minute segments where they are just talking among themselves slows us down.
Overall, the content is good, and the substance beats their style, although it would be good to have better style as referenced in all the points above.