Join The New Yorker’s writers and editors for reporting, insight, and analysis of the most pressing political issues of our time. On Mondays, David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, presents conversations and feature stories about current events. On Wednesdays, the senior editor Tyler Foggatt goes deep on a consequential political story via far-reaching interviews with staff writers and outside experts. And, on Fridays, the staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos discuss the latest developments in Washington and beyond, offering an encompassing understanding of this moment in American politics.
65 Subscribers
Podcast hosts
No host has claimed this podcast yet, if you are the host you can verify ownership by claiming this podcast
© Condé Nast. All rights reserved.
The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Read more
65 Subscribers
Reviews
The Dude Avoids
5 out of 5 stars
Thanks for your great coverage!
Listening now to your story on George Santos. I’m glad to hear the dulcet tones of Clare Malone again but even more happy you’re highlighting the value of local news outlets in ferreting out stories that can affect us nationally. Three cheers for local journalism and the New Yorker!
Ybrikuil
3 out of 5 stars
Tyler Foggett ruins it
I honestly find her commentary to be circular in logic and her questions to interviewees designed to produce some canned answer making some Mumbo jumbo that appeals to a certain type of dogmatic and air headed progressive. Check out her coverage of cancel culture for a prime example of the word salad… the other hosts on the podcast are much better. Evan Osnos, Susan Glasser, David Remnick etc
Hockey9966
5 out of 5 stars
This has become my go-to political distillation source
I listen to what feels like some of the most dialed in political and cultural writing and reporting available, and among all that, this podcast has found a place for me now as my favorite overall primer on what matters politically. When I just have a week when I can only listen to one podcast. Shout out to Jane Mayer, who is a true legend and reporting Icon.
SageandSorrel
4 out of 5 stars
One of the very Best
I like listening to this podcast on a regular basis now, since the handover to Jane Mayer, Evan Osnos and Susan Glasser et al. Evan’s expertise on China, Jane’s insight into US political machinery, David Remnick on Russia are gifts to us all. Many pundits talk but know nothing about the reality of a situation on the ground. These three, and others at the New Yorker, have lived it. They are smart, articulate, and I believe, entertaining and understandable.
mfernandagg
5 out of 5 stars
“Guys”
Please stop saying “guys.” Y’all are brilliant writers and must surely understand the importance of language. Other than that, love this podcast!
Limner11
5 out of 5 stars
Osnos, Mayer, & Glasser—Such a Treat
Lovelovelove listening to these three brilliant writers discuss our crazy politics. Always insightful and informative.
jennette q
5 out of 5 stars
Favorite new podcast
Could you get three better writer/hosts? Every week so interesting.
Rod O. Steele
5 out of 5 stars
Good stuff.
Really great insight from a variety individuals and sources, always thoughtful and reflective. I was afraid to see the show change, but I must say I am delighted by the new format and presentation and look forward to more.
Joannie-o
4 out of 5 stars
One little word
I’m writing because Evan Osnos says he reads every review. Please, stop referring to the women in the show as “guys.” It is language that is lazy and for me is inappropriate. When women began entering the workforce there might be one gal in a sales meeting and the manager might say, “OK guys let’s make our sales target this quarter… “ and the woman in the room just had to accept it. All of the hosts are masters of language and nuance so please consider not using “guys” to refer to women or each other. Thank you.
Sjeckers
1 out of 5 stars
Biased
I’m all for intelligent talk about current issues, but some semblance of objectivity or at least presenting both sides of an issue makes for intelligent discussion. Presenting one side feels a lot more like propaganda. Parents don’t want their kids being taught gender identity & sexuality in our schools. We want our schools to educate, not indoctrinate. This country is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And the vast majority (97%) are heterosexual. That said, I believe most people simply don’t care about others sexual preferences, identity & whatever else. The goal should be acceptance not conversion. And the notion that a 5 year old should decide his/her gender is crazy. So is pretending a man is a woman in a sporting event. This is how liberals lose elections to guys like Trump.
avm1406
5 out of 5 stars
Didn’t know what I was missing
150 shows and I found it just last week???!!!. A show of this caliber needs more advertising. Loved the recent episode with David Remnick. Can we have him back more often?
Alaska ALS Guy
5 out of 5 stars
Five Stars
I could listen to Jane, Susan, and Even all day every day.
425w
4 out of 5 stars
Insightful Observations
Excellent show. Needs a language tuneup. Try an episode where no one says: bottom line, end of the day, pretty much, like or right(?). Last week Susan Glasser began a sentence with: “Well, look, I mean, you know..” I do?
dedecs
5 out of 5 stars
Pelosi
Such a good podcast! I listened for the first time today. Great guests, insights & topic! Nancy Pelosi! Will we see her likes again?
ddd1212?
5 out of 5 stars
Great episode and great host
Great discussion with David Remnick yesterday. The subject, the questions, the follow up, the side comments, the listening were excellent.
chireader1234
5 out of 5 stars
Love the educated conversation
This is a great podcast that is unabashedly honest. Thank you.
peter7809
5 out of 5 stars
Great
This podcast is the BEST; no mistake about it!
Yon Mathias
5 out of 5 stars
New Show 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Love the new show! Can’t get enough of Tyler Foggatt and Susan Glasser!
schaeph
5 out of 5 stars
The Political Scene
The absolutely best of all political podcasts. However it would be really engaging if your group interviewed at length one of the new scholars such as Professor Purdy of Duke or an older one such as Professor Sandel of Harvard on the subject of political economy-an alternative to how we currently think of political governance in the U.S.
mostlyastro
5 out of 5 stars
Can’t top this team
Evan Osnos, Jane Mayer and Susan Glasser give the savviest, mist articulate commentary about Washington and the ins and outs of the players that dominate the news cycle. I don’t miss an episode and neither should anyone else who is concerned about our nation.
1177113377
5 out of 5 stars
great format
I look forward every week to hearing Susan, Jane and Evan’s takes on politics. Please keep it up.
Dilruba101
5 out of 5 stars
So satisfying
I love the new format with Glasse Meyer and Oznos. Nice brainy wise chemistry. I also love Dorothy Wickendon and hope she is writing and we will see her in other brilliant forms. Thank you! Merry December!
ColoradAnne
5 out of 5 stars
Love the Friday Shows
Jane Mayer & Susan Glasser are two of my favorite writers and their weekly shows have been fabulous. I love the way they listen to each other and build their analysis. Glad the format was revised.
Edu-gator
5 out of 5 stars
love the Friday roundtable
I think the new format is a nice refresh. The magazine seems to be giving the show more attention & resources, really showcasing the amazing talent you have on your staff. I now consider your Friday roundtable “appointment radio.”
Derivatives Trader
5 out of 5 stars
3 really smart / savvy reporters. Love this podcast
3 really smart / savvy reporters. Love this podcast
Jo rox so much
5 out of 5 stars
Highly recommended!
I've read and enjoyed all three of the hosts' short form and long form writings. Amazingly, their deep understanding of politics translates into an enlightening and enjoyable conversation. The podcast provides great insights and analysis. Thanks for all your work!
Poogles123
5 out of 5 stars
Embarrassment of riches
Fridays with Jane, Evan, and Susan is fast becoming the listening highlight of my week. What a generous treat.
Stella-the-Bella
5 out of 5 stars
Excellent, Simply Excellent!
Everyone on your show is truly excellent! Everyone is articulate and well-informed. What is really remarkable, as well, is that you’re able to create a kind of conversation that one would love to have a among dinner guests: warm, intelligent and engaging. The podcast is truly an extension of the characteristic excellence of the New Yorker magazine itself. Keep up the great work! So looking forward to your next installment!
D_Stoll
2 out of 5 stars
Weekly Round Up Excellent - Midweek Show Pass
The Friday show is terrific. The midweek show has nothing to offer to people who follow politics closely. The show about Kyrsten Sinema was tortuously slow and took forever to get to the point (Rank Choice Voting is the structural response to two-party dominance in non-parliamentary systems). I've listened three times to the midweek show and found no value added. The round up is worth your time. Skip the midweek until it is improved.
Real Ann Martin
5 out of 5 stars
Like like like
Stop using like Very irritating. Today I really liked the analysis.
Rickstermw
5 out of 5 stars
Great reformatting!
I think the trio of Evan, Susan, and Jane is fantastic, and easily the best political news podcast out there.!
lindsay.love
1 out of 5 stars
Yikes
Comparing Sinema to Bernie as an Independent is the only thing I needed to hear to unsubscribe. What an awful comparison. Sinema 20 years ago, yes. Now? No. What a grossly moderate/right Podcast.
Susanfriberg
4 out of 5 stars
Good changes
I really like the revamped podcast though I liked Dorothy Wickenden. The 3 co-hosts’ weekly conversation is great. I must admit I have trouble with the little girl voice some women use these days; the new host is probably appealing to a younger demographic.
Arcane John Wayne
3 out of 5 stars
Why aren’t you great?
Surprised by how uneven the audio content for the New Yorker is, especially given the high quality and standards of the print magazine. So many of your writers are engrossing voices on other podcasts (Story of the Week, This American Life, etc) so it’s hard to square with the lackluster content on the home platform.
mohawk street
5 out of 5 stars
An important and engrossing discussion
What you discussed about the John Birch Society reminded me of the reason behind my 1960 Nixon-voting, General Motors management father’s gradual move away from the Republican Party. I have vivid childhood memories of how upset my father was about Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s humiliating treatment at the 1964 GOP convention and how enraged he was when the Birchers came to our front door soliciting support against fluoridation. I can’t wait to read the upcoming book about the John Birch Society.
😉💙🙃
4 out of 5 stars
2 December 2022
What’s the big deal re: Trump’s dinner partners? We all have know whom Trump is, and we have seen it so since 2016… No surprise here. Stand by and stand by.’ Get ready for another round of interrogations re: January 6th by the House. Conducted by Republicans with the aim of muddying the waters thus making any charges difficult if not impossible to prove. Their plan is to release everything, addresses, phone numbers etc. of all persons originally involved… The GOP will do anything to protect Trump.🙃
Juana B Writer
1 out of 5 stars
“Like”
I attempted to listen to the episode on Hollywood’s response to “wokeness.” Every other word from the interviewer’s mouth was “like.” I felt as though I was listening to a high schooler speak. After five minutes, I stopped listening.
Joanne Vuillemot
5 out of 5 stars
Spoken Word
An excellent complement to New Yorker’s written word.
Real Ann Martin
1 out of 5 stars
Like like like
Stop using like Very irritating
Mike Griffin77
2 out of 5 stars
In an episode about wokeness…
They mispronounce the black woman’s name. Karen Bass, like the fish. Not Base, Bass. Political scene, eh?
chelsea rat
5 out of 5 stars
Intelligent and calm
Just discovered this pod. Great thoughtful conversation without the drama.
Jrboho
1 out of 5 stars
Do you like biased political commentary?
If so, this is the right podcast for you. If you enjoy life in your liberal bubble, look no further.
number5ithink
1 out of 5 stars
Typical wokeness
How far has the New Yorker fallen. Now it parrots woke positions.
Seascorpio
3 out of 5 stars
Good podcast, annoying tone of voice
Great podcast if you can get past the host’s croaking tone of voice. Once I hear the croaking, it just rings louder and louder. Sorry.
SIE92
5 out of 5 stars
Thoughtful and informative
This podcast analyzes political issues with rigor and depth and the result is to shed light and expand understanding.
DBolling
2 out of 5 stars
Hubris
The Fierceton story is maddening. I work with abused and neglected children. I wouldn’t consider her First Gen, and in many ways not neglected. Deprivation is a lifelong issue. This break occurred when many “regular “ students have to figure out how to pay for school. She lied for more opportunity and her mother is free from her parental responsibility. I’m not impressed that this episode was skewed as if there aren’t finite resources that this student lied to obtain.
Mauricio Rich
5 out of 5 stars
Excellent
This is the journalism quality we all need.
LRMH2
5 out of 5 stars
Radio Ukraine episode was outstanding; news, emotional understanding ❤️
This episode is an example of why I proudly subscribe to the New Yorker. I do so online now that I’ve retired to a dwelling and location with no creative recycling options 🙃. Several dated, real issues (with their awesome covers) have become objects de art enhancing my reading area. Thanks for your outstanding journalism.
AnjY04
5 out of 5 stars
Excellent
Deep clarity on the topic..excellent coverage
1000wayne
5 out of 5 stars
Mascha Gessen
Deep clarity for me, who has read & listened quite a lot but learned much new from this interview
midwestBlue
5 out of 5 stars
1.27 pod
excellent discussion with jane mayer about clarence thomas’ right wing wife ginni. inside info. thank you
sal vito
2 out of 5 stars
Vocal fry? It’s the Pandemic of Podcasting
The subject matter and interview were of high-quality, as usual, but even a publication as reputable as The NYer cannot find a host who doesn’t inflict ‘vocal fry’ upon its listeners. Do you self a favor: if you see the name ‘Carla Blumenkranz’ in the show notes, delete and spare yourself 20 minutes of aural discomfort!
James Tripoli
1 out of 5 stars
Facile assumptions on race issues
The show’s coverage isn’t terrible on some issues (a little sedate maybe) but, like many media personalities, the host is utterly dismissive of any thought that there could be legitimate concerns about how race is taught in schools. Opposing bogus concepts like “white fragility” is not a some kind of hysteria.
allimare
5 out of 5 stars
Love everything about this podcast
Especially Dorothy's voice, lovely timbre. I see the ire of not so left leaning people, sorry they can’t see their own bias.
WoodfordSki
5 out of 5 stars
Thoughtful
Highlights important issues.
Nearly Clueless Nick
3 out of 5 stars
The Inner Party discusses the proles
The media elites bring in an anthropologist to report what the savages are doing. This is nothing but people who agree with each other, how about bringing in someone with a different opinion and actually having a debate?
Zizzabet
5 out of 5 stars
The New Yorker Political Hour
Always, eye opening and educational. Excellent selection of guests and always good, provocative questions Often when I am at a loss for an understanding of happenings in the political world, I turn to T N Y P H. No matter the topic or the guest, I always gain a depth to my understanding of the subject.
RapGawd
5 out of 5 stars
The guest this week is the host
What a treat. Dorothy is so smart and forward thinking. I love her questions and how she guides the show. I don’t read the New Yorker but this has to b the closest best thing. She gives me super New Yorker vibes. David Remnick is also my guy. Love his show too.
cool grabdma
5 out of 5 stars
Children of Morelia
This story about parents sending their children from war torn Spain to Mexican safety, reminded me of Jewish parents in Nazi occupied countries sending their children on kinder transports. They were saving their children from almost certain murder/genocide.
fucwhoinventednickname
1 out of 5 stars
1/2 cooked discussions on virtual problems
The discussions on this podcast are critically and demonstrably left leaning to the point that they can’t even discuss the other side of things in a deeper way. It is always “we are on the right side” and then there are the rest mean people
X13 b45 8
5 out of 5 stars
Lucid Interviews
Thoughtful discussions about current events. Innovative investigative reports on important topics.
stef morgan
4 out of 5 stars
Feedback (6.13.20ep)
Super disturbing ep.
Nubbla
1 out of 5 stars
Biased
Opinions shouldn’t be passed along as facts. I heard ALOT of lying on this podcast. Shame.
AJ Architect
3 out of 5 stars
Bette Midler in a bubble
No better proof the Midler is an “Elite” than her total misunderstanding of why people voted for Trump. To show no awareness of why people hate the Clintons and how both parties have failed the working class, proves that entertainers are just as poor at judging peoples motives and that their analysis shows their own uneducated bias. Who cares what Trump voters think of Bette Midler? Who cares what Bette Midler thinks? Bette, my mom
Scalps Barbershop
1 out of 5 stars
Progressive Propaganda 🤮
Left leaning trash! Pushing a globalist agenda!
Chilly999999
5 out of 5 stars
I enjoy it. It’s a good podcast.
To the naysayers reading this, objective truth and justice have a liberal slant when all lives are truly promoted equally. 🇺🇸 🏳️🌈 🗳 ✊🏽
mfk
1 out of 5 stars
Not Reliable
Don't get your political news from this source. They are total socialist propaganda - in the great tradition of the USSR. It is very dangerous to believe a word they write or say. Plus, their editor in chief, David Remnick, is a total loon.
amandaleigh5
5 out of 5 stars
Enjoy
A lot of wonderful topics
imyourmoderator
1 out of 5 stars
Pure partisan hackery
Looks utterly ridiculous in retrospect.
no sides views
3 out of 5 stars
Biased
Very one sided and biased . Pushing this us vs them narrative . While seeming very out of touch with the normal people . A lot of big words to sounds smart but very little context to what they are speaking on . Weird left ideology is how I would describe this podcast .
DCCC erect r
5 out of 5 stars
DDT t with h
Greatest tree r
regima hackett
5 out of 5 stars
Not original cast
I was thrilled to hear from you that I could see the original cast of Sweeney Todd by signing up with BroadwayHD. Immediately I did so. Yes there is Angela Landsbury, but not Len Cariou. He was the vast and wide-ranging soul of that cast. Are you people all too young to know that?
Laurie715
5 out of 5 stars
New Jim Crow
Thank you for shining a light on such an important issue ~ so glad Ms Alexander opened all of our eyes and that policy is changing....slowly but at least e conversation is happening.
Nhfddd
1 out of 5 stars
Junk... false and partisan
One sided reporting that is just an extension of the lying liberal media. They jump to conclusions that are not based in fact.
QueenRipley
5 out of 5 stars
Samanthas journey
Please tell Sam to talk with a guy I think his name is Richard Pentatillie he has done several MSNBC specials getting out of hate He can continue the work of getting more people out of the alt-right and maybe she can join his work
Freem@nn
1 out of 5 stars
Astoundingly biased.
They have no problem using words patched together from any source to make the narrative they’re pushing seem credible. Despicable. I’m a huge defender of freedom of speech but people who listen to this tripe are going to be ignorant and easily influenced.
monrasmu
4 out of 5 stars
Great stories but too short
They pick really interesting people to interview but barely scrape the surface in the 15 min they often interview
Mmmmmnop
5 out of 5 stars
Love it but not when it duplicates Radio Hour content
Sometimes same content so I don’t check it as often.
twaldron
5 out of 5 stars
Keeps me informed; great length too.
Great reporting and an added bonus fro The Newyorker as I don't always get to finish the weekly issues.
gabfanatico
5 out of 5 stars
Excellent Show!
The discussion topics, the guests, and of course the hostess are superb! Thank you!
Bobval2016
3 out of 5 stars
Trafficking across border. Trump’s source.
Trump gets his oft repeated line about women with mouths taped being smuggled across border from a movie: Sicario, day of Soldado. No one during the broadcast mentioned his source of misleading information.
laurelmh
5 out of 5 stars
Feb 7th show
Very interesting. Hoping we address income inequality
BugPhD061940
5 out of 5 stars
Brief
Good brief summaries and ideas about important subjects. The interviewers and interviewees make no effort to conceal their liberal beliefs.
jjs509
4 out of 5 stars
Great podcast...but the commercials
This is a great podcast with great coverage of current events, however, the sponsor commercials are startlingly loud! I may be engrossed in information regarding boarder security when all of a sudden the sponsors are blasting my ear out about how Indeed facilitates the hiring process. I often have to run over and turn my stereo down for fear my neighbors will call the police and file a noise complaint! Why are these so loud? Please rectify this issue!
Onnanokomachi
1 out of 5 stars
Ms.
Highly biased toward the left. Good reporting by smart peope. If only they could control their strong pro left bias. I have been listening for many months now but, because it is so biased, I have decided to delete this one from my lift of subscribes.
Leftcoast1963
5 out of 5 stars
Must listen-Add some data to your political gossip
I love the emphasis on adding quantifiable data and analysis to the notoriously high-spin world of politics. This has fed many hours of workplace conversations. Now can you just rename your “Model Talk” episodes to “The shows where Nate insults his listeners”? In a good way of course ... ;-)
Jena265
5 out of 5 stars
Rev Graham
Really disgraceful interview since Rev Graham lies.
two best friends
1 out of 5 stars
The New Yorker: Amateur Hour
Good lord. Do you conduct these interviews with a ham radio? Use an iPhone to record your interviewee and then edit it together. Stop being so lazy. I’m listening now and can’t even understand what is being said!
paajichele
3 out of 5 stars
Needs to be a little louder
5 star content. Recording is a bit too low compared to most other podcasts.
Clint and Louise T
5 out of 5 stars
Great work
We’re long time subscribers to the magazine and listening to your podcast is a real treat. Kudos to Dorothy Wikenden and of course David Remnick!
KTSavage
5 out of 5 stars
Remnick pods Jane Mayer about Steele & his dossier
I mean, WOW! I could listen to David Remnick all day. I could listen to Jane Mayer all day. So, Remnick and Mayer .... podding on the Dossier? 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Karen Anna
5 out of 5 stars
great way to access an excellent publication
It is amazing this is free! This magazine hires such excellent journalists but I would never have time to read the magazine. Now I can access some of this excellent journalism!
LAURAVEJA
5 out of 5 stars
A favorite of mine
A must for concise and insightful coverage of news. My absolute favorite!
Pgh in Colorado
5 out of 5 stars
Intelligent, Dilligent
Well spoken, thoughtful discussion of today’s political and sociological world. Guests are extremely insightful and knowledgeable. February has been a banner month as all the pieces are really eye opening. The Host never seems to ask a question that is silly or vapid. Great Job (and free).
mkocelko
4 out of 5 stars
In depth analysis
I appreciate the in depth look at historical figures, (the analysis though it’s often skewed by judging figures by modern standards which isn’t fair, I would appreciate trying to contextualize why people acted and did what they did based on their times) and by starting each episode by placing the figures in a timeline that many will find relatable. The only downside is that I want to rip the headphones out of my ears every time I hear “mama” and “papa”. I understand it’s how they choose to talk but it sounds so pretentious. Worth the listen overall
cmsnpaul
5 out of 5 stars
Really Interesting Podcast
My only gripe about this podcast is that it isn’t an hour-long format. Twenty minutes is just not enough time. I want more!!!
M. Magice
1 out of 5 stars
Immigration bias
Talk about an immigration bias ! Did the New Yorker ever think that Americans cannot do these jobs for extremely low wages? Americans do many jobs immigrants do but illegal immigrants can take half the pay I've seen it myself. Pretty much extreme coastal bias ! And if immigration were great then why are : Canada, Australia, Japan and now the U.K. Increasingly becoming more restrictive if not already ? The coastal elites pretty much say low skilled labor is great but low skilled workers force US born low skilled workers out of the workforce!
PWadd1062Ab
5 out of 5 stars
Brief and insightful
My favorite podcast.
jlmaz50
5 out of 5 stars
Never a bad show
The interviews are always insightful. TV need cant compete.
Bazooka Tim
2 out of 5 stars
Not bad but...
...way too bias. Is there not any US media agency that just does straight news dialogue w/out putting their one sided swing in it? For F's sake! Please take it more to the center guys. Enough is enough!
ark5040
2 out of 5 stars
Disappointing
Highfalutin horseracing and palace intrigue, no real substance.
ZACB
5 out of 5 stars
Insightful and informative
If you’re looking for in-depth political analysis from reporters with gravitas, this is the best podcast available.
stanley wilder
5 out of 5 stars
Can't wait
Like a kid. More, longer, more often
FPRR
5 out of 5 stars
Always interesting and well done
Great stories and interviews
アメリカンボイ
4 out of 5 stars
Always refreshing
Nice, quick podcast for an offbeat take on the politics of the week.
BKGharlem
5 out of 5 stars
DW is the best
Dorthy W is the best. She gets right to the crux of the issue allowing listeners to gain deep insights into political news quickly.
NobodyToo
4 out of 5 stars
Excellent
Not sure how this happened, but when I went to write a review, one popped up in my screen. Turns out it echos exactly what I was thinking: "I've been listening for a few years. Very well done. Well managed and orchestrated by Dorothy Wickenden. Honestly, I find her much more focused than David Remnick and really don't want to see this podcast replaced or go away." Sorry to David Remnick but I find him much harder to listen to, and wish he hadn't moved in. I subscribe to the magazine in case you are worried about the podcast robbing you of subscribers. I enjoy the format, the back and forth, and hearing some of my favorite writers speak.
Booploopscrochet
1 out of 5 stars
Shamefully
Shameful
swonder
5 out of 5 stars
facts, common sense and clear thinking
Well produced, too.
Mr_Commander
5 out of 5 stars
Great Interviews
I love how the host interviews. She lets the interviewee explain the their positions without jumping in herself. It reminds me of the radio interviews in old cars.
donnaisobel
5 out of 5 stars
thanks
for the show
mef94
3 out of 5 stars
Not what it used to be
This was always a reliable podcast released Thursday evenings, a smart, rotating cast of New Yorker editors and writers talking about the week's politics. Now it's a grab bag of "politics and more," not always new on Thursday, bits and pieces of the New Yorker Radio Hour included, not as clearly focused on politics as before. Some of the new material is good, but it's just not the must-listen political podcast it used to be for me.
PhelineCat
5 out of 5 stars
So much to dig out
It's been obvious Trump's been corrupt his entire "career" back to when he shredded paper files with his corrupt daddy. Oh, it's sickening. Your March 9 episode, Trump International, came at a good time to write a review but others have struck me as equally good. Here's a secret: I listen at 1.5 speed unless something gets really complicated. If I review it's 2x. Give it a try and expect to work up to it.
Eileen.corbeil
5 out of 5 stars
Simply the best
The caliber of reporting and analysis is unsurpassed. Especially appreciate the intelligence and objectivity in these troubled times.
Leannuh47
5 out of 5 stars
Interesting and educational
A great podcast!!
Vajra Sky
5 out of 5 stars
Essential
First of all, I'm a liberal. Second of all, I'm a very liberal liberal. And third, this podcast brings intelligence, experienced interviewees, and an international perspective to many of the contemporary problems that concern all of us, whatever side of the aisle we might inhabit. It is NOT the liberal version of Fox News, as some might try to cast it. Even when I disagree with some of the ideas, and I always feel that I have spent my time wisely in listening to it. None of the doomsday screeching, none of the apocalyptic unfounded predictions . . . it's sane and intelligent and respectful, three characteristics that I find missing in our national discourse.
Dear sneaky taco
5 out of 5 stars
You spelled beliefs wrong in your review
And are unintelligent.
Calwashore
5 out of 5 stars
Comforting Truth
Really enjoy these brief podcasts. David Remnick's questions are tough, but his voice and tone comforting and reassuring. These episodes are a respite from the cacophony of television news and Facebook blather. Intelligent interviews by an eternally curious and honored journalist and editor.
Daniel Berlin Brigade
1 out of 5 stars
Regressive Left
This is virtue signalling at its finest, in stereo. If you wish to subscribe to the Ben Rhodes echo chamber this is the podcast for you.
Unvarnished1976
1 out of 5 stars
Inflexible Idealogical show that exclusively advances its agenda...
This podcast always disappoints and will provide little to no insight for those seeking a balanced presentation of the political issues of the day...but it does exist an ideal example of why the country rejected the positions advanced by these fervently left-wing big city mainstream journalistic publications...
kalliek
5 out of 5 stars
👍🏼
Good for details, nuances and inflections that don't appear in print. Would help if Wickenden lost her habit of running over the ends of her interlocutor's statements.
avianovum
5 out of 5 stars
Incisive as only the New Yorker can be..
Where else can you get Hendrik Hertzberg, Amy Davidson, George Packer, Evan Osnos, Jill Lepore, John Cassidy, Phillip Gourevitch, and other stellar guests analyzing our political landscape? Only here. The (approximately) 15 minute segments are deftly moderated by Dorothy Wickenden. This, and the new podcast from the NY Times "The Run-up" are exceptional listens. Check them out!
rhoade
4 out of 5 stars
Pretty Good
A pretty good conversation from a liberal's perspective in relation to the world of politics.
Neil Gussman
5 out of 5 stars
Politics with Insight
I have loved this podcast for years. The only problem I have ever had with it is that the podcast is just 15 minutes a week. I want more, but am very happy with what we get.
Radiator302
5 out of 5 stars
Very good
Dorothy Wickenden is one of the most thoughtful and even-handed political interviewers. She looks for what's interesting and new, not what confirms her existing beliefs.
JoProcter
5 out of 5 stars
What this used to be ...
This used to be the flagship of The New Yorker podcasts with Dorothy Wickenden's interviews on the Political Scene. Now editor David Remnick seems to want the spotlight. I wish he'd let Ms. Wickenden do the job. She is wonderful and this was the BEST of The New Yorker podcasts because the writers were the focus, not Remnick. Don't get me wrong, Remnick is smart, clever, etc., but being editor doesn't seem to mean playing from the wings for him.
Altadena ca
5 out of 5 stars
Smart and Concise
These are great conversations that invariably go deeper than and provide insight into the latest development. Dorothy W. is a terrific interviewer who has always thought deeply about the issues before the conversation. Maybe she reads up. The Monday releases are also good although the format is a bit odd.
tuttlebuttle
5 out of 5 stars
thanks
for the show
Palchez
2 out of 5 stars
Painfully Average
I don't know if it is the inability of the writers to have a better grasp of politics or simply a malevolent disassociation with reality. A podcast for the non thinking person who wants to utter the phrase "the New Yorker" at fancy dinner parties.
justleaveitintheground
5 out of 5 stars
grand master of the universe
Thoughtful, thorough, interesting, thought-provoking, refreshingly liberal.
Map_41
5 out of 5 stars
Always Informative
This podcast always brings a sense of insight on current issues. It definitely skews way left and could use a dose of right-wing balance on its panels, but the discussions are still informed.
Vlap77
2 out of 5 stars
Disappointing and Unnecessary
There are so many great podcasts out there -- this one is constantly disappointing. You'll get more from Fresh Air, This American Life, the Moth and On Being. Skip it!
WestonIV
5 out of 5 stars
In one simple word: GREAT!!!
As heart breaking Ben Taub's story 'On the Case Against Assad' was, it is a must hear for anyone who is wondering if Politics and More is worth a listen!! GREAT JOB!
AngusV
4 out of 5 stars
Always informative!
I have to admit that I preferred it before The Political Scene merged with the New Yorker Radio Hour, because it was a little more focused, but it’s still a gem. I always learn something and I’m frequently impressed by the breadth of knowledge exhibited by the contributors. Really top notch!
The Ebony Avenger
5 out of 5 stars
Extremely informative
Listening to columnists and reporters for the New Yorker is one of the most intelligent conversations I listen to all week long. A great addition to my day.
skom07
1 out of 5 stars
Clinton Biased podcast
Don't subscribe unless you are a hard core Hillary Clinton supporter.
Bjames13
4 out of 5 stars
Enjoyable snippets
Interesting perspectives and insights
dag0
5 out of 5 stars
Educational & accessible
They bring on brilliant political scholars and experts who are not only very well-respected in their fields, but who also make concepts easy to understand, without losing depth or nuance.
Newsie101
4 out of 5 stars
A little liberal
but actually a pretty decent show with some good insights.
max_lee
3 out of 5 stars
Love the show but feed won't update
I love this show but the feed for my podcast hasn't been working and I have to manually search for the podcast and find the newer episodes 👎🏼
echtjbm
3 out of 5 stars
Interesting weekly political guessing; production problems
As another reviewer noted, this is mostly horse-race-style commentary or sometimes guessing about current political action and trends, from thoughtful and usually well informed contributors. An occasional but immense annoyance, though, is that sometimes whoever drops promos into these podcasts pays no attention to matching their loudness to the average level of the main program; so, for example, around eight or none minutes into the recent “Who Lost Bengazi? podcast, for whose reasonably unaggressive loudness I’d adjusted the speakers, I was practically blasted out of my chair and the room by a promo. It was startling, jarring, uncomfortable, and infuriating. Please, if you insist on dropping those things in, that editing needs to done by someone competent!
Brik-a-Brak
5 out of 5 stars
wonderful podcast
Wish it was daily!
entropy at work
2 out of 5 stars
ditch the phones
Whatever the correspondents have to say, it's not worth listening to them over a cell phone. It actually hurts my ears.
25-year-old with Good Hearing
3 out of 5 stars
Can’t Hear
I am very curious to hear everything being said in this podcast. In many episodes, however, I can’t hear what at least one commentator is saying. In the episode that I’m listening to right now, “The Republican Debate," I can’t hear a single word the British guy is saying. On top of that, I’m also having trouble hearing the moderator of this episode, a British woman who seems to be calling in via Skype. How much enthusiasm do you expect listeners to bring to the podcast when the moderator can’t even show up to moderate in person?
STITrish
5 out of 5 stars
Poor sound quality this week!
I look forward to this podcast and always get great insights, but this week's show about the first Republican debate of the 2016 campaign was unlistenable. I tuned out because I couldn't handle the uneven sound quality. One person sounded like she was live from the bottom of a well, another like he was stuck in traffic, and the third seemed way too loud because I had to turn it up to hear the other two. This is The New Yorker, not some guy recording phone calls from his friends in his basement, right?
savoytruffle
5 out of 5 stars
Very good insight … mediocre production values
This podcast is always full of fascinating discussions. No question about that. But whoever is in charge needs to set a higher bar for what is acceptable audio quality. The most recent episode (after August 2015 Republican debates) has the moderator obviously on a cell phone in an echoey room almost like a bathroom. And another correspondent is clearly on a worse cell phone in a car on the highway! It is ridiculous and unpleasant to strain to listen to. At a point like that, pull over or just write a text transcript.
Thisought
1 out of 5 stars
It's ok but not great
Check out Kickass Politics or most of the Slate podcasts. They are way better at this than the NYer.
Overminer1979
1 out of 5 stars
Not the best of political podcasts available
If you're looking for good political analysis, The New Yorker really isn't the best place to go. It's like turning to Cosmopolitan for tips on how to fix a car. There are way better options on iTunes.
Addison Barnhardt
5 out of 5 stars
Mr.
Spot on commentary from the nation’s best magazine
Blaked22
1 out of 5 stars
Wow this is ridiculous.
The most you can muster is ~15-20 minutes once a week? That's absolutely pathetic for an institution like the new yorker.
Happy commuter123
5 out of 5 stars
Still the best!
Dorothy Wickenden is a fantastic moderator who draws out interesting dialog about whatever is happening in politics. Can't wait to hear what they have to say each week.
Crankyfu
3 out of 5 stars
Decent -- But Too Many Ads
This podcast is decent. As some have sniped, the point of view is fairly liberal, but they don't "hide" that, and more importantly, the commentary is first and foremost highly intelligent, articulate, and informative, even if you come to a different policy conclusion. The *problem*: It's only 15 minutes, yet you are subjected to THREE advertisements. The podcast opens with a 30-second underwriting spot, then 8 minutes later you're suddenly told that "they're going to take a break," after which you're subjected to another 30-second spot, and 5 minutes after that you get 30-seconds of credits that amounts to a New Yorker plug. The first and last I can grudgingly see, but jamming that third one in the middle of such a short clip is thoroughly grating; no other podcast subjects you to 90 seconds of advertising out of every 15 minutes. Even dreadful commercial radio doesn't punish you with an ad every 5 minutes. If they would extend this to 30-ish minutes, it would be fine. Dorothy Wickenden is an excellent host and I'd prefer to hear her cover a few more topics each week. Otherwise, jeez, spare us the marketing onslaught. It makes the New Yorker seem craven and greedy.
KevinD1209
4 out of 5 stars
Great topics, certain viewpoints.
The topic selection and discussion are timely and informative. However, the editorializing leaves a little to be desired. It would be nice if outside voices were heard truly discussing some of the topics.
Disenfranchisedconservative
1 out of 5 stars
I'm conservative, not stupid
I am a moderate conservative and tended to agree with most points made by the hosts of the podcast, however there are only so many times I could stomach hearing how stupid conservatives are. Specifically, I am very strongly pro-vaccine and pro-science. I also support single-payer healthcare and "believe" in evolution and climate change. Thanks for painting me as an idiot with your broad brush though.
66 North
5 out of 5 stars
Love it!
I love the deep dive past superficial news headlines - even if it skews left. I just wish it was longer. "I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert - 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner
aDifferentJeff
5 out of 5 stars
Focused and informative
I like the format, with every episode focused on a particular topic. It’s shorter than some, because it’s all business. It’s one of the first podcasts I listen to each week.
Stravigor
5 out of 5 stars
Peerless Discussion
Superb moderation by Dorothy Wickenden and others. Engaging, witty, insightful. Occasional appearances by Hendrik Hertzberg - a fine treat, but Toobin, Cassidy, Lizza, Remnick, and many others make appearances. I never miss or fast forward.
franklinis
5 out of 5 stars
Worthwhile Weekly Quarter Hour
As enlightening as any fifteen-minute summary of the week in politics you'll find, Not a replication of the magazine's published "Comment," either, which perforce doesn't air so many shadings of opinion, nor focus so exclusively on "the political scene." Of COURSE it's from the "left"— really, what most democracies would call "center left," if not just "center." But this ain't most democracies, and the regular guests here do a good job of reminding us of that when necessary, too.
DeadBabyEater
5 out of 5 stars
Til Death Do You Part
It's a foolishly liberal symposium of self-satisfaction. Assuming 95% of its audience wants exactly that at the expense of intellectual diversity, it's perfect.
Kcbernst
4 out of 5 stars
What's up with downloads?
Love the podcast but find it very frustrating that it doesn't download every week. I know the podcast is weekly so why is it not updated and auto-downloaded every week?
WhiskeyKnight
3 out of 5 stars
Love the podcast, but...
No updates since Oct. 25? You guys do realize that we had an election two weeks ago? Might merit some discussion.
NoDocument
3 out of 5 stars
Perfect, except...
This is my favorite podcast. This is some of the best political analysis on the web. WHY is it never ready for download the day it's recorded? Or the day after? Or the day after that? Or the day after that? Please get your distribution kinks ironed out so I can listen to my favorite podcast -at least- by Friday.
ebcomm
5 out of 5 stars
Thoughtful and always interesting
...but where have you gone lately? Assume Sandy has (understandably) put you off schedule...
Robertino Sfortza
1 out of 5 stars
More leftist pap
The New Yorker Magazine logo -- an effete snob in a top hat looking down is nose through a monocle -- is the perfect representation of that magazine and this podcast. Smug, glib, snotty and, well, patently wrong commentary comes your way with every minute of this blatantly leftist podcast. It is sickening to hear falsehoods and the Democratic Party Line (sorry, that was redundant) stated so matter-of-factly and so frequently. Listen to this only if you seek to be lied to or deluded - or both. Or, of course, if you're a liberal.
Benyokohama
5 out of 5 stars
Hear the writers
It's the new yorker so you know you're getting smart stuff. For me, I just get a kick out of hearing Ryan lizza, I been reading him for years! I do wish it were longer though!
MRpub
4 out of 5 stars
Smart
Very smart people, with thorough experience and on-the-ground familiarity with their topics, discussing U.S. politics and world affairs. One of the best such podcasts out there. My only beef is the slapdash scheduling - it's here some weeks, gone others; sometimes it's posted on Thursday, sometimes not until Saturday. Why have a discussion of current events on Thursday and wait two days to make it available? It makes no sense.
jmilwaukee
5 out of 5 stars
Always interesting
Doesn't just regurgitate the same old stuff. A new insight and perspective on politics.
dodijoyce
5 out of 5 stars
fantastic podcast
rarely a bad one...
rickinmd
3 out of 5 stars
like it but...
Great commentators. Good discussion. Problem: too short. I listen while I work, so the short 13 minute or so episodes means i have to too frequently go over to ipod and put on new podcast.
AnshuB2
5 out of 5 stars
Great!
You are not an American or a patriot if you listen to Rush Limbaugh!
Natera
5 out of 5 stars
Intelligent careful analysis, what a concept!
In the era of five second bites, punch lines, and shallow x vs y views of the world, there are few jewels out there that reminds us that intelligent Americans still populate the media. This podcast is one of them. Now, real analysis is based greatly on facts, and truly observable phenomena, and reality-based thinking tends to offend those who, too busy to inform themselves appropriately prefer to subscribe to the short-term-benefit driven sirens songs of contemporary politicians. If you feel the podcast is slanted this might have more to do with your own educational limitations, and their tendency to make you subscribe to the 5-second soundbite political fantasies currently populating the media landscape than to the actual quality of this wonderful show and the people that appear in it.
love glee, hate ads
5 out of 5 stars
Smart and thoughtful
As one should expect from the New Yorker, the commentary on this political podcast is intellectual, insightful, and never shrill. Often a lot of depth in 15 minutes or so of mature and grounded conversation.
Drumming in the Dark
5 out of 5 stars
By and for the reasonable
Thoughtful, reasoned, mature commentary and discussion by well-informed adults. Only short-coming just that: too short - could be twice as long, but then, there is the magazine.
Generic Nickname #24601
1 out of 5 stars
Truth in advertising: The Socialism Scene
Political discussion in this podcast covers the whole political spectrum - from socialism to communism. Two or three limousine liberals sit around and tear Republicans to shreds with a self-righteousness and casual vitriol that makes Rush Limbaugh sound like a nun. If you want a podcast to reinforce lefty talking points, by all means, subscribe to this. If you actually use your brain, save the space on your iPod/iPhone for something intelligent.
WorldsTransformed
4 out of 5 stars
Worth Your Time
While there is a liberal bias in the podcast, which is to be expected from The New Yorker, this is a solid political podcast. Differing opinions are presented and debated, leaving the listener informed in brief time the podcast is recorded in. Although I consider myself a libertarian I look forward to this podcast each and every week.
gutters
5 out of 5 stars
Stopped updating?
Did this show get cancelled or what? Seems like there hasn't been a new episode for 2 weeks. I love it when the content is current.
scoutshonor
4 out of 5 stars
Awesome but Lazy
Come on lazy intellectuals, you can eek out more than 12 minutes of political commentary per week... Your viewpoints are the most thoughtful, but if Slate can do 45 mins and even the NYT can do 20, then this is just slacking off on your part. I know the New Yorker is probably still struggling with the idea of giving away anything for free like a 'podcast', but I hope they realize this is the sort of thing that gets me to pick up a copy down the road. Step it up, add ads. Whatever, just make this worth the time it takes to download! Please?
DamnThatDam
4 out of 5 stars
Nice show
Nice little show, continue to listen.
Lategra
1 out of 5 stars
The Political Show
Hey, if you like the idea of redistributing wealth, large over run, over paid, desensitized government, and have no problem with them raising your taxes, then this is the place for you!!! Not for me.
givingjane
5 out of 5 stars
Great, but too short.
This is an incredibly insightful Podcast, but it should be a half hour long, and they should take emails.
DonSunCity
5 out of 5 stars
I Really Like This PoCast
If I subscibed to the New Yorker, they magazines would be all over the house because I just cannot keep up with much in my life. To me this short podcast helps me hear what intelligent people are writing and saying about important issues. I feel that a I listener would have to be way left or right, polititically to see bias. There are many issues that just need explaining, preferably by trusted people who devote much of their lives doing just that for all of us. They are teachers and we can use education during these very strange times we life in now.
David.88
5 out of 5 stars
Absolutely Brilliant
This my favourite podcast, with insightful commentary from magazine contributors and staff writers. The discussion remains interesting throughout the session, and perhaps suffers from one fault, it being short-lived.
Alissa Friedman
5 out of 5 stars
Absolute Must
The most intelligent and insightful podcast about politics, the Political Scene is an absolute must for me every week.
Matthew gates
2 out of 5 stars
Freedom/independence
The last thing we need after a war is to pass an 800 billion dollar stimulus plan... Now we're in more debt then when bush was president and before we even get to see how that pans out, were going to allow a healthcare reform. I'm tired of liberals trying to hudle everyone together. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness... People need to be independent. It's called the American dream for a reason because there's low taxes and less binds on citizens. It's not my fault some people can't wear protection... Then they can't work. We allready give them welfare foodstamps gov'n checks, and now healthcare. They're good for nothing raising good for nothings. This is where we as American citizens put our foot down and just say no. America is the most giving country to our poor ALLREADY. Now it's time for the poor to do something for America!
gallo12
3 out of 5 stars
Biased but Worth Subscribing
As I wish that Fox News would be honest about it's obvious bias, so I would with this podcast. I listen to this podcast for some thought from the Left. I would recommend it as long as you recognize its political orientation.
Craig of GR
5 out of 5 stars
Longer would be better...
Great podcast. Too bad it is not 20-30 minutes--it feels rushed at 10-15.
MJS1979
5 out of 5 stars
Outstanding
Dorothy is terrific and the guests are always solid as well.
Thomas Rid
5 out of 5 stars
Why did you stop?
A great podcast -- why not give it a more permanent title and better focus? Your comment was enlightening at times.
cmslapis
5 out of 5 stars
Fabulous podcast
Really intelligent stuff, esp from a progressive's perspective. I just hope they don't quit now that the election is over.
iolantherosa
5 out of 5 stars
Very Informative and Enjoyable
This is a good political podcast. I listen to it along with NPR's It's All Politics and Slate's Political Gabfest podcasts. The team is articulate, informative, and fun.
sneakytaco
2 out of 5 stars
Political comfort food.
Depressingly biased. Subscribe only if you need constant reassurance and validation for your liberal beleifs.
ZippyZappyDingo
3 out of 5 stars
PLEASE TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
I understand he is a republican candidate, and I would really like more information about him. Info about Obama , Hillary, Huckabee and the other big guys is a dime a dozen. Step up your skill level a little bit and give us some information on someone who the world DOESN'T already know about.
wdbarth
5 out of 5 stars
Great
This is great horse-race style coverage. Just fun to listen too.
momtotwo
5 out of 5 stars
nailed it
Dorothy Wickendan is a terrific host, and she and the NYs contributors bring the issues, personalities, and tensions of the campaign into focus right away. They've gotten me engaged in the campaign in a deeper way. Thank, NYer!
John of Montrose
5 out of 5 stars
Insightful!
This is what you do not get on Sunday morning TV.
Podcast information
- Amount of episodes
- 156
- Subscribers
- 65
- Verified
- No
- Website
- Explicit content
- No
- Episode type
- episodic
- Podcast link
- https://podvine.com/link/..
- Last upload date
- March 24, 2023
- Last fetch date
- March 25, 2023 5:51 AM
- Upload range
- WEEKLY
- Author
- WNYC Studios and The New Yorker
- Copyright
- © Condé Nast. All rights reserved.
susbcribers
- Trump’s Potential Trials Are a One-Man “Stress Test of the Legal System”It’s the end of a week in which former President Donald Trump said that he would be indicted by the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, for a hundred-and-thirty-thousand-dollar hush-money payment to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels—and still no charge. But just the prospect of an indictment has created a furor among Trump’s Republican allies in the House, who called Bragg’s investigation a “sham” and the District Attorney “radical.” Jim Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, led an inquiry into the Manhattan D.A.’s office—a move that the D.A.’s general counsel called an “unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty.” In this week’s political roundtable, the New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser , Jane Mayer , and Evan Osnos look at the political ramifications of the still-looming indictment, the terrifying threat of political violence, and what a Trump “perp walk” could mean.0 comments0
- Donald Trump Braces for an Indictment in the Stormy Daniels CaseThis week, reports circulated that the former President Donald Trump would be indicted for paying hush money to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels in 2016. But on Wednesday—the day that the indictment was expected—the New York grand jury declined to meet. Still, whatever the outcome of the Stormy Daniels case, Trump faces significant legal trouble. Investigations are under way into his alleged attempt to overturn the election in Georgia , his role in the January 6th attack , and classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago . Will any of these actually hurt him? Or will they help fuel another highly unorthodox Presidential campaign? Amy Davidson Sorkin joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the gambit of Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, who could charge Trump in the Stormy Daniels case, and the broader attempts to hold the former President accountable.0 comments0
- The Political Scene | The New Yorker Mar 20 · 27m What Happens if the Supreme Court Ends Affirmative Action?In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears likely to strike down affirmative action, in a decision expected by this summer. The practice of considering race as a tool to counteract discrimination has been in place at many colleges and universities, and in some workplaces, since the civil-rights era. But a long-running legal campaign has threatened the practice for decades. David Remnick talks with two academics who have had a front-row seat in this fight. Ruth Simmons tells him, “For me, it’s quite simply the question of what will become of us as a nation if we go into our separate enclaves without the opportunity to interact and to learn from each other.” Simmons was the Ivy League’s first Black president, and more recently led Prairie View A. & M., in Texas. Lee Bollinger, while leading the University of Michigan, was the defendant in Grutter v. Bollinger, a landmark case twenty years ago in which the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action. The Court’s current conservative majority is likely to overturn that precedent. Remnick also speaks with Femi Ogundele, the dean of undergraduate admissions at the University of California,Berkeley. Consideration of race in admissions at California state schools has been banned for nearly thirty years. “A lot of us are being kind of tapped on the shoulder and asked, ‘How are you doing what you’re doing in this new reality?’ ” he says. “I want to be very clear: I do not think there is any race-neutral alternative to creating diversity on a college campus,” Ogundele tells Remnick. “However, I do think we can do better than what we’ve done.”0 comments0
- We’re Living in a World Created by the Iraq WarReverberations of the global “war on terror”—launched by the Bush Administration following the attacks of September 11, 2001—have rippled throughout the world, taking hundreds of thousands of lives and costing trillions of U.S. dollars. This week marks the twentieth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, conducted on the false pretext that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser , Jane Mayer , and Evan Osnos all spent time writing and reporting on the Iraq War and its aftermath—including from within Iraq. In our weekly roundtable, they look at the profound consequences of the war and how it has impacted today’s politics—through, for example, the rise of Donald Trump, debates over America’s role in the war in Ukraine, and widespread distrust of experts and the mainstream media. We are living in a world the Iraq War created, and Glasser, Mayer, and Osnos explain how.0 comments0
- Masha Gessen on the War Against Trans RightsMasha Gessen has long written about Russia, and recently the war in Ukraine. But Gessen also has a deep background reporting on L.G.B.T.Q. rights. A dual citizen of Russia and the U.S., Gessen fled Russia when they were targeted by government repression of L.GB.T. people. Some of the same rhetoric that Vladimir Putin used is now appearing in bills that aim to criminalize transitioning. “All of these bills are about signalling, and what they’re signalling is the essence of past-oriented politics,” Gessen told David Remnick. “A message that says, ‘We are going to return you to a time when you were comfortable, when things weren’t scary … when you didn’t fear that your kid was going to come home from school and tell you that they’re trans.’ … Promising to take that anxiety away is truly powerful.” Gessen looks at the rapid escalation of laws in the United States that ban medical treatment for trans youth, and aspects of trans identity. “When I see that transgender care … for kids … is already illegal in some states,” Gessen says, “and for adults is likely to become illegal in some states, I know that my testosterone in New York is probably not as safe as I think it is.” Gessen also discusses how the embattled political climate and clear dangers for trans people make nuanced conversations difficult. For instance, Gessen feels that at least some of Dave Chappelle’s jokes about trans people could be seen as sophisticated, “next-level trans accepting.” Gessen also discusses the recent backlash against mainstream media outlets for coverage of issues like detransitioning. Detransitioning has received too much of a focus, Gessen says, and focussing on it plays into a narrative that transitioning young should be discouraged. Yet the possibility of regret on the part of trans people shouldn’t necessarily be denied; better, Gessen said, to accept that regret may accompany any major life change. “We normalize regret in all other areas of life,” Gessen told Remnick. “Kids and their parents, especially teen-agers, make a huge number of decisions that have lifelong implications.”0 comments0
- Introducing: “In The Dark”We’re pleased to announce that “In The Dark,” the acclaimed investigative podcast from American Public Media, is joining The New Yorker and Condé Nast Entertainment. In its first two seasons, “In The Dark,” hosted by the reporter Madeleine Baran, has taken a close look at the criminal-justice system in America. The first season examined the abduction and murder, in 1989, of eleven-year-old Jacob Wetterling, and exposed devastating failures on the part of law enforcement. The second season focussed on Curtis Flowers, a Black man from Winona, Mississippi, who was tried six times for the same crime. When the show’s reporters began looking into the case, Flowers was on death row. After their reporting, the Supreme Court reversed Flowers’s conviction. Today, he is a free man. A third season of “In The Dark,” which will be the show’s most ambitious one yet, is on its way. David Remnick recently sat down with Baran and the show’s managing producer, Samara Freemark, to talk about the remarkable first two seasons of the show, and what to expect in the future. To listen to the entirety of the “In The Dark” catalogue, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts .0 comments0
- The “Woke History” WarsJames Sweet, a professor of African history and the former president of the American Historical Association, wrote an essay last year that sparked a significant clash in the world of academia about the role of politics in history and vice versa. He argued that historians have become compromised by politics—that they begin not with the evidence but with the contemporary social-justice concern that they want to speak to, in order to go viral on Twitter. This discussion may seem niche, but it is in dialogue with a national one as politicians such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vow to remove all traces of “wokeness” from school curricula and exert control over how history is understood. Emma Green joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss her piece “ The Right Side of History ,” about Sweet’s essay and how historians should respond to the current political moment.0 comments0
- The Russian Activist Maria Pevchikh on the Fate of Alexey NavalnyWell before launching the horrifying campaign against Ukraine a year ago, Vladimir Putin had been undermining Russia as well: normalizing corruption on a massive scale, and suppressing dissent and democracy. One of the darkest moments on that trajectory was the poisoning of the opposition leader Alexey Navalny with the nerve agent novichok. Navalny and a team of investigators had illustrated the corruption of Putin and his circle in startling detail, and Navalny began travelling the country to launch a bid for the Presidency. “Every time when I heard Navalny giving an interview, I don’t think there was one interview where he wasn’t asked, ‘How come you’re still alive? How come they still haven’t they killed you?,’ ” recalls the Russian activist Maria Pevchikh, the head of investigations and media for Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation. “And Navalny is rolling his eyes saying, ‘I don’t know, I’m tired of this question, stop asking. I don’t know why I’m still alive and why they haven’t tried to assassinate me.’ ” Pevchikh was travelling with Navalny when he was poisoned, and helped uncover the involvement of the F.S.B. security services. After surviving the assassination and recuperating abroad, Navalny returned to Russia only to be arrested and then detained in a penal colony. “I think Putin wants him to suffer a lot and then die in prison,” Pevchikh tells David Remnick. Still, she maintains hope. “The situation is so chaotic, specifically because of the war,” she says. “Is the likelihood of Navalny being released when the war ends high? I think it is almost certain.” Pevchikh also served as an executive producer of the documentary “Navalny,” which is nominated for an Academy Award.0 comments0
- The Political Scene | The New Yorker Mar 4 · 32m The Fox News Defamation Lawsuit: “Money, Ideology, Truth, Lies—It’s All Right There”The Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox News stems from the 2020 election and Donald Trump’s refusal to accept defeat. At stake is nearly $1.6 billion in damages. Filings released in the case contain a trove of e-mails and text messages from Fox hosts and executives. The documents reveal that many of the top decision-makers at the company didn’t seem to believe what their own network was saying about the 2020 election. Fox’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, admitted as much, in a deposition released this week. In our weekly roundtable, the New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser , Jane Mayer , and Evan Osnos look at what the filings tell us about how Fox News operates, the current state of Republican politics, and the 2024 election.0 comments0
- How ChatGPT Will Strain a Political System in PerilIn November, Open AI introduced ChatGPT, a large language model that can generate text that gives the impression of human intelligence, spontaneity, and surprise. Users of ChatGPT have described it as a revolutionary technology that will change every aspect of how we interact with text and with one another. Joshua Rothman, the ideas editor of newyorker.com, joins Tyler Foggatt to talk about the many ways that ChatGPT may be deployed in the realm of politics—from campaigning and lobbying to governance. American political life has already been profoundly altered by the Internet, and the effects of ChatGPT, Rothman says, could be even more profound.0 comments0
- COVID-19 at Three: Who Got the Pandemic Right?As the COVID-19 pandemic approaches its fourth year, we can begin to gain some clarity on which countries, and which U.S. states, had the best outcomes over time. In a conversation with David Remnick, Dhruv Khullar, a contributing writer and a practicing physician in New York, explains some of the key factors. Robust testing was key for public-health authorities to make good decisions, unsurprisingly. What also seems clear from a distance, Khullar says, is that social cohesion was a decisive underlying condition. This helps explain why the United States did poorly in its pandemic response, despite a technologically advanced health-care system. Peer pressure, in other words, trumped mandates. Khullar also speaks to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about how misinformation and political polarization inhibit our country’s efforts on public health.0 comments0
- Is Ukraine the Next Battle in American Politics?This week, Joe Biden visited Kyiv to mark the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion, and promised more American support for Ukraine. Although the United States has approved tens of billions of dollars of aid for Ukraine, largely with bipartisan support, the war is increasingly a focus in U.S. domestic politics, with some congressional Republicans and the Florida governor Ron DeSantis raising objections. The staff writers Susan B. Glasser , Jane Mayer , and Evan Osnos gather for their weekly conversation, discussing how the war has upended expectations and may also upend American politics, as the far right and far left appear to be coming together in opposition to U.S. support for Ukraine.0 comments0
- What Does It Mean to Be “Indigenous”?In the past fifty years, a movement has formed to unite native and aboriginal peoples around the world under one umbrella term: Indigenous. But “indigeneity” is a slippery concept. Some groups qualify because they were the first people in their nation; some qualify even though they weren’t. Some have lost sovereignty over their land; some have regained it. As tribes face a variety of political crises, does this diverse global coalition create solidarity, or does it flatten complex problems? Manvir Singh, a writer and anthropology research fellow, raises these questions in an essay in this week’s New Yorker , “ It’s Time to Rethink the Idea of the ‘Indigenous .’ ” He joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the trade-offs of embracing a complex identity label.0 comments0
- A Year of the War in UkraineIn the year since Russia’s invasion, Ukrainians have shown incredible fortitude on the battlefield. Yet an end to the conflict seems nowhere in sight. “Putin’s strategy could be defined as ‘I can’t have it—nobody can have it.’ And, sadly, that’s where the tragedy is right now,” Stephen Kotkin, a fellow at the Hoover Institution and a scholar of Russian history, tells David Remnick. “Ukraine is winning in the sense that [it] didn’t allow Russia to take that whole country. But it’s losing in the sense that its country is being destroyed.” Kotkin says that the standards for a victory laid out by President Volodymyr Zelensky set an impossibly high bar, and that Ukraine—however distasteful the prospect—may be forced to cut its losses. He suggests it could accept its loss of control over some of its territory while aiming to secure expedited accession to the European Union, and still consider this a victory. Remnick also speaks with Sevgil Musaieva, the thirty-five-year-old editor-in-chief of Ukrainska Pravda, an online publication based in Kyiv, about the toll that the war is taking on her and her peers. “We have to destroy the Soviet Empire and the ghosts of the Soviet Empire, and this is the goal of our generation,” Musaieva says. “People of my generation, they don’t have family. They don’t have kids. They just dedicate their lives—the best years of their lives—to country.” Kotkin says that the standards for a victory laid out by President Volodymyr Zelensky set an impossibly high bar, and that Ukraine—however distasteful the prospect—may be forced to cut its losses. He suggests it might need to accept its loss of control over some of its territory while aiming to secure expedited accession to the European Union, and still consider this a victory.0 comments0
- The Political Scene | The New Yorker Feb 18 · 33m The Glass Ceiling, Still Intact: Women and Power in WashingtonThe California senator Dianne Feinstein announced her retirement this week. First elected in 1992, she became one of the most powerful senators in the chamber and was often spoken of as a possible Presidential contender, although she never ran. Also this week, Nikki Haley announced her bid to challenge Donald Trump for the Republican Presidential nomination. In Democratic circles, there have been new reports of hand-wringing over Vice-President Kamala Harris’s political prospects. That got the staff writers Susan B. Glasser , Jane Mayer , and Evan Osnos thinking about 1992—the Year of the Woman, as it was known—and about what has and hasn’t changed for women in politics in the three decades since.0 comments0
- A Historic Earthquake in Turkey, and the Saga of a Spy BalloonMore than forty thousand people are dead after back-to-back earthquakes in Turkey and Syria last week. It’s a new level of disaster in a region that has been pummelled by violence and terrorism. As a Syrian refugee in Turkey told The New Yorker , “We’ve had eleven years of war in Syria . . . . But what happened in eleven years there happened in forty seconds here.” Meanwhile, a mysterious tale of espionage has been unfolding. After a Chinese spy balloon was seen over Montana, the United States identified several more floating bodies in its airspace. Are they proliferating, or have they been there for far longer than we realize? Ben Taub, a New Yorker staff writer, has reported extensively from the Turkish-Syrian border , but his most recent piece for the magazine was about a man who travelled around the world in a balloon . He joins Tyler Foggatt to unravel two of the biggest stories in the news.0 comments0
- Salman Rushdie On Surviving the FatwaThirty-four years ago, the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, issued a fatwa calling for the assassination of the novelist Salman Rushdie, whose book “The Satanic Verses” Khomeini declared blasphemous. It caused a worldwide uproar. Rushdie lived in hiding in London for a decade before moving to New York, where he began to let his guard down. “I had come to feel that it was a very long time ago and, and that the world moves on,” he tells David Remnick. “That’s what I had agreed with myself was the case. And then it wasn’t.” In August of last year, a man named Hadi Matar attacked Rushdie onstage before a public event, stabbing him about a dozen times. Rushdie barely survived. Now, in his first interview since the assassination attempt, Rushdie discusses the long shadow of the fatwa; his recovery from extensive injuries; and his writing. It was “just a piece of fortune, given what happened,” that Rushdie had finished work on a new novel, “Victory City,” weeks before the attack. The book is being published this week. “I’ve always thought that my books are more interesting than my life,” he remarks. “Unfortunately, the world appears to disagree.” David Remnick’s Profile of Rushdie appears in the February 13th & 20th issue of The New Yorker.0 comments0
- What Biden Didn’t Say in the State of the UnionPresident Biden gave a boisterous second State of the Union address earlier this week, sparring with Republicans over Social Security and Medicare. Designed to advance the President’s agenda, a State of the Union address is always overstuffed. But there were several hot-button issues that Biden hardly discussed, including abortion rights, the United States’ relationship with China, and the war in Ukraine. The staff writers Susan B. Glasser , Jane Mayer , and Evan Osnos gather for their weekly conversation and consider what barely got a mention, and what that tells us about the current balance of power in Washington and the 2024 campaign.0 comments0
- A New Primary Calendar Changes the Race for the PresidencyThis week, the Democratic Party upended its primary schedule for 2024. Instead of the Iowa caucuses, South Carolina will now go first, giving more deciding power to Black voters. Is this an attempt to realign the Democratic Party’s priorities—or a token of gratitude for the state that pushed Biden to the Presidency in 2020? Benjamin Wallace-Wells, a New Yorker staff writer and reporter who has spent a lot of time in Iowa, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the influence of the early primaries, and the political calculations that went into changing them.0 comments0
- Chuck D on How Hip-Hop Changed the WorldForty years ago, Chuck D showed listeners how exciting, radical, and unpredictable hip-hop could be. His song “Fight the Power” became a protest anthem for a generation, and a Greek chorus in Spike Lee’s film “Do the Right Thing.” The Public Enemy front man talks with the staff writer Kelefa Sanneh about his life in music. “I wanted to curate, present, navigate, teach, and lead the hip-hop art, making it something that people would revere,” he says. Now, at sixty-two, Chuck D is an elder statesman of his genre, and also a critic of it and some of its more commercial impulses. His latest project is a four-part documentary, “Fight the Power: How Hip-Hop Changed the World,” which is airing now on PBS. “I’ve been to one hundred sixteen countries over thirty-eight years, so I’ve seen the changes,” he says. “People have made their way to me to say, ‘Chuck, this is what this art form has meant to me,’ in all continents except for Antarctica.”0 comments0
- The Political Scene | The New Yorker Feb 3 · 29m An "Anger Olympics" Between Trump and the Rest of the 2024 Republican FieldThe Republican Nikki Haley is widely expected to announce a Presidential run later this month. As a former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina governor, Haley brings strong credentials to a sparse Republican field. The defeated former President Donald Trump is making his third bid for the White House. Governor Ron DeSantis, of Florida, is expected to run, but is so far waiting in the wings. Mikes Pence and Pompeo, Trump’s former Vice-President and Secretary of State, respectively, are also rumored to be contemplating bids. What can these nascent campaigns tell us about the state of the G.O.P.? The staff writers Susan B. Glasser , Jane Mayer , and Evan Osnos gather for their weekly conversation to explore the 2024 race for the Republican nomination, and what it might take to dislodge Trump as the front-runner.0 comments0
- How the Memphis Police Controlled the Narrative of Tyre Nichols’s KillingLast Thursday, the Memphis Police Department announced that it was firing five police officers who beat a man named Tyre Nichols to death during a traffic stop. Shortly afterward, all five officers were jailed and charged with murder. Then the police department released body-camera and surveillance-camera footage of the incident. In the days that followed, the footage, and the question of whether or not to watch it, became the object of public preoccupation, superseding the violence it captured. Doreen St. Félix is a staff writer at The New Yorker . She joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss police-brutality videos as cultural objects—and the police as a storytelling apparatus .0 comments0
- What Does “Woke” Mean, and How Did the Term Become So Powerful?For years, many on the right have been lambasting a certain kind of progressive sensibility denoted with the term “political correctness”—endless fodder for Rush Limbaugh and others in the nineteen-nineties. But those semi-comic tirades were nothing compared with the serious political fight against “woke.” Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis , for example, recently signed a so-called Stop Woke Act into law, and made the issue the center of his midterm victory speech. In Washington, there has been talk in the House of forming an “anti-woke caucus.” “I think ‘woke’ is a very interesting term right now, because I think it’s an unusable word—although it is used all the time—because it doesn’t actually mean anything,” the linguist and lexicographer Tony Thorne, the author of “Dictionary of Contemporary Slang,” tells David Remnick . “The references to ‘woke’ before 2016, 2017, 2018, were kind of straightforward. It means ‘socially aware,’ ‘empathetic,’ ” Thorne says. “Then the right, the conservative right, seizes hold of this word,” to heap blame on it for everything from deadly mass shootings to lower military recruitment.0 comments0
- Why Chief of Staff Is “the Hardest Job in Washington”The White House chief of staff is the second most powerful but hardest gig in Washington, D.C. Dick Cheney blamed the job for giving him his first heart attack, during the Ford Administration. A hapless chief of staff can break a Presidency; effective ones get nicknamed the Velvet Hammer. On Friday, the Biden Administration announced that Ron Klain will depart as chief of staff, after two long years in the job. The staff writers Susan B. Glasser , Jane Mayer , and Evan Osnos gather for their weekly conversation to look at what Klain accomplished and what to expect from his replacement, Jeffrey Zients.0 comments0
- The Competing Narratives of the Monterey Park ShootingLast weekend, a man shot and killed eleven people at a ballroom-dance studio in Monterey Park, California, an Asian enclave outside of Los Angeles. Then, less than forty-eight hours later, in Half Moon Bay, California, another man shot and killed seven Chinese farmworkers. Notably, both alleged killers were older men with Asian backgrounds. While mass shootings take place with mind-boggling regularity in America, these attacks also happened amid an alarming rise in hate crimes targeting people of Asian descent. Jay Caspian Kang, a New Yorker staff writer and the author of “ The Loneliest Americans ,” joins Michael Luo, the editor of newyorker.com, to discuss how these two types of American violence shape our understanding of such disturbing events.0 comments0
Podcast hosts
No host has claimed this podcast yet, if you are the host you can verify ownership by claiming this podcast
© Condé Nast. All rights reserved.
