My first instinct was not to listen, not to waste the time. I wish I’d stuck to it. Kelly’s not worth listening to, and Lulu, I’m sorry to say, did very little to make it worth my time. Ugh.

Megyn? Can u tell us all one thing you actually like about DT? One thing you think the administration is doing that is net positive for every American.? What I think is our greatest ideal is what we do elevate and take care of our fellow americans. Community is our strength why do you choose to divide us. Why do you choose to take a side? I’m not woke just a human and I like other humans. Thank you for being one too.

Love me some Megyn Kelly! More of this!!!

Lulu’s interview with Megyn Kelly was disappointing. Kelly said things that were blatantly inaccurate and Lulu just let her keep spreading falsehoods. We keep hearing how this is an issue with the far right, so I am not sure how this mistake was made by a seasoned journalist. Megyn Kelly is an Ann Coulter prototype.

I can’t believe how seriously Megyn K takes herself. Ouch ! what a joke. Pro Woman ? That brain gone to such waste & no she’s not a journalist sorry. She is a scary monster all dressed up. I enjoy most episodes of this pod. Idk how Lourdes became lulu but it’s dreadful. David’s interview with Denzel needed major editing. You guys are great.

Gibson is dancing around the issue within the framework of black pedagogy (see Alice Miller) which is not helpful but confusing and may lead to children of immature parents feeling guilty. Check out Dr. Ramani instead, way more clear and helpful.

if only to argue, without any evidence except the host's "vibes," with the entire premise of the doctor's entire work and thesis? Credit to Dr Gibson for tolerating this moronic line of questioning with patience and grace

I’ve listened to both David and Lulu‘s interviews with a variety of guests. Some of them were deeply uncomfortable to listen to, both from the perspective of the interviewer and as a guest. You could hear some of the discomfort of the guest. You could hear some of the discomfort of the interviewer. I am not sure if it’s showing vulnerability or the struggle to interview someone who agreed to be interviewed, but who nonetheless doesn’t necessarily connect with you. And saying that, I find Lulu more engaging and connecting with the guests immediately. David tends to ask more yea/no questions. I sometimes find myself rephrasing the question for him. Instead of “was there tension?” Or “do you know the ending?” I would say “can you describe why you think some has said there are tensions in the set?” Do the guests have any sort of preview for the questions to be asked?

I can’t quite figure out what this show is trying to do, but I do know how goes every time: the two interviewers flaunt their “tough” interviewing style, turn the attention on themselves, antagonize their guests to no clear end, and ultimately fail to deliver any new information to the public. It’s shameful, and it’s not worthy of The New York Times. Just shut it down.

Always interesting and diverse guests on all topics. Schumer is a traitor and now a pawn to the trumpsterfire. Another disgrace

I noticed info on our “United States” Democratic Attorney General, in opposition of some effecting “executive orders” to their defending states, may have to request for more funding to fight. Here’s an idea … how’s bout a “go-fund-me” account fundraising for our fighting A.G.s. (and I’m not playing, seriously). It CAN and SHOULD be done. -s.jxn- ga

It’s painful to listen to Marchese treating interviewees like projects. It’s a feature that they are all offended at his impersonal way of connecting and it just feels wrong. Plus they never get anywhere interesting. Maybe have somebody who’s good at connecting with people? Lulu is good.

I find David as eye-rolling and exhausting as Denzel did. No one wants to listen to an interviewer who is intimidated by their interviewee.

Breath of fresh air Thank you Women care about their husbands and sons too It isn’t women vs men

I love how uncomfortable I feel listening to the deep and hard questions and the frank and hopefully honest answers. I always learn so much.

I just listened to Lulu’s interview with Ruben Gallego and it was PAINFUL to hear her say his name five different ways with five different accents on the pseudo-Latino to Anglo continuum. Girl, drop the opportunistic wannabe chola accent and accept that you’re just another a faux-white American chick tryna sneak in a word or two from the colonial language of Español on an elitist podcast that is so out of touch with the everyday Latino guy that it’s painful … and wondering why Trump won the election?!?!? Your disconnect from Latino reality is PAINFUL. CÁLLATE!

I tried listening to a few of these podcasts. Listening to the interviewer crumble and basically say his guest is making him uncomfortable and should be a better guest for him was a moment of secondhand embarrassment for me. Nobody forced this guy to interview Denzel.

I enjoy Lulu’s interviews, but David’s interviews are just so tough to listen to, I get uncomfortable, because the questions that are being asked are very personal, but it seems like there is no trust between the person who’s being interviewed and David. So it makes sense that they don’t want to open up. Lulu on the other hand is very personable, warm and the conversations just flow organically.

David Marchese takes himself way too seriously and ends up making every interview about him. It gets so bad in a couple interviews that the guest ends up coaching David and trying to get the conversation back on track. David’s typical MO seems to be to try for a “gotcha” moment, but it comes off as rude and inappropriate and the guest sees through it and is insulted. It’s really unnecessary to be this aggressive and unprofessional when interviewing the folks they’ve had on this pod. Overall I just can’t believe that the NYT lets this continue.

I find this interviews so esoteric and awkward (eg Denzel and Vince Vaughn interviews) at times. The questions being asked seem of personal interest to the interviewers, which makes the interviews less relatable to the audience. They are often also unnecessarily confrontational.

One of the most cringe interviews ever is the Marchese itv of Denzel Washington. Marchese sounds scared, uncomfortable and nervous and I actually felt bad for him. I’m wondering why Denzel agreed to do this interview…?

I love listening to interviews and was excited when this show got started. However, these are so cringe I sometimes have to stop listening out of embarrassment. David makes the interview about himself and his neuroses. His humorless and uncomfortable approach with Denzel forced the guest to console, encourage and coach him. Seriously?! The guests deserve better. Please get better interviewers and I’ll reconsider listening.

But you need to get rid of David marchese. He is by far THE WORST interviewer… Denzel.. did the fires make you want to run? Did children change your life? WHAT ABSOLUTELY STUPID QUESTIONS GET RID OF THIS GUY - seriously! He did the show about choosing to die and made the WHOLE SHOW about him and his mother Aren’t these interviews supposed to be for the public. GOOD GOD WHO FELT BAD FOR HIM SO THEY DECIDED TO HIRE HIM

I first give this podcast 1 star because I absolutely hate the choice of people to interview and question to some extent the intent of New York Times in offering “unbiased journalism” as many of the people interviewed here are neo liberals and pro Israel Zionists, not to mention at least one billionaire. Sorry I’m not interested in humanizing the billionaire experience? But also, I find the interviews to be SOOO BORING and also I don’t really feel that hard questions are asked, or anything interesting is learned. So vapid, so surface. I like a lot of NYT stuff but not this.

I listen and look forward to this every week. Interesting guests and topics. Agree though with earlier reviewer. Lulu’s tone often makes me bristle..seems like she wants to start an argument. There are ways to do deep dive more gracefully. Take notes from Terry Gross.

Marchese at his absolute best in interview with Yarvin!

If you like hollow, hostile, unprofessional interviews replete with cheap “I gotcha” questions, then this is the show for you. It seems like people are invited on this show, just so the hosts can delegitimize their views. NY Times is better than this. I much prefer Ezra Klein.

The Antony Blinken interview was an embarrassment. Lose the tone, it sounds unprofessional.

I wish I could like this show but the interviews are just bad. It’s not good. I’ve struggled through most the episodes but todays with Ben Stiller was the limit. David M. asks him the most shallow softball questions about being Jewish “after October 7” , and with no further push allows Ben stiller to answer in a pathetically general - “anti semitism isn’t the only problem in the world today many people are experiencing hardship ..” HUH?? NYT is biased to the point of being unlistenable and the standards of journalism are in the garbage.

I think that your time is the number one best journalism in the world by far and hold their recording to be what's real and right and I trust, but I have given the interview any chances and I just don't like it. I just cannot stand it every interview Lulu Garcia does Questions her way about interviewing her attitude or respectfulness her Eeyore. Way of interviewing amazing people and just constantly pissing me off by the way she asks question has this pessimistic annoying view on everything I find her interviews to be extremely bad extremely annoying extremely unnecessary and extremely stupid. Why did she have to be so that girl in school that I wanted to like pull her ponytail sorry Lulu, but stop being that journalist that nobody has anything good to say about be respectful be formal in your introduction and kind to interview and then go into your analyzing and probing, but do it in a way that begins and ends with kindness, respect, and integrity and then maybe I can stomach some of your interview be better. You just don't feel like a fit in New York Times personally. Lastly, people who write incompetent clueless, negative reviews, talking bad about Nancy Pelosi are so far gone out in outer space at a touch and clueless to reality because Nancy Pelosi it save so many lives save this country and done more for this countries than any other political person in this country as a gay man she's my hero and the politician with the biggest balls in Washington. I can say that because I can back it up and I pay attention to what's real and what's not thank you.

This show is becoming harder for me to listen to. I find that Lulu tries to be a strong interviewer but comes off as argumentative and even bullying. At times, David pushes people’s personal boundaries so much that it becomes uncomfortable. Meanwhile, it’s up to the guests to remain calm, articulate, and professional. Their approaches end up being distracting to what these fascinating guests have to say and is quite frankly painful to listen to.

When Lulu interviews a guest, it always feels like a bad mix of contentiousness, disrespect, and pretentiousness. She carries an air of moral superiority, especially when she’s questioning about Gaza, and I leave these interviews feeling bad for those she interviews. Kara Swisher is a great example of a tough interviewer who doesn’t make her guests look bad. Lulu, you need to check yourself.

Unsubscribed when Blinken was platformed. He is a recognized war criminal. Why are the interviewers giving him a platform and normalizing genocide. F* this show

This interviewer is too aggressive is her tactics. Her constant interruptions are extremely disruptive to the listener and I fear to the interviewee which affects the experience and ultimate result.

These interviews are completely useless

I’ve listened to almost every episode. I really like this show, but the interviews that Lulu leads inevitably end up with this aggressive tone. Even when the guests seem to agree with her she sets them up for these gotcha questions that feel like cheap shots. I enjoy hearing push back and truly like that this show asks ‘hard hitting questions’, but the way she does it feels blind siding to the guest and frankly lacks tact. Getting people to open up publicly is an art and simply bulldozing them does not make for good journalism.

I have listened to this podcast twice — its debut and the most recent interview with Tilda Swinton. In both instances, the interviewer, David Marchese, seems to confuse solipsism with insight. As a result, the interviews are shallow, at times fawning, and manage to make otherwise fascinating people unforgivably boring. Like the pretentious videos that illustrate each episode, these are beneath the Times’s standards — a podcast without an apparent reason for being, other than leveraging the Times’s unparalleled access, which it then squanders.

I listened to the interview for a second time and it is still masterful. Lulu does a great job interviewing a legend who sticks to her alliterative script carefully offering no insight and no introspection whatsoever!

Please do an episode with Cynthia erivo

I’ve listened to the interviews with Nancy Pelosi and Vince Vaughn. In both, the interviewer is insulting. In the case of Pelsosi, the tone of Garcia-Navarro is crass, smug, and she is disagreeable to the point of interrupting Pelosi several times. When she doesn’t agree with the answer Pelosi gives, she almost attacks her. In the case of Vaughn, Marchese insults him from the beginning- assuming Vaughn is as simple-minded as some of the characters he plays. When Vaughn wants to make the interview more of a meaningful conversation, Marchese pushes back, despite asking Vaughn very personal questions. Thankfully, Vaughn continues to share meaningful experiences that anyone could relate to, only to have Marchese wrap up the interview with “This is easily the weirdest celebrity interview of all time now”. (???) In general, the audience tends to listen to interviews because they like the person being interviewed- they don’t want to hear them being belittled, interrupted, and offended by the interviewer.

Lulu is the most repugnant and hateful interviewer I have ever had the displeasure of listening to. She has no emotional coping skills, displays sociopathic tendencies, and has no sense of humor or an inkling of compassion. She thinks she's above the people she interviews and makes it her intention to verbally abuse and put down her guests. This abomination is not what a self proclaimed journalist should adhere to.

I’m genuinely interested in all the topics she’s covered and people she’s interviewed, but Lulu’s aggression towards guests while constantly interrupting them is so painful to listen to I rarely end up finishing the episode. Her opinions are made very clear, and she doesn’t even bother to hide her annoyance with guest's answers. She’s constantly argumentative, it’s like a toddler is running the show. Please please please replace her or this show will die

That interview with Nancy Pelosi is terrifying. It seems like her ego is preventing her from taking a good hard look in the mirror and making any attempt to understand why voters are rejecting the party. Her pollyannish take on the results suggests somebody who is either in denial, not in touch with reality, or trying (and failing) to put a spin on our utter defeat. I BEG you Pelosi and the democratic leaders to please look inward and first accept that you have lost real contact with the American people. People of all ages/races crossed party lines to vote for one of the most despicable men in history. Obviously, your message is not resonating. Just like republicans are the problem, so are we for not clearly communicating our policies and platforms and fixating too much on identity politics. For the love of god, put the identity politics aside.

This is the only episode I listened to but it was a painful struggle. The interviewer offered flat, surface-level questions, failed to pick up on emotional moments and push the exposé further, and in general appeared full of himself and unable to empathize (“yes, I know exactly how I appear to others”). Disappointing and more importantly, missed opportunity to create something special with this conversation.

I have listened almost all the interviews, some apolitical interviews were okay, any political interviews are extremely unprofessional and shallow, I can literally hear that Lulu is enforcing her perspectives on the guests, worst of all, she tries really hard to appear neutral or professional, but she doesn’t have the depth in understanding politics. When Lulu interviewed JD Vance, JD Vance was articulated to hide real answers, Lulu appeared to be respectful but no real question. Another example would be interviewing Pelosi, I was so interested in Pelosi’s wisdom to understand the situation in a broader sense, but Lulu tried over and over again to get a “Democrats self reflection” answer, almost like Lulu can only see the election result in one angle. I felt that I’m not even an American and cannot vote, just an audience but understand U.S. politics better than a professional journalist.

The questions posed to Nancy Pelosi were odd and argumentative in a way that wasn’t helpful. Not a fan.

This interview was excellently performed by Lulu Garcia-Navarro. Her questioning led to Pelosi’s opinion delineating the distinction primarily between the house races and states election results differing from the presidential election.

The interviewer kept pushing Nancy Pelosi on the same questions. She did not move the conversation forward. What was the point of the interview other than to Monday morning quarterback the election.

The interviewers are way too aggressive and argumentative. It’s supposed to be an interview not an interrogation.

I really wanted to like NYT-ified fresh air, but after listening to 5 minutes of the Peter Singer episode, I decided it definitely wasn’t all I’d hoped for. Very surface-level, like a TV interview segment, and just generally not very interesting. Love NYT but hope they do this concept better.