Anne McElvoy is an interesting interviewer, Jon Fasman is just a political talking head. Anne asks questions, sometimes too harshly, probing the topic. Jon just leads a dim one sided stream of words boarding on a rant. Keep Anne, dump Jon.

Terrible show. The host Ann McElvoy is so Smug and have very biased view on issues. Contributing correspondents are not better either. Truly a terrible show. I expect better from the Economist. In contrast. Check and Balance is much much better.

This podcast is yet another Homerun from The Economist’s suite of podcasts. Well done!

Just listened to this interview. Mr Menendez’s comments about vaccine distribution are incorrect. I received both of my Pfizer covid vaccine doses by 1/8/21 (while Trump was still in office), as did many other people.

Hey Zanny, A large part of your discussion pivoted around what Biden should do and the fear of a return of Trump. So…what about Boris Johnson? His clownish behavior and unserious working style does not exactly give one great confidence in the UK’s. Remember how Thatcher had to “stiffen the spine” of George HW Bush before the first Gulf war? What would Johnson do??

But it’s an interview show so that is expected. Eric Berkowitz is an idiot. Michael Johnson was great. Anne is always super.

She maintains the respect of the people she interviews in a way that lets her go deeper and explore more critically the thinking of her subjects. I can’t name many interviewers who can do that without either cloyingly chumming-up to their subjects or being overtly hostile to them. From Anne’s interviews you get a clearer understanding of her subjects and also understand how their ideas play in or against others in the domains of politics and culture.

Ben Rodhes? Seriously a member of the worst US foreign policy team!! Doubled troops in Afghanistan with zero positive results, Syria? Drawing the Obama’s red line to the worse humanitarian refugee crisis, one after another foreign disaster. Please!

Loved what he said about being neutral and respectful Reaganism. However, he doesn’t know what he is talking about re. China. He should go there and see it before making random comments. For a politician, the last thing to do is to speak on something one doesn’t know. What a shame ... Credibility instantly lost.

Awful show. The host seems incapable of asking serious and meaningful questions to any conservative (US) or authoritarian (Chinese) guest. The less the guest aligns with acceptable norms of free speech, human rights, and open democracy, the more the host gives that guest an open and unchallenged mic to spew all manner of lies and dishonesty. Meanwhile, the host gleefully harasses middle-of-the-spectrum and “liberal” guests with a plethora of fact-free, half-baked “it seems to me’ assertions. The Economist wold immediately double the quality of their podcasts by dropping this show (or at least its host).

Anne McElvoy is a fantastic interviewer. She doesn’t fall for niceties or American media taboos. She is a great debater and won’t give ANY interviewee a free pass

Guests are usually great. I much prefer the business/political guests (Gates/Hastings/Cameron/Hong Kong futures) that are active in the “real world” more than the arts/literature guests that report on what others are doing, but the different perspectives are nice I suppose. I alternate between cheering Anne for asking great questions and rolling my eyes and shaking my head at her. Her bias shows through very often, which I can deal with, but when The Economist brings in guests that are really polarized it is frustrating to listen to (Reines). I wish it was overall more balanced to the center.

Keep better tabs on world events for your expansive audience. The absurd bias does not go unnoticed, I assure you. I reject the implicit notion that all listeners are so willfully blind.

In retrospect, Bill Gates and Xi will likely be regarded as the two most important figures in the fight against COVID-19. Xi shut down Wuhan, demonstrating that similar measures, including scaled down versions adapted to what is acceptable in other social contexts, will be necessary. The episode has also hinted at the massive role played by BG’s foundation. Both deserve Nobel prizes.

I like the diverse selection of guests, the intelligent questioning, and the fact that it’s only a half hour long. A dependably good listen.

I enjoy the insightful questions asked by the interviewers that give me a well rounded understanding of complex topics. I specifically enjoy when the interviewer plays devils advocate. I feel like that challenges the interviewee and gives the listeners a better and more well rounded perspective of the issues discussed.

Thanks for your deep and wide perspectives!

Ms McElvoy is, bar none, the best interviewer in any media format today. Intelligent. Fearless. Dogged.

Yes, Anne McElvoy is arrogant and argumentative, but she's also not a sycophant, and if that's what you want, there are hundreds of other, lesser interview podcasts you can listen to. She gets more out of her guests precisely because she asks tough questions. Keep up the great work.

Anne McElvoy could not have been nastier to Valerie Jarrett. All “gotcha” questions with one goal: find fault with the Obama administration in order to blame them for the narcissistic, racist blunders of the current administration. One of the worst interviews I’ve ever heard. I’m done.

Anne McElvoy is a charming interviewer. Lighthearted for sure but sharp with the probing questions and follow up questions. Put her with leaders from business, politics, and the arts and you have a satisfying, engaging listen.

**I retract previous comments. It took a couple hundred hours before I appreciated her, but Anne McElvoy is great. Fantastic. Highly recommend.

Was very much more balanced, with Ann asking some penetrating questions and the male author (at least) being willing to admit that the President has exposed the disdain many citizens have for his kind of “traditional presidency behavior”. I wanted to shout out: but the social media opportunities for lots of mischief are certainly revealed (I disdain to partake in that behavior). It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Anne McElvoy just doesn’t do it for me. Not sure what it is. Tries too hard? Arrogant? Personality detracts from the interviews.

David Mamet is an over rated pompous playwright as this interview clearly show

Great show about time someone said it. Tax the billionaires!

Great podcast and well set in the Economist tradition. I just wished Anne McElvoy interrupted speakers less and made the discussion less about her and more about the interviewee and audience. The other Economist interviewers do this far better.

Anne Mccelvoy is an incredible interviewer who can engage in interesting and productive conversations with people of all walks of life and political persuasions. No sensationalizing here, just thoughtful, insightful discussions.

Thanks to the host for trying to pin George Will down on LGBTQ+ rights as they relate to American conservatism. Mr. Will insisted that Queer rights are a done deal. Though marriage equality is now law of the land, it‘s still possible to be denied employment and/or housing for one‘s sexual orientation in over half of the American states. The US House recently passed the Equality Act to rectify this, but the Senate Majority Leader will not even bring the bill up for debate in the Senate. Whether Leader McConnell is genuinely conservative at this point or is simply a lackey of current populism is debatable. But the fact remains that LGBTQ+ people in the US are not equal under the law, contrary to Mr. Will‘s inference. If a podcast from a solid journalistic organization like The Economist is going to pursue an issue like this, it seems to me the host and/or editors have an obligation to hold the guest accountable for the accuracy of his/her answers even if that means fact-checking and editing out false statements before broadcast.

Economist’s incisive journalism from reporters in the field, backed by Jason Palmer’s anchoring, all in 20 minutes. Great!

Why is the logo a masturbating question mark? So weird, especially from The Economist.

She sounds like a giant B. Why should Bill do any dishes? He brought $100 billion to the marriage, and all she brought was a gigantic expectation of entitlement. I feel sorry for Bill.

Loved the conversation with Ben Shapiro - easy to tell they have differences of opinion but equally clear they can still talk civily and even laugh at each other’s jokes. Prime example of good journalism and just being a good person. Nice work.

In a word, dishonest. Ok, maybe 2 words: dishonest and uninformed. Good job Anne. You’re taking down the whole institution on your own.

Anne McElvoy's approach to interviews with conservatives - like it is with most liberal journalists - is to take a belligerent, aggressive approach with the focus of trying to prove them wrong and arguing with them, rather than to elicit understanding. In her interview with Ben Shapiro, this approach is on full display. Won’t be listening to Anne going forward.

I enjoyed the first few episodes and the pretty eclectic guest list. The production values are excellent, and I enjoy the give-and-take between the interviewer, and the interviewee.

Love listening to Anne McElvoy’s interviews. She takes no guff from those who try to evade her questions. Well done!

Easily the best Economist podcast. Good short-form interviews. The host is quite sharp and consistently succeeds in drawing out guests. Strongly recommended.

I love it because it is not our grandparents’ perspective on economics which is only appropriate since we’re not going back to that era. Fostering evolving thought can be tough, thanks for contributing.

As an economics buff I really wanted to enjoy this podcast however the hosts approach to subject matter is often elitist and arrogant. I found discussions close minded or directed to an elitist liberal mentality as opposed to a classical economics background. I am so very disappointed.