Post Reports

…and kept my Washington Post subscription. And I’m glad I did. Your journalism is close to being nonpareil. But how can you do an entire debrief on the outcome of the 2024 general election without once mentioning voter suppression? The principal project of conservative megadonors over the last 50 years has been severely restricting access to voting. A project conceived in the ‘70s and enacted beginning in the ‘80s is bearing strange fruit today. Conservative megadonors getting Trump into office a second time — largely by attacking voting, restricting voting, preventing voting, and tossing out an unprecedented number of ballots even after they were cast — is openly a win for the old Confederacy. Are you so genteel that, to uphold the old myth of U.S. exceptionalism, “the beacon of democracy and free elections,” you will ignore the truth in the data staring us all right in the face?? The right to vote itself has been under attack across the U.S. since the 1980s. Getting the truth out to the public will require an act of selfless journalism … and I hope you will commit it!

During the election season, I’ve tuned in to this show regularly. I appreciate their thorough analysis and the array of journalists they bring in to speak to the subjects. The format has introduced me to a lot of strong voices at the Post. An episode I loved in particular was Elahe’s conversation about the excitement around Caitlin Clark. As someone who can just barely differentiate a basket ball from a baseball, I found the host and her guests’ humor and excitement contagious. Plus there was a welcome sense of joy and levity to the episode. The team is working hard at their jobs and it shows, in spite of all the chaos swirling around them.

I listen to Post Reports almost every morning on my commute (when I'm not listening to my book club book on audible (but I catch up on episodes in between meetings)). Elahe and Martine are such great company on the drive; I appreciate their insightful questions and thoughtful discussion with guests, and I know I can rely on them to keep me up to date on the biggest news of the day. They've upped my water-cooler-chat game immeasurably.

As I consumer of mostly independent media, I was suspicious that the Post would report only US sanctioned news. I listened out of curiosity at some point and was impressed with the depth and completeness of their coverage. I don’t listen to all episodes, but often learn complexities from those I do listen to.

The discussion on the solar rooftop show provided an understated discussion regarding implications of these large solar panel fields being planned and constructed over large swaths of land. The possibility solar fields ‘could’ interact with endangered species was mentioned. That’s incomplete because it’s not a possibility, it’s an actuality. Equally as important, there are acres upon acres of fragile desert soils being disturbed with the installation of fields of solar panels. Not only will this affect the ability of the desert surfaces to maintain vegetation moving forward through time, but this disturbance is likely to cause huge amount of mobilized dust, which has a whole host of other implications as well, health affects included. How about the inequity of generating health hazards for rural communities? Not to mention the value of empty land for variety of reasons: scientific, preservation, recreation, enjoyment by the public, etc. Furthermore, the discussion of funding solar on rooftops may be correct for wherever you did your researching, but is incorrect for other locations. At least in some parts of the country solar panels are being installed on roofs with zero down, the monthly payment is less than the electricity bill, and that is not only for high income households. And the policy is such that owners don’t receive credits or payment for generating more than they use. Also, I am guessing there are a lot of solutions to address the issue of equity other than simply not putting solar on the rooftops. Why is the emphasis not on the need to harness the energy that could be generated from rooftops, storing, and distributing it efficiently. Imagine the power there, on land already disturbed!

i used to listen a lot, but lately i’ve been disappointed. this show wants to be a serious newsy show but struggles dearly for any nuance or balance, particularly when covering culture issues (surprise surprise, they can be touchy!) i’m not sure if this was always the case & i missed it because i tend to agree with their bias, or if it’s become more pronounced? Often the hosts have clearly picked a good side and a bad side to frame the hot-button issue being covered & they tend to REALLY straw man the arguments for the side they apparently feel are the bad guys. (a recent episode on transwomens’ participation in pro/collegiate sport is a case in point) This is fine if you don’t want your priors challenged, but for listeners that genuinely want to learn & engage with the issue it would be helpful to present both sides’ BEST arguments & let us make up our own minds. most issues really are more complex than post reports would have you believe.