Many of the guests seem bored by the interviews, esp Serena Williams. It sounded like she didn’t want to be there. I like the idea of calling a guest back for a follow up but that hasn’t really panned out in any super interesting way on this show, except perhaps for the Ted Sarandon intv. I like Lulu’s interviews better than David’s.

David Marchese is a horrible interviewer. I am baffled by how bad his interviews are. He seems like he doesn’t do any research on his subjects, and he asks totally uninteresting questions. The Anne Hathaway interview is physically painful to listen to (because of him NOT her). Eddie Murphy seems understandably bored in his episode. Just shockingly bad.

You’d think he’d be better. But no. It’s hard to listen to because he’s so arrogant and self centered that he thinks he’s such a good interviewer- listening is painful as he biffs over and over. Quite frankly it’s embarrassing for the host who seems to believe he’s a singular talent and master at his craft. I feel like the guests are also thrown by how snotty, arrogant, and nerdy this guy is.

All the interesting questions that lead to important considerations. Really get authenticity with the call backs. So enjoy the reporting that gets outside of dusty boxes. Keep them coming! Bravi 👏

Mediocre interviews—softballs with famous people… And the accompanying images are so off-putting. Why are you trying to make Gretchen Whitmer look ridiculous?

The Interview is almost painful to listen to. I enjoy many other NYT podcasts and wanted to like this one, but I can barely make it through the episodes.

I was so looking forward to the Serena interview. I had my daughter listen with me and honestly, nothing much was said. The questions jumped around and at points it was even awkward between the host and Serena. I was surprised.

Surprisingly bad interviewing skills. I had to stop listening the Serena Williams one because I felt too much cringe.

David- not great.

I absolutely love The Daily and Serena Williams but I could barely make it through this podcast. The questions seemed random, intrusive, and led to a question and answer session that was tense and uninspiring. It seemed like the host was unprepared and Serena was over it….

Some of the best reporting, interviewing, and storytelling the NY Times offers.

Episodes of this show keep showing up in my feed from the Daily. I listen to every word of the Daily during the week and rely on it for deep dives into important stories. I haven’t been able to make it more than five minutes into one of these “The Interview” episodes. They focus on people I have no interest in, and don’t do anything to generate interest. There seems to be little of the depth of analysis and information I look to The NY Times to receive.

I’m subscribed to several NYT podcasts and listening to podcasts from the “network” is a big part of my daily routine. This one, though, is horrible. I find that the questions are poorly conceived and that the interviews don’t really lead to anything insightful. Not sure what they are trying to accomplish. I DESPISE the fact that the Daily keeps placing this mess in my feed.

Find myself turning it off every episode. The interviewer asks boring questions and doesn’t delve into these people beyond what’s already out there. skip.

I’m a HUGE Linklater fan, but wow, I could barely make it through. Rather than letting Linklater go, Marchese ask asked questions that seemed designed more to show how smart he was than to spur Linklater to flow. So pretentious. The Anne Hathaway interview was also painful. This show seems more about the hosts than the guests so far. Even the podcast title is a lot.

In general I am a huge fan of the NYT, the Daily, Ezra Klein, Hard Fork etc. but The Interview podcast so far have been a series of very uncomfortable listens. Charlemagne Tha god was the most interesting- he delivered an interesting pov. The rest not so much. More thought is needed in selection and craftsmanship

I’m quite sure this episode has made me subscribe. Extremely informative and interesting. So many great ways we can began. I believe it will have to start at the top where those whom are in control of effect, and trickle down to ones already ready to hit the floor running. Question is…. Motivating Factors. (?) - Jxn -

It’s a step above just another podcast where people gab, but not by a lot; It’s not as substantive as I’d hoped, and the interviewer (just the guy) is pretty surface-level, and I was hoping for more depth. It’s fine, ok, but I expected more out of a podcast from the Times called The Interview.

Listened to 2 interviews, the interview with Charmaine seemed like it was guardrailed to a NYT narrative. The host kept intervening, let the interviewee speak.

The interview so uninformative it was shocking.

The interview with Ayana Elizabeth Johnson was terrible. I was expecting a scientific discussion with new information that gives me reason to view climate change a bit differently. It was little more than a dorm room conversation between two people talking about their feelings.

Off to a great start

Turned off completely by the Ayana Elizabeth episode. Her open criticism of people who don’t agree with her comes across as holier than thou. I believe in global warming and in sustainability, but making people feel bad about it is counterproductive.

That’s all. Love the Charlemagne one… more.. of…. That:)

Why in God’s name would I be interested in listening to an interview with somebody named Charlemagne tha God? Get a life.

Schizophrenic booking (Yair Lapid to Anne Hathaway to Marlon Wayans to Charlemagne tha God), but perhaps more importantly, who wants to hear what any of these people has to say.

This is about the episode with Yair. Lulu was incredibly biased and clearly just came off a campus protest. Even the way she kept calling him Mr. Lapid was odd, like she was masking hatred. General: This series feels like how they created the daily to explain how NYT could’ve gotten the 2016 election so wrong. They’re letting us look under the hood and humanizing the news. But there’s too much of the interviewer in the interview as a result. How have David and Lulu earned our interest to merit this? Like David’s talking about his hips?! Never heard of David before this. I also think the second part of the podcast where they call the person on the phone is hard to understand in terms of audio quality.

I enjoy the podcast very much but I have to say so far my favorite interview has been Marlon Wyans.

Alas lulu’s bias and lack of knowledge about Israel-Gaza - despite her claims to the contrary- made her an embarrassing and weak host to interview Lapid. She was trafficking in the falsehoods about statistics and the usual lies laundered in the west from jihadists that too rarely get pushback in the leftist media despite having no connection to reality. Lapid showed his decency, but really, her effort was not on the level of professionalism of what one expects from the NYT. (Start by not uncritically being a mouthpiece for Hamas’ fabricated and self-serving casualty figures without at least hearing or giving voice to the more credible Israeli estimate, and inform yourself about the exceptional measures to protect non-combatants that the IDF had taken in conditions that no modern law-abiding army has had to fight, meaning a terrorist ruling fantastically Islamist entity that spent 16 years as autonomous ruler of Gaza buildifn 400 miles of tunnels under schools, houses, hospitals and UN offices for the sole purpose of wiping Israel off the map and killing Jews. That’s a fact. )

Each guest as they speak feel defensive and the flow up portion to each, feels doubled down in irritation. If you like listening to angry conversations. This is the pod for you. Otherwise it’s a hard skip.

Hit or Miss. Yair Lapid, outstanding interviewer, topical, important Anne Hathaway, charismatic well spoken interesting interviewee. Inexperienced interview spent endless time talk over her, talking about himself, missing opportunities she offered. Finally had to turn it off in the middle. He's going to have to learn faaast, or I will skip everyone of his pieces...

The interview of Marlon was a waste because the interviewer, David was clearly uncomfortable with Marlon’s humor. Marlon curbed his comments to suit David. The most uncomfortable part was David’s reactions. David you did a poor job of not allowing the person to be who they are. Ann Hathaway was allowed to be who she is. I would have preferred Lulu on this one. Give David the softball interviews and call Marlon to apologize.

Thank you for the excellent interview with Mr Lapid. Ms Garcia-Navarro’s First Person podcast has been missed. Her approach and insights bring the listener into her conversations in a way that is easy, educational and provocative.

0 push back to untrue statement he makes

Try the podcast Helga from WNYC Studios!

Does it ever get boring just thinking about yourself 24/7?

I was really excited to see that the NYT was willing to give the Israeli side another chance to explain themselves after Sabrina Tavernise’s appalling interview of Oct 7th survivors asking if they understood why Hamas would do what they did (and never asked the same question of the Palestinians) but this is yet another opportunity for your bias to shine through so clearly. I have no skin in this game, all I want is to listen to journalists who genuinely care about reporting facts instead of inserting their own obvious opinions… apparently the interview and the daily are opinion pieces…. Yet another news outlet that has become entirely untrustworthy…

While I’m a supporter of natural conversation and the power of sharing your story, it’s important to be aware when the person you’re talking to doesn’t want to share. Listening to Anne Hathaway was uncomfortable and uninteresting as she clearly didn’t want to be on the show but the host kept pressing and making the space even more awkward. That’s not respectful, that’s just trying to have a big name on your show just to say you did.

re subject line

dependent on a lineup of at least temporarily if not genuinely intriguing guest personalities is that the typically mundane and totally uninteresting bland host with totally predictable, conventional takes on everything under the sun feels that his belabored cogitations once again not interesting to the listener in any way, should be given as tedious prefatory remarks to what could otherwise be delivered as simple unadorned queries, as in “hi Anne Hathaway, you made this new movie how happy are you with the outcome? how do you see it fitting into your career trajectory?” or whatever….. a hard pass, as most pretentious productions of the NY Times truly barely a stepup from a tabloid paper probably worse for its nauseating pseudo intellectual posturing by second-rate hacks (mostly), failed screen writers and the like

Barely contained contempt for ideas that don’t line up with her priors. Occasionally gets shrieky despite her best efforts. Would be nice to have someone approach a conversation with a little more openness and curiosity instead of trying to get certain answers.

The Anne Hathaway interview was awful. Why have someone on the show who clearly doesn’t want to be interviewed?

Your interview with Yair Lapide was insightful. He seems to be a thoughtful person with an interesting viewpoint. Anne Hathaway not so much.

I love listening to the daily but these two first episodes were very disappointing.

I just listened to the interview with Yair Lapid and thoroughly enjoyed the interaction between both journalist and guest. Great production values too. Thank you for the good reporting and maintaining the integrity, quality, and excellence that I depend on from the New York Times. I subscribed to the show!

Lulu has a knack for dumbing down complicated issues. If Ezra Klein talked to Lapid it would be such an amazing podcast. In Lulu’s hands it’s so hard to listen. She challenges him in an “are you lying” manner instead of with real questions. Sad for the NYT.

I tuned in with the hope of hearing reason from the Israeli opposition leader. But what I heard from him only made my disdain for Israel grow stronger. His condescending attitude toward students in the American streets was too much for me. If he is the voice of the opposition party, I can’t see how the situation in Israel will improve. Very depressing. Would have liked to hear him articulate how killing thousands of innocent civilians and turning them into furious survivors who may now hate Israel more than ever before, factors into his security equation for Israel.

I wanted to like this episode—and despite Lulu’s usual accusatory, shrill, hostile, and defensive (and frankly, rude) tone—I did enjoy hearing Lapid’s perspective. It’s a shame we have to endure her refusal to listen, with her preconceived agenda. I’d like to hear someone else interview Lapid (Ezra Klein would be a good choice). Lulu is one of the primary reasons I stopped listening to NPR. Instead of conducting an honest interview, she came in with her agenda blazing. No thank you. If I could delete her part of the interview I’d be happy. Her disdain for the subject is palpable.

So offended by her first interview. Couldn’t be more biased. Started by quoting Hamas statistics as fact and went down from there. I expect more from the NYT.

Wow, the interviews they chose to start this podcast off with were 1) Anne Hathaway refusing to share absolutely anything with the interviewer, 2) An Israeli politician defending Israel’s genocide in Palestine. Would love to have been in the room where someone decided these were strong starters. I won’t be listening further thanks