Terrible job pointing out what a Shallow person he is - bring back truth? But he does believe in evolution? His school doesn’t accept federal money? So they can operate without DEI and admit white Christian’s only! Giving him publicity doesn’t mean letting him misrepresent the hateful world of MAGA!

One damning part of the interview with Chris Rufo was the fact that he would/could not explain what research funding for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and other medical conditions had to do with a university’s curriculum. That fact exposed his thinly veiled ideology and just how sinister it is.

I used to listen to every daily, but come on can we stop talking about criticizing Trump every single day. Are there not other subjects to talk about?

I am a devoted listener and NYT subscriber. Yesterday’s episode entitled “Her Business Was Thriving. Then came the Tariffs” was terrific. Beth Benike was thoughtful and intelligent and the content was fascinating and heartbreaking. I do find many of the episodes have a hesitant and somewhat timid tone in the face of the turmoil of the Trump 2.0 administration. Please present it as the crisis it is. There is nothing “conservative” about the radical right destroying our country.

I couldn’t stop crying when I listened to this podcast. I can relate to Sipp’s early years growing up biracial. What he has accomplished is phenomenal. The evil, unconstitutional actions taken by the Trump administration against law firms viewed as enemies is horrific. I admire the stand taken by Sipp. Thank u for presenting this very human side to this horror story.

Today’s episode with Beth Benike was the best podcast I’ve ever heard! What a fabulous interview - what an amazing person Beth is. That was the best discussion of Trump’s inane tariffs that I have heard so far. Thank you Michael Barbaro!

I used to listen to this podcast everyday. However, you folks have caved …you’re actually treating Trump as if he’s qualified to be president. The monuments clause was enough to get rid of him. Granted, the NYT has never been critical of Israel, or met a war they didn’t support. I’m done.

Why is The New York Times validating anything that lunatic Chris Rufo says? The same person responsible for the nonsense moral panic over “CRT” and “Gender Ideology” in schools? This is a huge waste of everyone’s time. You should be embarrassed.

I was surprised you thought it proper to give Chris Rufo an interview and even more surprised that you didn’t call him out on all the false assertions he made about the world we are all living in. “The capture of universities by the far left” is a myth propagated by the far right as it tries to capture the universities. You know this I expect. Why would you think that was a good idea? Why don’t you get Nick Fuentes or Enrique Tario next? Why are you platforming such voices? Robert Curley, University of Guadalajara

What’s with the easy interview for Rufo?? To many of Rufo’s insane answers, Bárbaro just says “hmm”. He lets Rufo not answer question about if future liberal administration uses the same strategy to force universities more liberal. He doesn’t confront Rufo about the fact that NIS funds science for the public good vs. private organizations that will only fund things that are in their interest. Bárbaro parrots Rufo’s “facts” for him and keeps letting him not answer the question. What the f….?

Rufo said he will check his actions against his conscience. That is the same conscience that sees no difference in funding for cancer research vs social sciences? What is the political slant of cancer and basic sciences? The American economy and our health benefits greatly from the excellence of our higher education. It used to bring in the best and brightest from all over the world. We will be a poorer country with worse health as a result of the conservative take no prisoners political zealotry he represents. Universities need to be a place of free thought on both sides, but not unscientific, poorly reasoned expression. Students need to reach conclusions based on logic not ideaology.

The episode with Chris Rufo provided him too much space to air his misinformation without enough fact-checking and pushback. His contention that a liberal deep state in government has made higher education woke is ludicrous and should have been discredited on the show. A university’s acceptance of government money to conduct scientific research should carry with it no obligation whatsoever with respect to its admission policy or humanities curriculum. I do think campuses have become excessively woke, but the Trump administration’s cure is worse than the disease.

Devastating. Infuriating.

Lulu Garcia’s interviews never disappoint. However, the Megyn Kelly interview felt incomplete in that Megyn Kelly is in the entertainment industry whose success depends upon downloads. She’s not a journalist, she’s a podcaster. Megyn Kelly is unprincipled, and will do and say whatever is necessary for the big paycheck and fame. Alex Jones finally admitted in court that he’s an entertainer, same as Megny. She actually disgusts me, as a woman.

Love the show. Still feeling out Rachel as the new host. The mmm hmms while her interview is speaking are realllly distracting.

Please have ‘the Sunday read’ read by the actual author. The Professional readers sound like robots. There is a life, a realness lost when read by professional readers. This last one was really hard to sit through.

Really enjoyed this interview. I think it is important at this time to hear different perspectives and the philosophies which are driving today’s events. Michael did a good job of challenging Rufo’s ideas. Rufo’s certainty that he is representing America and that he is on the side of morality is unsettling.

Love Michael Barbaro but Rachel Abrams editorializes far too much during her interviews. Multiple times after she purports to summarize what an interviewee has said, I say to myself “that’s not what they said at all.” You can’t make up the interview you want. This was incredibly apparent in the interview of Princeton University’s President.

I thought Michael was very fair in questions for Mr. Rufo. At one point, Mr. Rufo said that what he objected to was universities taking billions of dollars of federal money and imposing a certain political viewpoint in their institutions. Mr. Rufo seemed oblivious to the fact that the same process is exactly what he is advocating, using billions of dollars of federal money to impose his agenda on the universities.

I used to like the daily, but come on. The fact that you gave Rufo a platform is just unreal. Definitely out of my rotation.

Stop centering these Extreme propagandists like the Rufo fellow. They don’t need more attention.

Again, I sit here and disbelief. You are interviewing an advocate of completely destroying our higher education system. Why are you giving credence to his point of view? It’s unconstitutional, it’s illegal and it is authoritarian. Instead of having Rufo on, why not have legal and constitutional scholars explain just how exceptionally dangerous he is. The interview with the head of Princeton demonstrates how disruptive this will be. our media is doing it all over again! Giving airtime and voice to an authoritarian unconstitutional illegal advocate of destroying our higher education system is unconscionable.

Bárbaro and the crew who run the Daily are really flocking to kiss up to the MAGA folks. Bad show from the paper of record, I am unsubscribing.

Booking a white supremacist like Chris Rufo for a friendly interview is a good get for Infowars, but the New York Times bills itself as a news outlet and not simply a platform for cranks and wackos to preach their gospel of bigotry and ignorance.

What in the world was this interview. I appreciate hearing different perspectives but this man’s discourse consisted of buzz words with little substantive arguments. In summary, if a university doesn’t follow his strict curriculum, then he believes they should lose federal funding.

Yikes!! I just listened to the episode with Christopher Rufo. Kudos Michael for remaining so calm while discussing this. Irony is that the interviewee is the one that got flustered at one point!

Interesting listen, nice mix of topics, episodes are a good length.

The New York Times is so afraid of being labeled liberal that it is totally content conduct “interviews” with the like is Christopher Rufo, allowing him to spout unsupported and self contradictory rhetorical excretions with little or no pushback or correction. Grow a spine. Forcing liars to account for their deceptions is not bias.

There is so much noise now, but The Daily is important reporting.

Or at least ask them tough questions if you do. You’re normalizing insanity.

Why would you ever give Ruffo a platform for his hate & racism?!’ What his plan is doing to all these universities is disgusting!!

This show has been steadily supporting right wing talking points and I think this is a reckless editorial decision.

The dog whistles and scarecrow arguments on the show with Ruffo were interesting to hear. This man is an athoriatian terrorist fighting any idea he doesn’t believe in personally. This man should have been rebuked for the industrial shakedown of colleges and universities. He feels on the political right can determine the merits of a whole branch of study and shut it down. This man is closer to the taliban than any real American

I’ve made The Daily part of my routine for years, but the most recent interview with Christopher Rufo has me unsubscribing. It’s not so much because I believe he shouldn’t be platformed as that I believe journalism involves fact checking and balancing “perspective-taking” with truth. As someone who has an advanced degree and a career in higher education, Rufo’s delusions of what happens on a campus as well as how it affects the wider American world of policy and discourse are striking; they are also readily refutable with evidence that could easily have made it into the pod. Good journalism presents and verifies information as part of contextualizing opinion. It doesn’t just nod along with bunk for the sake of laying it out there for an audience to then pick apart on your behalf. I wish the Daily folks did their job.

it's always interesting that these guys contradict their own extreme demands. He wants people to not be able to wear masks when they protest but then he'll say faculty that are too scared to speak up about dreadful dei policy tell him their fears in confidence; that that's wearing a mask. Then he says they can go private if they want and not take public money, but also says if they do that there's still other ways to pressure them: fear and basically smudging their reputation. That's no different activism than "defund the police".

What am I listening to!

I used to enjoy The Daily but they’ve shifted in the last couple years trying to present both sides as equals, assuming that people are presenting good faith arguments, when it’s clear that are not. Platforming Christopher Rufo and engaging with him in an attempted honest conversation is insulting. Do better.

I loved the show, but now some “hosts” are placing many guests on the constant defense. Why mirror the hate filled rhetoric?Most recently, the university president was interrogated rather than interviewed. Please rethink approaches to guests who are under a real threat. Lastly, if this is the shift of the podcast, why was the same interrogation not given to Megyn Kelly?

Fear Mongering! Would you rather depend on other countries’ products with little to no tariff on our own products in their country? Let’s be more self-sufficient as a country which is more positive than you all spreading fear and encouraging the trillions of dollars in debt with no solution!

What about the incredible wealth Trump and supporters generated from soaring markets post u-turn??

Rachel mute your mic for goodness sake while the guest is talking… mmmm hmmm mmmm hmmmm mmm hhmmmm

Yikes. It was really hard to listen to the most recent episode that was hosted by Rachel Abrams. For this episode, Abrams interviewed the President of Princeton. Abrams seemed to be pushing a right-wing agenda rather than highlighting the extreme censorship and overreach that the current Trump administration is pushing on to universities - this includes repeated (and very real) threats to pull federal funding from these schools. Rather than have a serious conversation about what these changes mean and how they will impact their operations, she seemed more interested in trying to bait Princeton's President into slipping and saying the wrong thing, while pushing right-wing talking points. I won't be listening to this podcast anymore.

Needs to speak slower. Listening to her episodes raises my heartbeat…

I have enjoyed The Daily as a fair way to hear current events but lately the interviews have bordered on overly aggressive and rude. Slow down and have thoughtful discussions! Defensive conversations don’t lead to better information, it’s simply reaping discord.

So sorry that Sabrina has left The Daily. She had such a distinctive voice and was a pleasure to listen to. The new host, Rachel Abrams, has a very stress inducing delivery. She should slow down and shorten the length of her questions

I used to love this podcast. There has been a slow spiral of death in terms of quality. The most recent episode where Rachel Abrams was interviewing the Princeton President was really bad. Has she ever interviewed someone before? Does she know how to do her research on the institution beforehand? Yikes - get it together NYT!

Used to love this show during my morning commute. Listened to today’s episode with the Princeton university president and it made me unfollow this show. He was so well spoken and articulate and the questions presented to him were insulting. I understand they want to ask questions people on the other side of the argument might have but rewording his answers and adding your own thoughts to them and asking him to clarify? Very aggravating. This show has been asking weird questions lately.

Loved this episode, thank you for the interview. Rachael Abram’s’ pace of speaking was distractingly fast -sounded a little panicked. It would be easier to follow with a more relaxed pace.

Good news coverage before all the stories were about Trump. Yes, he has turned this country into a dumpster fire as expected can we move on and talk about something else.

YO. Is Rachel OK???? Why on earth is she so combative and aggressive? She regularly tries to back people into a corner and get them to say things they didn’t say. She is constantly putting words in people’s mouth and pressing issues not to get at the truth, but for a gotcha moment. GO WORK GOR TMZ