It’s a different show for sure. I don’t think there’s anything on the Internet that can replicate Matt and Walter’s book discussions. I miss having a new book to read every couple of weeks and hearing a couple of pros talk about what I just read. It gave me a lot of insight I’d otherwise miss.
I do prefer Michael and Matt’s political discussions more. I do feel Matt’s able to be himself a bit more by not getting interrupted and interrogated for any little soft criticism of the administration.
For sure. Kirn is a raconteur...Tracey is a bit of a know-it-all. To be fair, Tracey was better on this episode; more engaged and less of a scold. Hoping the pod continues to improve.
I was a faithful listener to ATW, but I can understand why some people wanted to move on, whether they're admitting they wanted to move on or not.
I'm really enjoying the new show, and it's settling into something. It is a very different show, and some non-insane journalistic skepticism is important right now.
Matt, what I miss the most about your new livestreams is the nuance, smart humor, insightful ironies and literary references that you and Walter shared with each other. It educated us and opened our minds to all sorts of ways of looking at the news. I mourn the loss.
Listened to an hour of this. Then just quit the tab. Not much new, not much interpretation. Traceyt is nearly insufferable. To say nothing of he has a face for radio, not video.
Long story short, it was a wasted hour. Not sure I will come back for next week's offering.
Thanks for the surprise episode! The Cuba thing is wild and under-discussed right now, for obvious reasons, but people like Rubio and Cruz really want Cuba to be next.
The hosts' disagreement (over whether Iran was foreseeable) relates to something I've observed in the past year: The entire country is still obsessed with 2024 election. Whether the country got it right or wrong, whether individuals got it right or wrong.
I often notice that Democrats, in particular, want Trump voters to regret their vote. They care about this more than they care about the real-world consequences of events, to the point where they almost want an apocalypse just so they can say "See? See??? You were wrong in 2024!!"
As someone who was undecided until the very end, and voted Harris, I found myself in the same trap for a while. Seeing everything through the lens of "where I stand on Trump." First I regretted my vote, then I regretted regretting my vote, and I went back and forth until I realized it was a huge waste of energy.
2024 is over. There were 2 awful choices, and I don't blame anyone for gambling one way verses another. While she's at home with her wine, it's easy to see Kamala as "the person who wouldn't have done xyz" -- but she would have done different bad things.
Nobody knows whether we would be in a better place now. We'll never know. We just need to talk about what is happening in 2026.
Cuba is the next big discussion, which is why Hasan Piker, Kneecap and their band of povery-touring merry idiots are trying to get ahead of the conversation. They’re not helping Cuba's case, as they have terrible rap concerts and live streams while the rest of the island is plunged into darkness.
I personally didn't vote in 2024, and I don't regret it, but I can't begrudge anyone for the choice they made. We should all try to avoid spin, guilt-tripping, and histrionics and see how all of this stuff pans out. Trump is still unpopular, but not as unpopular as the Democrats, who haven't figured out how to not be just awful. My hope for 2028: make politics boring again.
Here's my conspiracy theory on Charlie Kirk...he was "terminated with extreme prejudice" because "he got off the boat," just like Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now." And I know this is true because their last names sound so similar.
Matt and Michael, please take this as constructive criticism, as I love your work and appreciate you having no secret cows.
But the show seems to play loose with the facts at times, making characterizations that would deceive someone unfamiliar with the original source. There were several occasions I spotted lately, but here is one:
When talking about the Tucker-Kent interview, Michael said:
---
"And you know that that's extra insidious from my perspective because the whole point of that tangent that was introduced first on Tucker's podcast by Joe Kent and they're kind of going back and forth on it and like you know in real time almost you know sketching out their theory. It's fundamentally to claim that Trump is hostage to this nefarious foreign force and that's why he's taking the action that he's taken in Iran.
So that they're doing it from this this Trump exonerating impulse, meaning we have to find some roundabout reason how to explain why Trump supposedly went back on his campaign promises. And the only plausible reason is that Israel ratcheted up their blackmail / physical threat coercion / some other hardball tactic to to require Trump to do their, uh, bidding like that....
... that the Charlie Kirk Epstein, you know , Butler assassination speculative angle, to them, is more plausible -- at least in terms of how they're presenting it -- meaning the Tucker-Joe Kent nexus that to them is more plausible than Trump having any agency whatsoever or having a worldview, having predilections, having goals that involve him really wanting to go to war with Iran."
---
Kent was very specific about his primary concern in the interview, and it wasn't one that was "more plausible than Trump having any agency whatsoever" or that "Trump is hostage to this nefarious foreign force".
It was that Israeli intelligence was informally bypassing the normal channels to provide foreign intelligence to the President that was not traditionally vetted, which along with his advisors, created an information bubble.
He did not claim that Trump had no agency in surrounding himself with that bubble, or in his choice. He criticized the reliance on the inputs.
The irony is that Michael plays loose with the facts here, while accusing Tucker and Kent of doing the same...
Tucker is often guilty of it, but I don't see evidence of Kent doing so here, as Michael insinuates.
It all comes off... well, smug. And reduces the credibility of your reporting, which I know you both value.
It is sad, as I know they both value accuracy. I think the nature of the format leaves it open to this.
Anchoring it around clips would help a lot, although Matt did a number on Saagar and Breaking Points last week by framing an interview with Jiang as agreement with his more esoteric, poorly founded points.
Matt I’m not sure how well you and Michael are going to work. Mainly style differences as Michael is kind of a bully and talks over you quite a bit. Michael cherry picks his factoids in my opinion and is more political than you. I do appreciate he is a serious journalist and a good debater but I don’t think you intend for this to be a debate. Maybe you could work one or two others into the rotation and have Michael once or twice per month…
Yes, Michael is excellent at times, but the Tucker-Kent conversation was cherry picked to the point of distortion. I'm glad I watched it myself, or I would have been deceived by the conversation here.
I'd encourage them to start playing direct clips, making sure there is enough context, and quote on what is actually said.
I suspect from Matt's earliest announcement of his new project that Walter Kirn was profoundly unhappy about Emily Kopp being brought aboard, but I could be wrong.
Michael is better looking and has a better voice than James Carville, but the message is the same. This is a giant step backwards Matt. You are polite and allow Michael to say his piece. Michael does not offer you the same graciousness.
My read is that Michael is excited to have so many conservative ears and gidily works to convince them how horrible they are/Trump is/Republicans are. Tds to the max. This is on offer at the nyt, abccbsnbcmsm...etc.
I feel l must say the standard: "there is a lot of stupid on both sides."
You...and then you + Walter handled this with respect, intelligence + humor.
Matt you've worked for and earned so much respect on both sides of the political isles.. then you laid your audience bare to Michael, Emily and the rest. They are not your equal.
Sure...give the kids a chance, but hold back the keys to the kingdom. I have to step back.
Love the new pod. It's nice to hear two sensible people discuss opposition to the Iranian war without leaning on some version of Israel/Epstein/Charlie Kirk.
Enjoying the new version of Racket, and the commenters will come around. I get the feeling the "new editor" won't be around much longer, if she's not gone already (which would probably be for the best).
Matt, I'd love to see you (with Michael or alone) discuss Iran, Cuba and the like with some smart, non-conspiratorial voices who are at least quasi-pro-Iran war like Martin Gurri, Eli Lake or Michael Moynihan. I'd love to hear from some smart, reasonable anti-Iran war voices too, but I'm not sure who that is really. Most people are bringing some sort form of the Epstein/Israel/Charlie Kirk triumvirate into the discussion and/or have some Trump-damaged paranoia.
Walter was more entertaining and had interesting takes especially on the more theatrical aspects of politics. However, Michael knows more so there's the tradeoff.
I'm not sure about the current war. I wouldn't have started it! My problem is I would like credible sources to critique it. However the anti Trumpers have beclowned themselves so often that they cannot be taken seriously. So I appreciate hearing Matt's criticism. At least I know it isn't just partisan.
I am not sure if the criticism he and Tracy have on Trump is correct. The late Scott Adams used to say to that Trump always chooses the alternative that shows strength. Also the one chord that might bind his disparate actions is that they weaken China's position. From Panama, to Venezuela to Iran even Iceland, Trump seems to be opposing China's geopolitical power and allies.
Not sure it will work it's a huge gamble.
However, if he succeeds in freeing Cuba and Iran that would be good for us and the citizens of those countries.
I don’t know if I should listen to this. What if it’s one of those dangerous podcasts (like Joe Rogan) that Matt warned me about last week? Danger talk I tell ya!
I stopped the podcast at 1:10. You two guys are presumably quite connected with regard to the goings on in this country, and you two guys are arguing and stumped - granted Michael seems less stumped than Matt - but what does that say for the rest of us? How the hell are we supposed to make rational decisions, when the most connected are somewhat stumped and stumped respectively?
I was surprised when Matt said Trump isn't like any politician he has covered. Because Trump isn't a politician. We have had other presidents who were not politicians, but not for a long time. Hard to let go of the lens sometimes.
I also watched for the first time today. It's not bad, but very different from ATW.
When I watched Matt and Walter, I saw two writers discussing current events and, importantly, books they loved.
When I watch Matt and Michael, I see two journalists talking shop. It's not uninteresting, it's just not the same.
Also, like him or not, Walter often comes up with incisive and hilarious one-liners .
All in all, I miss him.
It’s a different show for sure. I don’t think there’s anything on the Internet that can replicate Matt and Walter’s book discussions. I miss having a new book to read every couple of weeks and hearing a couple of pros talk about what I just read. It gave me a lot of insight I’d otherwise miss.
I do prefer Michael and Matt’s political discussions more. I do feel Matt’s able to be himself a bit more by not getting interrupted and interrogated for any little soft criticism of the administration.
For sure. Kirn is a raconteur...Tracey is a bit of a know-it-all. To be fair, Tracey was better on this episode; more engaged and less of a scold. Hoping the pod continues to improve.
I was a faithful listener to ATW, but I can understand why some people wanted to move on, whether they're admitting they wanted to move on or not.
I'm really enjoying the new show, and it's settling into something. It is a very different show, and some non-insane journalistic skepticism is important right now.
Matt, what I miss the most about your new livestreams is the nuance, smart humor, insightful ironies and literary references that you and Walter shared with each other. It educated us and opened our minds to all sorts of ways of looking at the news. I mourn the loss.
Mourn is the right word.
Listened to an hour of this. Then just quit the tab. Not much new, not much interpretation. Traceyt is nearly insufferable. To say nothing of he has a face for radio, not video.
Long story short, it was a wasted hour. Not sure I will come back for next week's offering.
Agree almost totally. Except Tracey is not NEARLY insufferable.
Wow you were not kidding. I literally thought "how bad can it really be?" But I turned off at 1:08:00
Every job I’ve had required a probationary period. If I wasn’t a match, no judgement , it was just understood that it was time for another job.
Thanks for the surprise episode! The Cuba thing is wild and under-discussed right now, for obvious reasons, but people like Rubio and Cruz really want Cuba to be next.
The hosts' disagreement (over whether Iran was foreseeable) relates to something I've observed in the past year: The entire country is still obsessed with 2024 election. Whether the country got it right or wrong, whether individuals got it right or wrong.
I often notice that Democrats, in particular, want Trump voters to regret their vote. They care about this more than they care about the real-world consequences of events, to the point where they almost want an apocalypse just so they can say "See? See??? You were wrong in 2024!!"
As someone who was undecided until the very end, and voted Harris, I found myself in the same trap for a while. Seeing everything through the lens of "where I stand on Trump." First I regretted my vote, then I regretted regretting my vote, and I went back and forth until I realized it was a huge waste of energy.
2024 is over. There were 2 awful choices, and I don't blame anyone for gambling one way verses another. While she's at home with her wine, it's easy to see Kamala as "the person who wouldn't have done xyz" -- but she would have done different bad things.
Nobody knows whether we would be in a better place now. We'll never know. We just need to talk about what is happening in 2026.
Cuba is the next big discussion, which is why Hasan Piker, Kneecap and their band of povery-touring merry idiots are trying to get ahead of the conversation. They’re not helping Cuba's case, as they have terrible rap concerts and live streams while the rest of the island is plunged into darkness.
I personally didn't vote in 2024, and I don't regret it, but I can't begrudge anyone for the choice they made. We should all try to avoid spin, guilt-tripping, and histrionics and see how all of this stuff pans out. Trump is still unpopular, but not as unpopular as the Democrats, who haven't figured out how to not be just awful. My hope for 2028: make politics boring again.
Here's my conspiracy theory on Charlie Kirk...he was "terminated with extreme prejudice" because "he got off the boat," just like Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now." And I know this is true because their last names sound so similar.
Matt and Michael, please take this as constructive criticism, as I love your work and appreciate you having no secret cows.
But the show seems to play loose with the facts at times, making characterizations that would deceive someone unfamiliar with the original source. There were several occasions I spotted lately, but here is one:
When talking about the Tucker-Kent interview, Michael said:
---
"And you know that that's extra insidious from my perspective because the whole point of that tangent that was introduced first on Tucker's podcast by Joe Kent and they're kind of going back and forth on it and like you know in real time almost you know sketching out their theory. It's fundamentally to claim that Trump is hostage to this nefarious foreign force and that's why he's taking the action that he's taken in Iran.
So that they're doing it from this this Trump exonerating impulse, meaning we have to find some roundabout reason how to explain why Trump supposedly went back on his campaign promises. And the only plausible reason is that Israel ratcheted up their blackmail / physical threat coercion / some other hardball tactic to to require Trump to do their, uh, bidding like that....
... that the Charlie Kirk Epstein, you know , Butler assassination speculative angle, to them, is more plausible -- at least in terms of how they're presenting it -- meaning the Tucker-Joe Kent nexus that to them is more plausible than Trump having any agency whatsoever or having a worldview, having predilections, having goals that involve him really wanting to go to war with Iran."
---
Kent was very specific about his primary concern in the interview, and it wasn't one that was "more plausible than Trump having any agency whatsoever" or that "Trump is hostage to this nefarious foreign force".
It was that Israeli intelligence was informally bypassing the normal channels to provide foreign intelligence to the President that was not traditionally vetted, which along with his advisors, created an information bubble.
He did not claim that Trump had no agency in surrounding himself with that bubble, or in his choice. He criticized the reliance on the inputs.
The irony is that Michael plays loose with the facts here, while accusing Tucker and Kent of doing the same...
Tucker is often guilty of it, but I don't see evidence of Kent doing so here, as Michael insinuates.
It all comes off... well, smug. And reduces the credibility of your reporting, which I know you both value.
Agree. I listened to the entire interview. The Tracey hot-take is far from accurate and obviously biased.
It is sad, as I know they both value accuracy. I think the nature of the format leaves it open to this.
Anchoring it around clips would help a lot, although Matt did a number on Saagar and Breaking Points last week by framing an interview with Jiang as agreement with his more esoteric, poorly founded points.
Matt I’m not sure how well you and Michael are going to work. Mainly style differences as Michael is kind of a bully and talks over you quite a bit. Michael cherry picks his factoids in my opinion and is more political than you. I do appreciate he is a serious journalist and a good debater but I don’t think you intend for this to be a debate. Maybe you could work one or two others into the rotation and have Michael once or twice per month…
Yes, Michael is excellent at times, but the Tucker-Kent conversation was cherry picked to the point of distortion. I'm glad I watched it myself, or I would have been deceived by the conversation here.
I'd encourage them to start playing direct clips, making sure there is enough context, and quote on what is actually said.
ATW seemed better at doing that.
I suspect from Matt's earliest announcement of his new project that Walter Kirn was profoundly unhappy about Emily Kopp being brought aboard, but I could be wrong.
Michael is better looking and has a better voice than James Carville, but the message is the same. This is a giant step backwards Matt. You are polite and allow Michael to say his piece. Michael does not offer you the same graciousness.
My read is that Michael is excited to have so many conservative ears and gidily works to convince them how horrible they are/Trump is/Republicans are. Tds to the max. This is on offer at the nyt, abccbsnbcmsm...etc.
I feel l must say the standard: "there is a lot of stupid on both sides."
You...and then you + Walter handled this with respect, intelligence + humor.
Matt you've worked for and earned so much respect on both sides of the political isles.. then you laid your audience bare to Michael, Emily and the rest. They are not your equal.
Sure...give the kids a chance, but hold back the keys to the kingdom. I have to step back.
Miss Kirn!
Love the new pod. It's nice to hear two sensible people discuss opposition to the Iranian war without leaning on some version of Israel/Epstein/Charlie Kirk.
Enjoying the new version of Racket, and the commenters will come around. I get the feeling the "new editor" won't be around much longer, if she's not gone already (which would probably be for the best).
Matt, I'd love to see you (with Michael or alone) discuss Iran, Cuba and the like with some smart, non-conspiratorial voices who are at least quasi-pro-Iran war like Martin Gurri, Eli Lake or Michael Moynihan. I'd love to hear from some smart, reasonable anti-Iran war voices too, but I'm not sure who that is really. Most people are bringing some sort form of the Epstein/Israel/Charlie Kirk triumvirate into the discussion and/or have some Trump-damaged paranoia.
Walter was more entertaining and had interesting takes especially on the more theatrical aspects of politics. However, Michael knows more so there's the tradeoff.
I'm not sure about the current war. I wouldn't have started it! My problem is I would like credible sources to critique it. However the anti Trumpers have beclowned themselves so often that they cannot be taken seriously. So I appreciate hearing Matt's criticism. At least I know it isn't just partisan.
I am not sure if the criticism he and Tracy have on Trump is correct. The late Scott Adams used to say to that Trump always chooses the alternative that shows strength. Also the one chord that might bind his disparate actions is that they weaken China's position. From Panama, to Venezuela to Iran even Iceland, Trump seems to be opposing China's geopolitical power and allies.
Not sure it will work it's a huge gamble.
However, if he succeeds in freeing Cuba and Iran that would be good for us and the citizens of those countries.
I don’t know if I should listen to this. What if it’s one of those dangerous podcasts (like Joe Rogan) that Matt warned me about last week? Danger talk I tell ya!
I stopped the podcast at 1:10. You two guys are presumably quite connected with regard to the goings on in this country, and you two guys are arguing and stumped - granted Michael seems less stumped than Matt - but what does that say for the rest of us? How the hell are we supposed to make rational decisions, when the most connected are somewhat stumped and stumped respectively?
I was surprised when Matt said Trump isn't like any politician he has covered. Because Trump isn't a politician. We have had other presidents who were not politicians, but not for a long time. Hard to let go of the lens sometimes.