November 23, 2025 • 13 mins
THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Monday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) Well... Sort Of/Welcome Back Woodo/Now Prize for Third/Old Fashioned Inquiry-Off/Time to Change Phones
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from Newstalk ZEDB. Follow this
and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Rewrap.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Okay there, welcome to the Rewrap for Monday.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
All the best but from the Mic Hosking Breakfast on
Newstalks EDB and a sillier package.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
I am Glen Haatt today, labor the election next year?
Speaker 4 (00:35):
How are they going to go? Who's going to be
in charge of them? Mike has a few views for you.
Shortly in New Zealand's won some awards, although I'd argue
that some of those awards aren't really awards. Let's compare
the British COVID inquiry with ours, and how long should
you keep your phone for before upgrading?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Before any of that? The F one's got very complicated.
At the top of the.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Table, McLaren, here it is Pstre's twenty four points behind
on three sixty six. Norris leads the way at three ninety.
Verstappan is at three sixty six. You go, hold on,
have I heard three sixty six before?
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Yes, you have.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
I just told you it was Pstre, so Piastre and
Verstapin are both on three sixty six. Qatar's got a
sprint race and a Grand Prix, then Aarbadhabi of course,
maximum of fifty eight points available, twenty five for a
Grand Prix, win eight for a sprint race. When Lando
Norris can win at all next weekend, twenty four point
(01:33):
lead over Piastre in verstap and maximum thirty three points
can be won. So, in other words, the key number
for Norris is twenty six at the end of next
weekend one Grand Prix left the maximum twenty five points
on officer. If he walks away from this weekend with
a lead of twenty six, there is nothing anybody can
do about it. If Norris finishes in the points positions
(01:55):
next weekend, ahead of both Piastre and Verstapen, he will win,
so obviously he's the hot favorite. The highest points total
Piastre in Verstapan can achieve US four to twenty four.
That would require winning both Grand Prix and the one
sprint race of either Pstre or Verstappan can score the maximum,
then they need Norris to score less than thirty five
(02:16):
in the final two rounds. That's unlikely, but go back
to the last sprint race who crashed Norris, who crashed Pstree.
How many points do they get from that sprint race? Zero?
So it's all on I mean, you have to favor
Norris and the money you'll be short on Norris. But nevertheless,
it is alive, it is real, it is exciting, and
(02:38):
it all came about because McLaren got to squatified in
Vegas after the race yesterday.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
My sort of love hate relationship with F one on
motorsport generally F one specifically. I think I'm bearing towards
the hate side of it again because I only really
started paying attention to it because of Liam Lawson, of course,
But there's some things that I don't like, all this
off the course stuff. I don't like all the rules
and regulations, there's too.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Much of that. But I also don't like the fact
that you can crash.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
It can be nobody's fault and you know you've just
got to go, oh well, it's my race only lasted
three seconds, whiz.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
You know there aren't very many other.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Sports where that that happens. Is there sort of that
sort of luck of a draw things a re wrap
right election time next year? I know it was only
election time, is it last year? Seems like only last
year anyway, Labor, have they.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Got there together? No? No, ken Wood, O WOODO, Michael Wood.
Can you save them?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Michael Wood is coming back. Maybe he needs to win selection.
I assume he's got that bit stitched up. I mean,
why would you announce some sort of comeback if you
haven't got the first hurdle? Sort of anyway, But Michael
Wood might be part of Labour's problem. I was thinking
over the weekend three years ago. He was part of
the calamity, of course, that wrecked this country in the
first place. Some of them, Robertson and the Dern have
wisely worked out, went to run for the hills. Others
(04:02):
like Hipkin, Sepaloni, Tetty, who would seem largely unemployable outside
of the bubble of politics, state to have another And
it's that crack that's the problem. Not enough time has
passed to be able to credibly return to the campaign
trail and offer up something that New Zealand can look
at with renewed interest. We're still digging ourselves out of
the hole they created. Why would you vote for a
(04:22):
return to that? What, of course is worse than Hopkins
and co. Because he left in disgrace having been told,
I mean, I can't remember what was it one hundred
and two three thousand times to get rid of his shares,
follow the rules, try and stop being a pillock. And
yet he couldn't do it, So off he went to
re emerge kind of employed. If working for a union
as actual employment, and if it is, what does it
(04:42):
say about his dedication to that particular exercise. A turns
up for five minutes until he works out he wants
another crack at Wellington talk about us and abuse. This
is not actually to say anything about Michael Wood. I mean,
it's more about the sort of person that can't stay
out of politics. Politics as far as I can work
out as a project, not a career, or it shouldn't be.
You should have a life, You should live a life.
Get some experience to a bunch of stuff. Then if
(05:04):
it appeals, do the politics arrive reform, stuck in tick
your box and bugger off. Too many become addicted. Too
many are unemployable in the real world. Too many are
tired life as who get less and less effective politics.
A national leadership need fresh and vibrant and preferably self
made people in another sphere of life, not the board,
bewildered and failed. Wood had his shot. Surely a fresh
(05:28):
talent beats a reheats.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
I mean, unless he's gone away and got some perspectives
that sometimes happens, doesn't it?
Speaker 3 (05:34):
People go away. They had a bit of a bit
of a come to Jesus, you don't think that? Okay?
Speaker 4 (05:42):
All right, terrible idea, right, moving on a rerap So
congratulations seem to be in order for Air New Zealand,
even though we still hate them. What's happening here.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Old Bruce Cottrell over the weekend the Herald. You see
that he is having a good wing about in New Zealand. Now,
to be fair to Bruce, he wouldn't be the first
person to winge about in New Zealand, and a lot
of the points he made were from real world experience
and the flights he took that were canceled or reorganized,
and the buses he could have got on, or the
taxes he had to go all the places he couldn't
get to on time. So fair enough to him before
(06:12):
pointing it out, And he did also point out, to
be fair to him, that he didn't really want to write.
It had been two years in the making and he
was kind of reluctant to get it out there because
you know who isn't a critic of Air New Zealand.
And yet and yet from Airline Ratings dot Com they
are the safest airline in the world. They won that award.
What else are They're the best in the South Pacific
(06:32):
That was voted by apex Oceani is leading airline brand.
That's from the World Travel Awards are the Forbes Travel
Guides Innovation of the Year for their Skycouch. Usas Today
are USA Today's ten Best awards for second best Airline,
second Best cabin Crew, second best Airline Food, third for
(06:53):
Business Class, third for in flight Entertainment. I've got more awards.
Third best airline in the world by Airline Ratings dot Com,
Australia's Most trust to Australasia's most trusted airline by Finder Awards.
That's seven awards for an airline that we cannot line
up far enough to kick in the tail flap. So
it's coming third an award, Yes it is, there's a dais.
(07:17):
It's called the Bronze Medal Glen at the Olympics. They
seem to think coming third's okay, So tell me, how
come they can win all those awards and yet allegedly
be so useless.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
I feel with those sorts of awards, yea, they win
it all, you're done. There might be a runner up sometimes,
but yeah, this is not the Olympics. And also I
think it just goes to show how terrible the rest
are as well. Perhaps I don't know why I feel
like being so mean to any Zealand. I don't find
a message problem with any Zeland other than the fact
(07:48):
that they are never on time and do cancel flights.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Other than that, it's the rewrap.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
So it's time for a good old fashioned inquiry off
who does it better, the British or US when it
comes to blaming people for COVID.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
The overarching view of the British COVID inquiry this is profound.
Actually it should have got more coverage here. The overarching
view of the British COVID inquiry is that lockdowns did
not need to happen, So their inquiry is different to
our two. For a start, the key players turned up
Boris and Co. Got grilled Adernal Hepkins and Co. Never
did because they refused. It still seems to me an
(08:23):
astonishing act of arrogance that the same people who made
such profound decisions on our lives refused to participate in
a public way at the official look into the way
they acted. It's a version of moral bankruptcy, if you
ask me. Also different in Britain is that it was
adversarial and mistake. I think that we didn't take the
same approach that they did. Also, it appears our inquiry
(08:44):
Part two is at least got some issues at the moment,
with a number of resignations, so who knows how ours
pans out. It is due to be released our first
thing in the new year. But although the British report
says much, it's inescapable that a major observation is if
the British government had got its act together faster, if
it had been more coordinated, lockdowns were not necessary. Now
(09:07):
just think about that for a moment and apply it.
Here are lockdowns here started, by the way, pretty much
on the exact same day they did in Britain, March
of twenty twenty. If the British hadn't got their act
together and we were locking down in March, then surely
it could be argued the same applies to us, right
Obviously their lockdowns will nowhere near as hard as ours,
and that's another mass failing on the control freaks like
Aderna Hopkins. But just think about how COVID would have been,
(09:30):
our view of that period would have been if a
lockdown had not been part of that experience. Masks rules,
contact tracing, vaccine's respiratory hygiene could have stopped the need
for lockdown. That's the British conclusion. It's pretty profound, don't
you think profound for mental health and the economy. Think
of the ensuing years, years long damage that came out
(09:51):
of lockdowns, especially the Auckland once months on end of lockdowns,
jobs lost, lives lost, recession after recession for something that
quite possibly we didn't even need to do. I can't
see if they can conclude it in Britain how we
can't conclude something similar here, same virus approach, same outcome,
same mistakes. It is a failing. Do you not think
(10:13):
of historic proportions.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
It's just another classic example of the whole COVID problem
to right to begin with, everybody just sort of went
off and dealt with it their own way, like it
was some kind of challenge on task Master instead of
I don't know, all putting their heads together as one globe,
given that it was a global catastrophe. And it's the
(10:36):
same with the you know, finding out what went wrong?
Speaker 3 (10:40):
What you know?
Speaker 4 (10:41):
We're all doing it our own way again, don't we.
Surely one system is probably better than the others in
some ways, and then other systems better in some ways,
and maybe we need to look at that and come, oh,
I don't know. I suppose it involves getting the whole
world to work together, and that's just never going to happen.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
So re wrap.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
Let's finish up with what's holding that productivity? Not here,
I bet you're expecting me to say here. But in
the US, apparently it's because all their phones are too old.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Americans are hanging on to their smartphones for longer, is
the other thing I can tell you this morning, Longer
than a decade ago. Businesses are hanging on even longer
than individuals are. Twenty nine months, whereas it was twenty
two months and twenty sixteen. I went to the twenty
nine months. If you'd ask me to guess, how long
do you buy If you've got a flash cell phone,
how long do you hold it for? See three years
(11:29):
at thirty six, I mean twenty nine through two and
a half three years anyway, the Federal Reserve. This is
the interesting part Federal Reserve. Each additional year that companies
delay upgrading equipment results in a productivity decline of about
one third of one percent investment patterns accounting for approximately
fifty five percent of productivity gaps between advanced economies. So
in other words, if you don't invest, you fall behind.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
I mean, it's a weird one of than it. Because
phones are better these days. They're more durable, so the
screens crack and scratch less. The batteries lasts longer. I
don't just mean you know every charge. I mean the
lifespan of a battery is longer as well. So those
(12:13):
are probably all quite compelling reasons why people hang on
to them as well. I don't know that it necessarily
makes them less productive, does it. I mean, don't get
me wrong, I'm the wrong person to talk to you
about this, as I change phones about once every six
weeks that it'd be a minimum. In fact, I'm going
to another phone launch this week. On App is coming
(12:35):
to New Zealand, so that's pretty exciting because they've got
a foldy phone and a very flash camera phone, so yeah,
I might be attempted to change my phone again. In
the meantime, whatever device you're listening on, I hope come
back and join me for another one of these demarka
last year.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Then for more from News Talks B listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with us podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to a podcast from Newstalk ZEDB. Follow this
and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Rewrap.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Okay there, welcome to the Rewrap for Monday.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
All the best but from the Mic Hosking Breakfast on
Newstalks EDB and a sillier package.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
I am Glen Haatt today, labor the election next year?
Speaker 4 (00:35):
How are they going to go? Who's going to be
in charge of them? Mike has a few views for you.
Shortly in New Zealand's won some awards, although I'd argue
that some of those awards aren't really awards. Let's compare
the British COVID inquiry with ours, and how long should
you keep your phone for before upgrading?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Before any of that? The F one's got very complicated.
At the top of the.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Table, McLaren, here it is Pstre's twenty four points behind
on three sixty six. Norris leads the way at three ninety.
Verstappan is at three sixty six. You go, hold on,
have I heard three sixty six before?
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Yes, you have.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
I just told you it was Pstre, so Piastre and
Verstapin are both on three sixty six. Qatar's got a
sprint race and a Grand Prix, then Aarbadhabi of course,
maximum of fifty eight points available, twenty five for a
Grand Prix, win eight for a sprint race. When Lando
Norris can win at all next weekend, twenty four point
(01:33):
lead over Piastre in verstap and maximum thirty three points
can be won. So, in other words, the key number
for Norris is twenty six at the end of next
weekend one Grand Prix left the maximum twenty five points
on officer. If he walks away from this weekend with
a lead of twenty six, there is nothing anybody can
do about it. If Norris finishes in the points positions
(01:55):
next weekend, ahead of both Piastre and Verstapen, he will win,
so obviously he's the hot favorite. The highest points total
Piastre in Verstapan can achieve US four to twenty four.
That would require winning both Grand Prix and the one
sprint race of either Pstre or Verstappan can score the maximum,
then they need Norris to score less than thirty five
(02:16):
in the final two rounds. That's unlikely, but go back
to the last sprint race who crashed Norris, who crashed Pstree.
How many points do they get from that sprint race? Zero?
So it's all on I mean, you have to favor
Norris and the money you'll be short on Norris. But nevertheless,
it is alive, it is real, it is exciting, and
(02:38):
it all came about because McLaren got to squatified in
Vegas after the race yesterday.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
My sort of love hate relationship with F one on
motorsport generally F one specifically. I think I'm bearing towards
the hate side of it again because I only really
started paying attention to it because of Liam Lawson, of course,
But there's some things that I don't like, all this
off the course stuff. I don't like all the rules
and regulations, there's too.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Much of that. But I also don't like the fact
that you can crash.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
It can be nobody's fault and you know you've just
got to go, oh well, it's my race only lasted
three seconds, whiz.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
You know there aren't very many other.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Sports where that that happens. Is there sort of that
sort of luck of a draw things a re wrap
right election time next year? I know it was only
election time, is it last year? Seems like only last
year anyway, Labor, have they.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Got there together? No? No, ken Wood, O WOODO, Michael Wood.
Can you save them?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Michael Wood is coming back. Maybe he needs to win selection.
I assume he's got that bit stitched up. I mean,
why would you announce some sort of comeback if you
haven't got the first hurdle? Sort of anyway, But Michael
Wood might be part of Labour's problem. I was thinking
over the weekend three years ago. He was part of
the calamity, of course, that wrecked this country in the
first place. Some of them, Robertson and the Dern have
wisely worked out, went to run for the hills. Others
(04:02):
like Hipkin, Sepaloni, Tetty, who would seem largely unemployable outside
of the bubble of politics, state to have another And
it's that crack that's the problem. Not enough time has
passed to be able to credibly return to the campaign
trail and offer up something that New Zealand can look
at with renewed interest. We're still digging ourselves out of
the hole they created. Why would you vote for a
(04:22):
return to that? What, of course is worse than Hopkins
and co. Because he left in disgrace having been told,
I mean, I can't remember what was it one hundred
and two three thousand times to get rid of his shares,
follow the rules, try and stop being a pillock. And
yet he couldn't do it, So off he went to
re emerge kind of employed. If working for a union
as actual employment, and if it is, what does it
(04:42):
say about his dedication to that particular exercise. A turns
up for five minutes until he works out he wants
another crack at Wellington talk about us and abuse. This
is not actually to say anything about Michael Wood. I mean,
it's more about the sort of person that can't stay
out of politics. Politics as far as I can work
out as a project, not a career, or it shouldn't be.
You should have a life, You should live a life.
Get some experience to a bunch of stuff. Then if
(05:04):
it appeals, do the politics arrive reform, stuck in tick
your box and bugger off. Too many become addicted. Too
many are unemployable in the real world. Too many are
tired life as who get less and less effective politics.
A national leadership need fresh and vibrant and preferably self
made people in another sphere of life, not the board,
bewildered and failed. Wood had his shot. Surely a fresh
(05:28):
talent beats a reheats.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
I mean, unless he's gone away and got some perspectives
that sometimes happens, doesn't it?
Speaker 3 (05:34):
People go away. They had a bit of a bit
of a come to Jesus, you don't think that? Okay?
Speaker 4 (05:42):
All right, terrible idea, right, moving on a rerap So
congratulations seem to be in order for Air New Zealand,
even though we still hate them. What's happening here.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Old Bruce Cottrell over the weekend the Herald. You see
that he is having a good wing about in New Zealand. Now,
to be fair to Bruce, he wouldn't be the first
person to winge about in New Zealand, and a lot
of the points he made were from real world experience
and the flights he took that were canceled or reorganized,
and the buses he could have got on, or the
taxes he had to go all the places he couldn't
get to on time. So fair enough to him before
(06:12):
pointing it out, And he did also point out, to
be fair to him, that he didn't really want to write.
It had been two years in the making and he
was kind of reluctant to get it out there because
you know who isn't a critic of Air New Zealand.
And yet and yet from Airline Ratings dot Com they
are the safest airline in the world. They won that award.
What else are They're the best in the South Pacific
(06:32):
That was voted by apex Oceani is leading airline brand.
That's from the World Travel Awards are the Forbes Travel
Guides Innovation of the Year for their Skycouch. Usas Today
are USA Today's ten Best awards for second best Airline,
second Best cabin Crew, second best Airline Food, third for
(06:53):
Business Class, third for in flight Entertainment. I've got more awards.
Third best airline in the world by Airline Ratings dot Com,
Australia's Most trust to Australasia's most trusted airline by Finder Awards.
That's seven awards for an airline that we cannot line
up far enough to kick in the tail flap. So
it's coming third an award, Yes it is, there's a dais.
(07:17):
It's called the Bronze Medal Glen at the Olympics. They
seem to think coming third's okay, So tell me, how
come they can win all those awards and yet allegedly
be so useless.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
I feel with those sorts of awards, yea, they win
it all, you're done. There might be a runner up sometimes,
but yeah, this is not the Olympics. And also I
think it just goes to show how terrible the rest
are as well. Perhaps I don't know why I feel
like being so mean to any Zealand. I don't find
a message problem with any Zeland other than the fact
(07:48):
that they are never on time and do cancel flights.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Other than that, it's the rewrap.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
So it's time for a good old fashioned inquiry off
who does it better, the British or US when it
comes to blaming people for COVID.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
The overarching view of the British COVID inquiry this is profound.
Actually it should have got more coverage here. The overarching
view of the British COVID inquiry is that lockdowns did
not need to happen, So their inquiry is different to
our two. For a start, the key players turned up
Boris and Co. Got grilled Adernal Hepkins and Co. Never
did because they refused. It still seems to me an
(08:23):
astonishing act of arrogance that the same people who made
such profound decisions on our lives refused to participate in
a public way at the official look into the way
they acted. It's a version of moral bankruptcy, if you
ask me. Also different in Britain is that it was
adversarial and mistake. I think that we didn't take the
same approach that they did. Also, it appears our inquiry
(08:44):
Part two is at least got some issues at the moment,
with a number of resignations, so who knows how ours
pans out. It is due to be released our first
thing in the new year. But although the British report
says much, it's inescapable that a major observation is if
the British government had got its act together faster, if
it had been more coordinated, lockdowns were not necessary. Now
(09:07):
just think about that for a moment and apply it.
Here are lockdowns here started, by the way, pretty much
on the exact same day they did in Britain, March
of twenty twenty. If the British hadn't got their act
together and we were locking down in March, then surely
it could be argued the same applies to us, right
Obviously their lockdowns will nowhere near as hard as ours,
and that's another mass failing on the control freaks like
Aderna Hopkins. But just think about how COVID would have been,
(09:30):
our view of that period would have been if a
lockdown had not been part of that experience. Masks rules,
contact tracing, vaccine's respiratory hygiene could have stopped the need
for lockdown. That's the British conclusion. It's pretty profound, don't
you think profound for mental health and the economy. Think
of the ensuing years, years long damage that came out
(09:51):
of lockdowns, especially the Auckland once months on end of lockdowns,
jobs lost, lives lost, recession after recession for something that
quite possibly we didn't even need to do. I can't
see if they can conclude it in Britain how we
can't conclude something similar here, same virus approach, same outcome,
same mistakes. It is a failing. Do you not think
(10:13):
of historic proportions.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
It's just another classic example of the whole COVID problem
to right to begin with, everybody just sort of went
off and dealt with it their own way, like it
was some kind of challenge on task Master instead of
I don't know, all putting their heads together as one globe,
given that it was a global catastrophe. And it's the
(10:36):
same with the you know, finding out what went wrong?
Speaker 3 (10:40):
What you know?
Speaker 4 (10:41):
We're all doing it our own way again, don't we.
Surely one system is probably better than the others in
some ways, and then other systems better in some ways,
and maybe we need to look at that and come, oh,
I don't know. I suppose it involves getting the whole
world to work together, and that's just never going to happen.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
So re wrap.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
Let's finish up with what's holding that productivity? Not here,
I bet you're expecting me to say here. But in
the US, apparently it's because all their phones are too old.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Americans are hanging on to their smartphones for longer, is
the other thing I can tell you this morning, Longer
than a decade ago. Businesses are hanging on even longer
than individuals are. Twenty nine months, whereas it was twenty
two months and twenty sixteen. I went to the twenty
nine months. If you'd ask me to guess, how long
do you buy If you've got a flash cell phone,
how long do you hold it for? See three years
(11:29):
at thirty six, I mean twenty nine through two and
a half three years anyway, the Federal Reserve. This is
the interesting part Federal Reserve. Each additional year that companies
delay upgrading equipment results in a productivity decline of about
one third of one percent investment patterns accounting for approximately
fifty five percent of productivity gaps between advanced economies. So
in other words, if you don't invest, you fall behind.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
I mean, it's a weird one of than it. Because
phones are better these days. They're more durable, so the
screens crack and scratch less. The batteries lasts longer. I
don't just mean you know every charge. I mean the
lifespan of a battery is longer as well. So those
(12:13):
are probably all quite compelling reasons why people hang on
to them as well. I don't know that it necessarily
makes them less productive, does it. I mean, don't get
me wrong, I'm the wrong person to talk to you
about this, as I change phones about once every six
weeks that it'd be a minimum. In fact, I'm going
to another phone launch this week. On App is coming
(12:35):
to New Zealand, so that's pretty exciting because they've got
a foldy phone and a very flash camera phone, so yeah,
I might be attempted to change my phone again. In
the meantime, whatever device you're listening on, I hope come
back and join me for another one of these demarka
last year.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Then for more from News Talks B listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with us podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.