May 6, 2025 • 27 mins
Neal Lipschutz, former deputy editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal and standards editor, discusses his transition to fiction writing with his debut novel, "No Write Way to Die," exploring characters from Brooklyn who take different life paths before their worlds collide.
• Neal shares his journey from Brooklyn to New Jersey and his 40-year career in journalism
• As WSJ's standards and ethics editor, he ensured content was fact-based and properly contextualized
• His debut novel is a suspenseful, rollicking ride
• We learn how his character development explores how people's backgrounds and early life decisions continue to influence them
• The book examines provocative questions about parental sacrifice and ethical boundaries
• Neal's favorite thing about moving to New Jersey is the ease of getting any book he'd like to read through the Bergen County Cooperative Library System
No Write Way to Die by Neal Lipschutz is coming out in July 2025!
Follow us: Website | Apple | Spotify | Audible | Youtube | Youtube | Instagram | Facebook | Tiktok
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey Janette, Hi Rachel, we just had a really
great interview.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Yes, we did.
It was with Neal Lipschutz.
He's a former deputyeditor-in-chief of the Wall
Street Journal.
He also served as the WallStreet Journal's standards
editor, as well as the topeditor of Dow Jones Newswire,
and now this is his foray intofiction, that's right.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Okay, I read the book very quickly because it was
very good.
It's No Write Way to Die.
It is his first book layeredcharacter development.
We talk about this in theinterview that we liked it.
We told him right off the bat.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
We're like we liked it.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
He talks us a little bit about his journey into
journalism.
It was really nice to seesomebody go from being such a
fact checker, such a you knowdoing everything perfectly, to
all of a sudden going straightinto fiction.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yes, it was really a fun, enjoyable read.
It's exciting to see how he'shaving another career now and
that he wants this to be aseries.
So this is the firstinstallment.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
It's coming out in July.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
And then he hopes that the next one would come out
a year from that and it'sreally just a fun conversation
about writing, about journalism,about second careers and the
tri-state area.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
That's right.
It's an interesting book and werecommend it, and we also
recommend this interview.
Please enjoy meeting NealLipschutz.
Hi, Neal, it's so nice to meetyou.
Thank you for coming on theshow.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Thank you very much for having me.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
We were excited when we saw that you know you had
written this book, and then westarted going well, he's got a
very impressive background.
We got to talk to him abouteverything in addition to
reading your book, which is NoWrite Way to Die.
That is your leap into fiction.
But before that, we want toknow, as we always do, your
(01:55):
journey to New Jersey and alsoyour journey to the Wall Street
Journal and how you got intojournalism and how you got into
journalism.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Okay, thank you.
I'll start with New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
So I got to New Jersey by meeting someone who,
after some time together, wedecided to get married, and she
lives in New Jersey and haslived in New Jersey for a long
time.
And when we decided to getmarried it just made sense for
me to move here to the house shealready lived in, and that was
about a decade or so ago.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Nice, okay, that's great.
Where did you grow up?
Speaker 3 (02:34):
I grew up in Brooklyn , okay, and I lived in Manhattan
shortly.
I lived for a short period oftime outside of Washington DC
and then much of my adult life,I lived in Westchester County,
north of the city.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Washington DC and then much of my adult life I
lived in Westchester County,north of the city.
Which now I'm understandingmore about the book.
I'm like Scarsdale, Brooklyn,Exactly Okay.
I love it.
Exactly yeah, it's such a-.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Definitely a Brooklyn influence.
Yeah, I did grow up there near,you know, near the ocean, kind
of in the southern part ofBrooklyn, sort of Ocean Parkway,
brighton Beach area.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yeah, that's nice.
Well, as we're going toprobably pick up a little bit,
as you tell us your story andyour journey into journalism,
we're definitely seeing theconnections with your writing in
this book.
So that definitely is going tocome up in a minute about the
geography, but also aboutwriting and getting into
(03:25):
journalism.
How did that come about?
How did you?
Get your self-fit to the Dow.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Sorry to interrupt.
From my earliest memories Ialways wanted to be a writer,
and as a child that was fairlyvaguely defined of what that
meant.
But still at quite a young ageI was just a great fan of all
the New York newspapers and itwas obviously it was a
(03:50):
pre-internet age and so, and itwasn't exactly the glory age of
New York newspapers they weredown, but there were still a few
of them, plus the Village Voice, and it just struck me, as that
was, again without realspecifics, that was what I
wanted to do.
So I was fortunate in thatsense to early on, you know,
(04:11):
cotton on to what seemed a lifepath.
So, you know, I went to NewYork University, I studied
journalism I was the editor ofthe student newspaper, you know
and really stayed the course injournalism for the next 40 plus
years.
And business journalism I fellinto after college, without a
(04:34):
plan, you know, by accident, andmy first job was for a trade
magazine in New York City thatcovered the pulp and paper
industry, of which I knewnothing about when I started.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Wow, pulp and paper.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Yeah, I learned pretty quickly, but I discovered
that I like writing about andediting on business and economic
subjects, so I pretty muchstuck with it.
I went from there to Washingtonfor a couple of years for a
wire service that wrote aboutbusiness topics, and then on to
(05:08):
Dow Jones and Dow JonesNewswires, where I spent, you
know, a good chunk of my careerbefore moving over to the Wall
Street Journal.
They're both owned by the samecompany.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Yeah, we were talking about that, about the
transition from the Dow to theWall Street Journal and that you
know there was a were you justsubsumed in that merger that you
turned went to the Wall StreetJournal.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Yeah, I mean what happened?
At some point the company sortof brought the staffs of both
those groups together.
They had been separate.
I was the top editor at DowJones Newswires for a while when
we had quite a largeindependent news group that
worked.
You know, we worked togetherwith the Wall Street Journal but
had a separate group.
And then at some point, youknow, a dozen years ago or so,
(05:50):
they came together and I thentook on the role as standards
and ethics editor at the WallStreet Journal.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
So I have a question about what that entails.
I did get to when we were doingsome research.
I did see a video that wasonline that's still online from
a while ago that you talkedabout a case in India and you
were over there and I found thatso interesting about what that
means with the standards andethics, and then also how you
get involved by trying topublish something if a
(06:19):
government you're publishing iton isn't wanting it to be
published.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
Yeah, it was a very interesting role and I had a
great group of people in thatdepartment who I worked with and
a great group of attorneys atDow Jones who are, you know,
first Amendment attorneys and doa terrific job and great
colleagues to work with.
But yeah, I mean it had severaldifferent basic aspects to it.
(06:43):
One was, you know, some of themore ambitious and sensitive
articles we in the standardsgroup reviewed pre-publication,
even as they went through allthe normal rigorous editing
process as well, and then we dida lot of training with the
lawyers.
We did training of the staff,got to travel around the world
(07:03):
because it's a global newsorganization, you know, talking
to our colleagues about thestandards, the high standards we
wanted to pursue, and thelawyers talking about the legal
aspects of doing journalism.
And you know it was just a lotof advising people on different
aspects of their, on differentaspects of how to go about
(07:31):
difficult situations inreporting, wherever it might
take them.
So it was kind of an endlesslyfascinating role.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
I'm curious about that.
With the ethics in the.
You know that you've had such along career in dealing with
editing and you know making thestandard of what's going to be
back checked as things haveprogressed over the last few
years, and also considering theWall Street Journal and it's,
you know, connected to RupertMurdoch and certain political
(08:00):
things, how do you balancesomething like that?
Is there a motto or some sortof deep set like tradition that
you might use, or what is thedefault when you're questioning
what to do?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Well, you know again, when I was at the journal.
You know, throughout my entire40 years at Dow Jones, everyone
I worked with workedindependently and worked and
aspired to the highest standardsof journalism, making sure that
everything that we did wasfact-based, thorough, you know,
(08:31):
committed to having the propercontext, committed to making
sure, as you said, before thingswere checked and double-checked
, making sure, as you said,before things were checked and
double-checked.
That's the way we did thingsand that was, you know, our
default, if you wanted to usethat phrase, was that.
You know, we want to make sureeverything was as thorough and
(08:52):
well-reported as possible.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
But as the investigative journalism fell
off, like in the 90s where youknow, it kind of became less of
a place that money was being putinto and you saw less of it,
did you see that shift in theability to have that type of
rigorous checking and factchecking investigation?
Speaker 3 (09:13):
No, not really, you know, not in any of my
experiences.
Where I worked, as we'vediscussed, you know I worked at
one company for 40 years and sawno change there.
Obviously, the broaderlandscape of journalism.
Of course, once the Internetand digitalization came in, you
know it opened up the field forany number of variety of people
(09:36):
and with all sorts of differentways and desires to do things,
to come in.
But you know that is thebroader phenomenon, not the
phenomenon that I experiencedduring my career, right yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
And while you were working there, did you feel that
you always had a book in youand did you always have ideas
and writing them on the side?
And how did you get to makethis book the first book?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Yeah, no, I mean, for a long time I wanted to write
fiction.
You know, I did have, obviously, a long career in journalism
and I enjoyed it very much and Ifeel very appreciative to have
had it.
At the same time, you know, Idid have other, you know, things
that I thought would be fun andinteresting to do and over the
years I had written somefictional short stories.
(10:25):
But you know, given the rigorsof both personal life and
professional life, I didn'treally have that much time to
devote to it.
And so when it really got tothe point where I was ready for
a new challenge and reached acertain age and a certain point
in the career that I felt Icould do something new,
different, I sort of jumped atthe opportunity.
(10:47):
You know I didn't see it as atraditional retirement, even
though it is Same time.
I saw it as a transition todoing a different kind of work,
just obviously, you know, formyself at the beginning and now,
hopefully sharing what I'vewritten, and that I hope people
discover it and appreciate it orenjoy the work.
(11:08):
But yeah, it was something I'vewanted to do for a long time
and I feel very fortunate that Ihave the opportunity, and you
know, to do it and the freedomto do it now, yeah, Do you have
like a schedule that you follow,like wake up every morning,
write X amount of pages, go fora walk.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Do you have a schedule?
Speaker 3 (11:28):
You pretty much almost named it right there.
I just do it in slightlyreverse order.
Yeah, I get up, I try to go tothe gym or take a walk, I try to
get my exercise in first.
I would say five or six hours aday I'm writing slash, revising
, slash editing.
It's a reasonably full-time joband now it's interesting in the
(11:49):
run-up to the publication datefor my first novel.
You know I've also done some ofwhat we're doing here.
You know talking about it andtrying to reach out in various
ways to market, in the sensethat there's so many books out
and so many novels out.
But you know, just to get theword out to a degree.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
How do you like doing that part of it?
Is it hard?
Speaker 3 (12:12):
It's a little hard.
You know it's funny being ajournalist for so long you know
being on and being an editor fora long time, you know sort of
being on the other end of things, so it's an interesting
transition.
But it's been fun to meet newpeople for sure, and lots of
interesting people so far andI'm sure more coming up when I
(12:34):
do a couple of you knowappearances at libraries and
other things that I havescheduled.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Well, neil, what I will say is that you should keep
doing this.
Yes, we really enjoyed the book.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Well, thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
We really enjoyed it.
We both were saying how like weflew through it because I kept
needing to know what was goingto happen.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Yeah, you need to know.
But the thing is, let's talkabout this book now.
We want to say there's someinteresting thread lines.
So the book is No Write Way,like as in writing, to die, but
it's a pun on.
I think you know.
So did that title first of all?
Was that something you came upwith towards the end or during
the middle, or how did you comeup with the title for the book?
Speaker 3 (13:18):
during the middle or how did you come up with the
title for the book After thefact.
After the fact, yeah, after thefact.
I just had sort of you know, asort of a working few words
about it that I knew wasn't areal title while I was writing,
and then it was really on untillike it was not, until I got to
the point where I had signed,you know, a publishing agreement
with the small publishingcompany that is bringing it out
(13:39):
that I said, well, you know youneed a title, and I did think,
with, like you say, with theplay on the word write, by
making it W-R-I-T-E, implyingthat at least one of the
characters is a writer of somesort and that somebody dies.
So it gets.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
And you're trying to figure out who did it.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Yeah, and you're trying to figure out who did it
Exactly so you get those twothemes get incorporated in the
title.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
The writing is very clear, very crisp, very fast
moving and the development ofthe characters is very layered
and I really enjoyed theintrospection of it all and the
dialogue that's going on in thehead and also amongst characters
, the subtext too, like youcould still read the subtext,
but it was very like Jeanettesaid.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
We found it was fast-paced clear what you were
saying, but it had layers and Ifound it also like I could see
it.
It was definitely like I thinkthis will be a series.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Yeah, I agree.
And it was like, is this justeasy?
Or, and then I was like his 40years of experience is showing.
I was like you are crisply, youhave eliminated fluff that I
didn't need and you're gettingto the point, but you're doing
it so effortlessly.
And I was telling Rachel thatit has the geography of like
(15:01):
people who like New York.
You know that they were goingto really enjoy that and they
also.
There was some Tom Wolfe inthere.
You know this.
You know Bonfire of theVanities, you know the intrigue
of the rich and you know gettingcaught up into something that's
going to ruin the reputationand all of this and like the
fixer and the fixer.
(15:23):
And then, but there was thisinteresting thing you said in
the beginning about your careerjourney and I'm wondering how
much is reflected.
Is that you said you wanted togo into business journalism, but
there's a character in herethat kind of takes the
traditional route for success.
And then there's the bohemianwriter, the fictional writer,
the one who's doing some.
(15:43):
Is there something there and areflection that you'd always
wanted?
Like Rachel asked to dosomething instead of the facts
and nonfiction.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Yeah, for sure.
You know, like I said, I've hadan interest in writing fiction
for a while and, by the way,really thank you very much for
your comments.
You know it's early on in theprocess.
Not all that many people haveread it.
My adult children have read it,but of course they're going to
say nice things I wish they have.
But thank you, I appreciate itand I appreciate you reading it
(16:13):
so closely too.
Yeah, I mean your point aboutthe two characters.
I mean that was my first idea,for this was really actually, as
I was saying, I was doing someshort stories and it started out
with an idea of a two-story,which was that these two men who
reached kind of late middle ageor who started out in the same
sort of old Brooklynneighborhood, didn't know each
(16:33):
other, as you were saying, tookkind of very different paths in
life but perhaps under theveneer have some similarities
and maybe not always verypositive similarities in
character, and that at somepoint they come into conflict.
And then I thought about acouple other bigger ideas within
starting with that, and then Isaid, gee, you know, I think
(16:55):
this really has enough to be asuspense novel.
That was the genre I wanted totry to write more form in.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
So yeah, so I hope it achieved both things right.
That it's as you were saying.
Hopefully it's just acompelling, fast-paced story,
but that ideas about how peoplechoose to live and how they
choose to be parents, the ethicsand the morality how they
choose to be parents.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
The ethics and the morality how they choose to be
parents is a big thing in there.
Yeah, and I thought about thata lot, like when you would pose
that question like what wouldyou do for your kids?
Like where to what end?
Right, that's a fascinatingquestion to think about.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Yeah, I mean, that's one of the great things about
this genre too, is that, youknow, in my view, is that you
get the freedom to createcharacters and then you place
them in sort of excruciatinglydifficult situations and see how
they react.
And to a degree, I think,people react based on the sorts
(18:00):
of people they were before thecrisis hit.
You know, and I think that'sprobably what happens here.
But I'm, you know, very happythat you found it without fluff,
because I did, you know, I wantto respect people's time, I
want to respect, you know that,you know that the story moves
(18:21):
and that is kind of the, youknow, the great, one of the
great things about writingfiction is that, at least in my
view, there's this veneer thatit's real, but it's not real, of
course.
And then so you can kind ofcondense things and heighten
reality and make things movealong at a pace and cut out to
(18:42):
sort of, you don't need you knowa lot of explanations for
everything to make up our dailylives right?
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Yes, but you care the development of each character.
I mean to say that there, youknow, no fluff is.
I want to, you know, clarifythat is that you very well, you
know, clarify that is that youvery well you know define the
characters and who they are.
And there's so much depth intothese.
A lot of them are like in theirmidlife, and then you've got a
(19:09):
young person.
You've got different levels andall different.
You know characters and they'rereally developed really well.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
So it wasn't like all at once you set it up like I
know that type.
I think you know that type, butthen you'll reveal something
else about the family history orthe background, which I always
love to know.
People's background I mean,that's why we have this podcast
too is to ask where'd you comefrom, how'd you get here, what
were you thinking Like, whatinfluenced you and I liked being
(19:34):
able to see that in thecharacters.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
Yeah, yeah, no, that's a great point, and for
sure I mean, some of my ownfavorite scenes actually are
when either the charactersreflect on or we go back to when
they were younger.
Yes, and see some of thoseearly decisions, you know, early
influences, and I think that'strue of, you know, not everyone,
(19:58):
but a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
A lot of people yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Things that happen in those kinds of late teen, early
20s years can last, can staywith us Forever.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Forever.
We could try to get over themforever, but it's really hard.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Was there a particular audience that you
were writing this to that youthought would enjoy this book?
That's a great question.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
No, not really.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
You know, it's interesting to your prior point
is it's a different book than ifI was writing my first novel at
30.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
I'm doing it in a much later state in life.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
So yeah, I think it comes out of the kind of
totality of your experiencecombined with your imagination,
you know, and broader thatexperience is, like you say, the
more sorts of situations andmore sorts of people you've met
along the way or read about orwhatever it is.
It kind of all gets in thereand then you get to imagine
things and make them up and itall fits.
(20:55):
But no, I wasn't thinking of aparticular audience.
I was wondering, I really don'tknow of a particular audience.
I was wondering I really don'tknow.
But you know, I was wonderingif people who are similarly aged
to most of the characters, ifthat would have a greater appeal
or not.
But I wasn't sure and wasn'treally aiming for any audience
in particular.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Who do you feel you relate the most to as the
characters?
Oh, that's hard.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
I thought about that too, rachel.
I was like, who would Iidentify with?
Speaker 3 (21:20):
And I was like hmm, yeah, it's an interesting
question.
I don't really personallyidentify, I don't think, with
really any of them in any sortof large percentage or totality.
I was conscious when I waswriting of the fact that you
know, and not limited to asingle character you know the
(21:43):
characters do things that Ithink a lot of people would just
find abhorrent at certainpoints.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
And at the same time, I think all of them have
certain aspects that one canempathize with.
At the same time, you know so,and frankly that's attractive to
me, that ambiguity you know,both about characters and about
circumstances and about thedecisions that people make, and
then in retrospect say, huh,maybe it could have gone a
(22:11):
different way.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
I thought that was interesting too, that you did
put in some self-reflectionthere later for Scott, like that
.
That it wasn't just you know.
Yep, I made this decision andthis is what it is it allows.
It allows for you, like whatyou said, that ambiguity, and
like we all have shades of grayor moments in life where we
behave certain ways because ofhow we grew up and everything
(22:36):
that's happening around us.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, exactly so that that I'm glad if that came
across because I did as I said.
There are definitely behaviorsyou know that are that they do,
that are human.
I hope one can understand whatmotivates them and that no one
is all one thing or another.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Well, I mean, I think that what Rachel was saying
early on about it being a serieslike the, there was something
about the way it ended that Ireally liked.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
I.
I was upset.
You liked it, I was that's whyI liked it.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
It's because it wasn't tied up in a nice bow.
It wasn't the traditionalending which.
I really appreciated that.
It was kind of like well evenmy brain wanted, wanted, nice,
yeah he wanted to be nice and Ialso loved how there were some
characters that you you kind ofwere guessing like you thought
you knew who was going to be theperson.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
It wasn't clear.
It wasn't clear.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
So I feel like there's also some stories to be
told about some of thecharacters like and it could
keep going, I mean are you goingto?
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Are you going to write the same character?
Are you going to follow thesecharacters in book two?
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Yeah, it is going to keep going.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
So yeah, at least with some of the characters,
without trying to give too muchaway about this one.
But yeah, some of the maincharacters will carry on and
we'll find a way to remainconnected.
But this book officiallyreleases in July and the number
two in the series, I hope, willrelease in July of 2026.
(24:09):
So a year from a year after thefirst one.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Great, great.
Well, we'll do our best to getpeople to take notice of it.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
And we definitely of it, yes, thank you.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
We definitely enjoyed it and I'm really glad to help
kick it off.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
We always ask our guests to end with a favorite
thing about New Jersey.
Since you've only been here 10years.
You're such a newbie.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
I'm a newcomer.
This is fairly nerdy, but Ireally like this thing called
BCCLS, if I'm getting it correctwhich?
Speaker 2 (24:41):
is the Bergen County.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
Cooperative Library System.
Yes, and what it is?
It's basically if you need orwant to borrow a book or any
other medium and your locallibrary doesn't have it, you get
connected to a large number oflibraries in northern New Jersey
and as long as one of thosemany, many libraries has a copy,
(25:06):
in a few days, usually it willshow up at your local library,
and I just think it's been great.
I've been a big user of it, I'ma big fan of libraries
generally and so that's beenlike wow, that's real positive
about living here.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
It's so true.
I love that.
When I first, when we firstmoved to Montclair, I remember
going to the public library withthe little kids, excited to get
our library cards, and thenthey told me, you know, go
online, you could always justcheck on our website and to be
able to get any book you wantfrom anywhere.
I'll say it's like coming fromsome town I've never heard of.
(25:44):
Exactly, and like you said,it's there three days, you just
go and pick it up.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
It's a good way to learn New Jersey geography too,
like you, said several librariesare from towns.
I said, oh, I didn't know thatplace existed.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
You're like that's far, Is somebody driving this
book over just for me?
Speaker 3 (26:01):
for three hours.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
They're taking a three-hour drive for this book.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
Possibly.
Anyway, I like that.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
That's great.
I love that.
No one's ever said thatSomebody has said the library.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
They love the library , but that was very specific and
I love it.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
I love the library too, but yeah, that whole
cooperative system is great.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Yeah, that's great.
There's all these little hiddenthings to learn about on this
podcast, so we love that.
So thank you.
Well, thank you so much forcoming on Lost in Jersey.
It's been a pleasure to meetyou.
And maybe we'll see you at abook reading or promotion.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
Yeah, I hope so.
Thank you both very much.
It's been great.
It's a pleasure to meet both ofyou as well, so thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
This podcast was produced by Rachel Martens and
Jeanette Afsharian.
You can find us on Spotify,iTunes and Buzzsprout.
Thanks for listening.
See you next week.
Hey Janette, Hi Rachel, we just had a really
great interview.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Yes, we did.
It was with Neal Lipschutz.
He's a former deputyeditor-in-chief of the Wall
Street Journal.
He also served as the WallStreet Journal's standards
editor, as well as the topeditor of Dow Jones Newswire,
and now this is his foray intofiction, that's right.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Okay, I read the book very quickly because it was
very good.
It's No Write Way to Die.
It is his first book layeredcharacter development.
We talk about this in theinterview that we liked it.
We told him right off the bat.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
We're like we liked it.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
He talks us a little bit about his journey into
journalism.
It was really nice to seesomebody go from being such a
fact checker, such a you knowdoing everything perfectly, to
all of a sudden going straightinto fiction.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yes, it was really a fun, enjoyable read.
It's exciting to see how he'shaving another career now and
that he wants this to be aseries.
So this is the firstinstallment.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
It's coming out in July.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
And then he hopes that the next one would come out
a year from that and it'sreally just a fun conversation
about writing, about journalism,about second careers and the
tri-state area.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
That's right.
It's an interesting book and werecommend it, and we also
recommend this interview.
Please enjoy meeting NealLipschutz.
Hi, Neal, it's so nice to meetyou.
Thank you for coming on theshow.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Thank you very much for having me.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
We were excited when we saw that you know you had
written this book, and then westarted going well, he's got a
very impressive background.
We got to talk to him abouteverything in addition to
reading your book, which is NoWrite Way to Die.
That is your leap into fiction.
But before that, we want toknow, as we always do, your
(01:55):
journey to New Jersey and alsoyour journey to the Wall Street
Journal and how you got intojournalism and how you got into
journalism.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Okay, thank you.
I'll start with New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
So I got to New Jersey by meeting someone who,
after some time together, wedecided to get married, and she
lives in New Jersey and haslived in New Jersey for a long
time.
And when we decided to getmarried it just made sense for
me to move here to the house shealready lived in, and that was
about a decade or so ago.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Nice, okay, that's great.
Where did you grow up?
Speaker 3 (02:34):
I grew up in Brooklyn , okay, and I lived in Manhattan
shortly.
I lived for a short period oftime outside of Washington DC
and then much of my adult life,I lived in Westchester County,
north of the city.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Washington DC and then much of my adult life I
lived in Westchester County,north of the city.
Which now I'm understandingmore about the book.
I'm like Scarsdale, Brooklyn,Exactly Okay.
I love it.
Exactly yeah, it's such a-.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Definitely a Brooklyn influence.
Yeah, I did grow up there near,you know, near the ocean, kind
of in the southern part ofBrooklyn, sort of Ocean Parkway,
brighton Beach area.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yeah, that's nice.
Well, as we're going toprobably pick up a little bit,
as you tell us your story andyour journey into journalism,
we're definitely seeing theconnections with your writing in
this book.
So that definitely is going tocome up in a minute about the
geography, but also aboutwriting and getting into
(03:25):
journalism.
How did that come about?
How did you?
Get your self-fit to the Dow.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Sorry to interrupt.
From my earliest memories Ialways wanted to be a writer,
and as a child that was fairlyvaguely defined of what that
meant.
But still at quite a young ageI was just a great fan of all
the New York newspapers and itwas obviously it was a
(03:50):
pre-internet age and so, and itwasn't exactly the glory age of
New York newspapers they weredown, but there were still a few
of them, plus the Village Voice, and it just struck me, as that
was, again without realspecifics, that was what I
wanted to do.
So I was fortunate in thatsense to early on, you know,
(04:11):
cotton on to what seemed a lifepath.
So, you know, I went to NewYork University, I studied
journalism I was the editor ofthe student newspaper, you know
and really stayed the course injournalism for the next 40 plus
years.
And business journalism I fellinto after college, without a
(04:34):
plan, you know, by accident, andmy first job was for a trade
magazine in New York City thatcovered the pulp and paper
industry, of which I knewnothing about when I started.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Wow, pulp and paper.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Yeah, I learned pretty quickly, but I discovered
that I like writing about andediting on business and economic
subjects, so I pretty muchstuck with it.
I went from there to Washingtonfor a couple of years for a
wire service that wrote aboutbusiness topics, and then on to
(05:08):
Dow Jones and Dow JonesNewswires, where I spent, you
know, a good chunk of my careerbefore moving over to the Wall
Street Journal.
They're both owned by the samecompany.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Yeah, we were talking about that, about the
transition from the Dow to theWall Street Journal and that you
know there was a were you justsubsumed in that merger that you
turned went to the Wall StreetJournal.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Yeah, I mean what happened?
At some point the company sortof brought the staffs of both
those groups together.
They had been separate.
I was the top editor at DowJones Newswires for a while when
we had quite a largeindependent news group that
worked.
You know, we worked togetherwith the Wall Street Journal but
had a separate group.
And then at some point, youknow, a dozen years ago or so,
(05:50):
they came together and I thentook on the role as standards
and ethics editor at the WallStreet Journal.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
So I have a question about what that entails.
I did get to when we were doingsome research.
I did see a video that wasonline that's still online from
a while ago that you talkedabout a case in India and you
were over there and I found thatso interesting about what that
means with the standards andethics, and then also how you
get involved by trying topublish something if a
(06:19):
government you're publishing iton isn't wanting it to be
published.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
Yeah, it was a very interesting role and I had a
great group of people in thatdepartment who I worked with and
a great group of attorneys atDow Jones who are, you know,
first Amendment attorneys and doa terrific job and great
colleagues to work with.
But yeah, I mean it had severaldifferent basic aspects to it.
(06:43):
One was, you know, some of themore ambitious and sensitive
articles we in the standardsgroup reviewed pre-publication,
even as they went through allthe normal rigorous editing
process as well, and then we dida lot of training with the
lawyers.
We did training of the staff,got to travel around the world
(07:03):
because it's a global newsorganization, you know, talking
to our colleagues about thestandards, the high standards we
wanted to pursue, and thelawyers talking about the legal
aspects of doing journalism.
And you know it was just a lotof advising people on different
aspects of their, on differentaspects of how to go about
(07:31):
difficult situations inreporting, wherever it might
take them.
So it was kind of an endlesslyfascinating role.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
I'm curious about that.
With the ethics in the.
You know that you've had such along career in dealing with
editing and you know making thestandard of what's going to be
back checked as things haveprogressed over the last few
years, and also considering theWall Street Journal and it's,
you know, connected to RupertMurdoch and certain political
(08:00):
things, how do you balancesomething like that?
Is there a motto or some sortof deep set like tradition that
you might use, or what is thedefault when you're questioning
what to do?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Well, you know again, when I was at the journal.
You know, throughout my entire40 years at Dow Jones, everyone
I worked with workedindependently and worked and
aspired to the highest standardsof journalism, making sure that
everything that we did wasfact-based, thorough, you know,
(08:31):
committed to having the propercontext, committed to making
sure, as you said, before thingswere checked and double-checked
, making sure, as you said,before things were checked and
double-checked.
That's the way we did thingsand that was, you know, our
default, if you wanted to usethat phrase, was that.
You know, we want to make sureeverything was as thorough and
(08:52):
well-reported as possible.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
But as the investigative journalism fell
off, like in the 90s where youknow, it kind of became less of
a place that money was being putinto and you saw less of it,
did you see that shift in theability to have that type of
rigorous checking and factchecking investigation?
Speaker 3 (09:13):
No, not really, you know, not in any of my
experiences.
Where I worked, as we'vediscussed, you know I worked at
one company for 40 years and sawno change there.
Obviously, the broaderlandscape of journalism.
Of course, once the Internetand digitalization came in, you
know it opened up the field forany number of variety of people
(09:36):
and with all sorts of differentways and desires to do things,
to come in.
But you know that is thebroader phenomenon, not the
phenomenon that I experiencedduring my career, right yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
And while you were working there, did you feel that
you always had a book in youand did you always have ideas
and writing them on the side?
And how did you get to makethis book the first book?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Yeah, no, I mean, for a long time I wanted to write
fiction.
You know, I did have, obviously, a long career in journalism
and I enjoyed it very much and Ifeel very appreciative to have
had it.
At the same time, you know, Idid have other, you know, things
that I thought would be fun andinteresting to do and over the
years I had written somefictional short stories.
(10:25):
But you know, given the rigorsof both personal life and
professional life, I didn'treally have that much time to
devote to it.
And so when it really got tothe point where I was ready for
a new challenge and reached acertain age and a certain point
in the career that I felt Icould do something new,
different, I sort of jumped atthe opportunity.
(10:47):
You know I didn't see it as atraditional retirement, even
though it is Same time.
I saw it as a transition todoing a different kind of work,
just obviously, you know, formyself at the beginning and now,
hopefully sharing what I'vewritten, and that I hope people
discover it and appreciate it orenjoy the work.
(11:08):
But yeah, it was something I'vewanted to do for a long time
and I feel very fortunate that Ihave the opportunity, and you
know, to do it and the freedomto do it now, yeah, Do you have
like a schedule that you follow,like wake up every morning,
write X amount of pages, go fora walk.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Do you have a schedule?
Speaker 3 (11:28):
You pretty much almost named it right there.
I just do it in slightlyreverse order.
Yeah, I get up, I try to go tothe gym or take a walk, I try to
get my exercise in first.
I would say five or six hours aday I'm writing slash, revising
, slash editing.
It's a reasonably full-time joband now it's interesting in the
(11:49):
run-up to the publication datefor my first novel.
You know I've also done some ofwhat we're doing here.
You know talking about it andtrying to reach out in various
ways to market, in the sensethat there's so many books out
and so many novels out.
But you know, just to get theword out to a degree.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
How do you like doing that part of it?
Is it hard?
Speaker 3 (12:12):
It's a little hard.
You know it's funny being ajournalist for so long you know
being on and being an editor fora long time, you know sort of
being on the other end of things, so it's an interesting
transition.
But it's been fun to meet newpeople for sure, and lots of
interesting people so far andI'm sure more coming up when I
(12:34):
do a couple of you knowappearances at libraries and
other things that I havescheduled.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Well, neil, what I will say is that you should keep
doing this.
Yes, we really enjoyed the book.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Well, thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
We really enjoyed it.
We both were saying how like weflew through it because I kept
needing to know what was goingto happen.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Yeah, you need to know.
But the thing is, let's talkabout this book now.
We want to say there's someinteresting thread lines.
So the book is No Write Way,like as in writing, to die, but
it's a pun on.
I think you know.
So did that title first of all?
Was that something you came upwith towards the end or during
the middle, or how did you comeup with the title for the book?
Speaker 3 (13:18):
during the middle or how did you come up with the
title for the book After thefact.
After the fact, yeah, after thefact.
I just had sort of you know, asort of a working few words
about it that I knew wasn't areal title while I was writing,
and then it was really on untillike it was not, until I got to
the point where I had signed,you know, a publishing agreement
with the small publishingcompany that is bringing it out
(13:39):
that I said, well, you know youneed a title, and I did think,
with, like you say, with theplay on the word write, by
making it W-R-I-T-E, implyingthat at least one of the
characters is a writer of somesort and that somebody dies.
So it gets.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
And you're trying to figure out who did it.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Yeah, and you're trying to figure out who did it
Exactly so you get those twothemes get incorporated in the
title.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
The writing is very clear, very crisp, very fast
moving and the development ofthe characters is very layered
and I really enjoyed theintrospection of it all and the
dialogue that's going on in thehead and also amongst characters
, the subtext too, like youcould still read the subtext,
but it was very like Jeanettesaid.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
We found it was fast-paced clear what you were
saying, but it had layers and Ifound it also like I could see
it.
It was definitely like I thinkthis will be a series.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Yeah, I agree.
And it was like, is this justeasy?
Or, and then I was like his 40years of experience is showing.
I was like you are crisply, youhave eliminated fluff that I
didn't need and you're gettingto the point, but you're doing
it so effortlessly.
And I was telling Rachel thatit has the geography of like
(15:01):
people who like New York.
You know that they were goingto really enjoy that and they
also.
There was some Tom Wolfe inthere.
You know this.
You know Bonfire of theVanities, you know the intrigue
of the rich and you know gettingcaught up into something that's
going to ruin the reputationand all of this and like the
fixer and the fixer.
(15:23):
And then, but there was thisinteresting thing you said in
the beginning about your careerjourney and I'm wondering how
much is reflected.
Is that you said you wanted togo into business journalism, but
there's a character in herethat kind of takes the
traditional route for success.
And then there's the bohemianwriter, the fictional writer,
the one who's doing some.
(15:43):
Is there something there and areflection that you'd always
wanted?
Like Rachel asked to dosomething instead of the facts
and nonfiction.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Yeah, for sure.
You know, like I said, I've hadan interest in writing fiction
for a while and, by the way,really thank you very much for
your comments.
You know it's early on in theprocess.
Not all that many people haveread it.
My adult children have read it,but of course they're going to
say nice things I wish they have.
But thank you, I appreciate itand I appreciate you reading it
(16:13):
so closely too.
Yeah, I mean your point aboutthe two characters.
I mean that was my first idea,for this was really actually, as
I was saying, I was doing someshort stories and it started out
with an idea of a two-story,which was that these two men who
reached kind of late middle ageor who started out in the same
sort of old Brooklynneighborhood, didn't know each
(16:33):
other, as you were saying, tookkind of very different paths in
life but perhaps under theveneer have some similarities
and maybe not always verypositive similarities in
character, and that at somepoint they come into conflict.
And then I thought about acouple other bigger ideas within
starting with that, and then Isaid, gee, you know, I think
(16:55):
this really has enough to be asuspense novel.
That was the genre I wanted totry to write more form in.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
So yeah, so I hope it achieved both things right.
That it's as you were saying.
Hopefully it's just acompelling, fast-paced story,
but that ideas about how peoplechoose to live and how they
choose to be parents, the ethicsand the morality how they
choose to be parents.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
The ethics and the morality how they choose to be
parents is a big thing in there.
Yeah, and I thought about thata lot, like when you would pose
that question like what wouldyou do for your kids?
Like where to what end?
Right, that's a fascinatingquestion to think about.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Yeah, I mean, that's one of the great things about
this genre too, is that, youknow, in my view, is that you
get the freedom to createcharacters and then you place
them in sort of excruciatinglydifficult situations and see how
they react.
And to a degree, I think,people react based on the sorts
(18:00):
of people they were before thecrisis hit.
You know, and I think that'sprobably what happens here.
But I'm, you know, very happythat you found it without fluff,
because I did, you know, I wantto respect people's time, I
want to respect, you know that,you know that the story moves
(18:21):
and that is kind of the, youknow, the great, one of the
great things about writingfiction is that, at least in my
view, there's this veneer thatit's real, but it's not real, of
course.
And then so you can kind ofcondense things and heighten
reality and make things movealong at a pace and cut out to
(18:42):
sort of, you don't need you knowa lot of explanations for
everything to make up our dailylives right?
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Yes, but you care the development of each character.
I mean to say that there, youknow, no fluff is.
I want to, you know, clarifythat is that you very well, you
know, clarify that is that youvery well you know define the
characters and who they are.
And there's so much depth intothese.
A lot of them are like in theirmidlife, and then you've got a
(19:09):
young person.
You've got different levels andall different.
You know characters and they'rereally developed really well.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
So it wasn't like all at once you set it up like I
know that type.
I think you know that type, butthen you'll reveal something
else about the family history orthe background, which I always
love to know.
People's background I mean,that's why we have this podcast
too is to ask where'd you comefrom, how'd you get here, what
were you thinking Like, whatinfluenced you and I liked being
(19:34):
able to see that in thecharacters.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
Yeah, yeah, no, that's a great point, and for
sure I mean, some of my ownfavorite scenes actually are
when either the charactersreflect on or we go back to when
they were younger.
Yes, and see some of thoseearly decisions, you know, early
influences, and I think that'strue of, you know, not everyone,
(19:58):
but a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
A lot of people yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Things that happen in those kinds of late teen, early
20s years can last, can staywith us Forever.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Forever.
We could try to get over themforever, but it's really hard.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Was there a particular audience that you
were writing this to that youthought would enjoy this book?
That's a great question.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
No, not really.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
You know, it's interesting to your prior point
is it's a different book than ifI was writing my first novel at
30.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
I'm doing it in a much later state in life.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
So yeah, I think it comes out of the kind of
totality of your experiencecombined with your imagination,
you know, and broader thatexperience is, like you say, the
more sorts of situations andmore sorts of people you've met
along the way or read about orwhatever it is.
It kind of all gets in thereand then you get to imagine
things and make them up and itall fits.
(20:55):
But no, I wasn't thinking of aparticular audience.
I was wondering, I really don'tknow of a particular audience.
I was wondering I really don'tknow.
But you know, I was wonderingif people who are similarly aged
to most of the characters, ifthat would have a greater appeal
or not.
But I wasn't sure and wasn'treally aiming for any audience
in particular.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Who do you feel you relate the most to as the
characters?
Oh, that's hard.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
I thought about that too, rachel.
I was like, who would Iidentify with?
Speaker 3 (21:20):
And I was like hmm, yeah, it's an interesting
question.
I don't really personallyidentify, I don't think, with
really any of them in any sortof large percentage or totality.
I was conscious when I waswriting of the fact that you
know, and not limited to asingle character you know the
(21:43):
characters do things that Ithink a lot of people would just
find abhorrent at certainpoints.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
And at the same time, I think all of them have
certain aspects that one canempathize with.
At the same time, you know so,and frankly that's attractive to
me, that ambiguity you know,both about characters and about
circumstances and about thedecisions that people make, and
then in retrospect say, huh,maybe it could have gone a
(22:11):
different way.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
I thought that was interesting too, that you did
put in some self-reflectionthere later for Scott, like that
.
That it wasn't just you know.
Yep, I made this decision andthis is what it is it allows.
It allows for you, like whatyou said, that ambiguity, and
like we all have shades of grayor moments in life where we
behave certain ways because ofhow we grew up and everything
(22:36):
that's happening around us.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, exactly so that that I'm glad if that came
across because I did as I said.
There are definitely behaviorsyou know that are that they do,
that are human.
I hope one can understand whatmotivates them and that no one
is all one thing or another.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Well, I mean, I think that what Rachel was saying
early on about it being a serieslike the, there was something
about the way it ended that Ireally liked.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
I.
I was upset.
You liked it, I was that's whyI liked it.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
It's because it wasn't tied up in a nice bow.
It wasn't the traditionalending which.
I really appreciated that.
It was kind of like well evenmy brain wanted, wanted, nice,
yeah he wanted to be nice and Ialso loved how there were some
characters that you you kind ofwere guessing like you thought
you knew who was going to be theperson.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
It wasn't clear.
It wasn't clear.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
So I feel like there's also some stories to be
told about some of thecharacters like and it could
keep going, I mean are you goingto?
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Are you going to write the same character?
Are you going to follow thesecharacters in book two?
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Yeah, it is going to keep going.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
So yeah, at least with some of the characters,
without trying to give too muchaway about this one.
But yeah, some of the maincharacters will carry on and
we'll find a way to remainconnected.
But this book officiallyreleases in July and the number
two in the series, I hope, willrelease in July of 2026.
(24:09):
So a year from a year after thefirst one.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Great, great.
Well, we'll do our best to getpeople to take notice of it.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
And we definitely of it, yes, thank you.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
We definitely enjoyed it and I'm really glad to help
kick it off.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
We always ask our guests to end with a favorite
thing about New Jersey.
Since you've only been here 10years.
You're such a newbie.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
I'm a newcomer.
This is fairly nerdy, but Ireally like this thing called
BCCLS, if I'm getting it correctwhich?
Speaker 2 (24:41):
is the Bergen County.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
Cooperative Library System.
Yes, and what it is?
It's basically if you need orwant to borrow a book or any
other medium and your locallibrary doesn't have it, you get
connected to a large number oflibraries in northern New Jersey
and as long as one of thosemany, many libraries has a copy,
(25:06):
in a few days, usually it willshow up at your local library,
and I just think it's been great.
I've been a big user of it, I'ma big fan of libraries
generally and so that's beenlike wow, that's real positive
about living here.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
It's so true.
I love that.
When I first, when we firstmoved to Montclair, I remember
going to the public library withthe little kids, excited to get
our library cards, and thenthey told me, you know, go
online, you could always justcheck on our website and to be
able to get any book you wantfrom anywhere.
I'll say it's like coming fromsome town I've never heard of.
(25:44):
Exactly, and like you said,it's there three days, you just
go and pick it up.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
It's a good way to learn New Jersey geography too,
like you, said several librariesare from towns.
I said, oh, I didn't know thatplace existed.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
You're like that's far, Is somebody driving this
book over just for me?
Speaker 3 (26:01):
for three hours.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
They're taking a three-hour drive for this book.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
Possibly.
Anyway, I like that.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
That's great.
I love that.
No one's ever said thatSomebody has said the library.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
They love the library , but that was very specific and
I love it.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
I love the library too, but yeah, that whole
cooperative system is great.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Yeah, that's great.
There's all these little hiddenthings to learn about on this
podcast, so we love that.
So thank you.
Well, thank you so much forcoming on Lost in Jersey.
It's been a pleasure to meetyou.
And maybe we'll see you at abook reading or promotion.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
Yeah, I hope so.
Thank you both very much.
It's been great.
It's a pleasure to meet both ofyou as well, so thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
This podcast was produced by Rachel Martens and
Jeanette Afsharian.
You can find us on Spotify,iTunes and Buzzsprout.
Thanks for listening.
See you next week.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.