Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Trader Joe's vs. Aldi's: Who wins?
    An assortment of wine bottles and cups appears on a newsroom table.. Left to right, a set of blue Solo cups, then two bottles of Charles Shaw wine, then two bottles of Winking Owl wine, then a set of red solo cups.
    These were the wines we tried for the taste test - and no, it didn't feel right to bring proper wine glasses.

    Topline:

    With Dry January over for those who observe, we thought it'd be a great time to test out two bottles of wine to see how much they're really worth.

    The test: Two $3.49 bottles of wine — Aldi's Winking Owl brand and Trader Joe's Charles Shaw (aka four-buck Chuck — inflation comes for us all). How do they compare when testers don't know which is which?

      The response: Lots of reactions from LAist staff members from raves to boost, ending in a vote on which one was better — see the full results below.

      Go deeper: If four-buck Chuck is out of the question for you, we've also got recommendations for some slightly more expensive wines.

      Dry January is officially over for those who observe, and what better way to ring in the rest of the year than some wine that won't break the bank?

      Maybe you're trying to save money as part of a New Year's resolution, or maybe you're finding ways to rein in your budget to make up for the rent increase that could come this month. Or maybe you've always wanted to try $5 wines, but didn't want to risk ending up with one you hated.

      Whatever your reason, we thought we'd hit up Trader Joe's and Aldi and put our taste buds to the test — in the interest of public service journalism, of course.

      Our taste test

      A few of our extremely scientific ground rules for the tasting:

      1. We limited ourselves to two bottles of wine you can buy for $3.49, Aldi's Winking Owl brand and Trader Joe's Charles Shaw (aka four-buck Chuck — inflation comes for us all).
      2. We only tried the merlot to keep the comparisons 1:1 — sorry we didn't try more varieties, it was a Wednesday!
      3. Our 10 taste testers didn't know which wine was which to avoid confirmation bias.

      First up: Aldi's Winking Owl merlot, which most people described as having an earthy taste. Reactions were mixed, to say the least.

      "It tastes like spoiled grape juice," managing editor Jason Wells said.

      Our resident fine wine expert, editor George Kiriyama, who in the course of our research pointed us to a three-figure wine that he favors, was also unsparing in his assessment.

      "It tastes like a $3.49 wine," he said. "I like my wine dry, so this is not hitting it for me."

      But the wine was a hit for others in the newsroom.

      "I think if you pair this with a nice cheese, this is a fun wine," education editor Ross Brenneman said.

      Then, our team moved on to our next entry, Trader Joe's four-buck Chuck, which at least a few staff members said was an old college standby for them.

      Our intern Anne To, recently turned 21, who we asked to take part in the survey since we didn't expect her to already have a discerning palette, gave the wine a middling review.

      "It's not as bitter as other wines I've tasted, but it leaves my mouth feeling gross after I drink it," she said.

      Others noted that this wine might be best for some specific uses.

      "I would drink this at the end of the night, there's no more bottles of the good stuff," senior human resources generalist Cynthia Covarrubias — a Winking Owl aficionado — said. "And at the end of the night, you wouldn't want to use good stuff if you can't remember it."

      Surprisingly, the wine did win over our resident wine expert Kiriyama, who said this was "much better than the other one."

      But while the four-buck Chuck was less polarizing overall, lots of people still preferred Winking Owl. When it came time to take a vote, the results ended in a tie, although a couple tie-breaking votes gave the victory to Trader Joe's.

      "Does that make me basic?" editor Dana Littlefield, who helped break the tie, asked. She was answered with a resounding no in the newsroom.

      Full disclosure: I was the other tiebreaker who favored the four-buck Chuck. I thought both brands were very drinkable — for reference, my wine of choice is Bota Box — but I thought the four-buck Chuck was much smoother, sweeter, and more pleasant all-around.

      And while we didn't try this ourselves, the consensus was that both wines would work to make sangria, though the jury's still out on whether that's a compliment.

      What do wine experts say?

      You don't have to take a bunch of journalists' word for it. LAist called up a couple experts to get their takes on the wines we tried. We talked to certified sommelier Brianne Cohen, who's reviewed all of the Trader Joe's $3.49 wines.

      "You're getting exactly what you pay for," Cohen said. "What I can tell you is that they move a lot of wine, that's for sure. And I think for most wine drinkers who are just looking to have a simple, inexpensive wine on their dinner table or whatever it is, I think it will satisfy most people."

      Cohen doesn't have an Aldi nearby, but we got another wine expert, Lucia Palm, to try out the Winking Owl merlot.

      "I’ll be honest, I really didn’t like it," Palm wrote in an email to LAist. "I think it’s a perfect example of a CA wine that is mass produced to stay away from! It tasted like cherry cough syrup and wood chips."

      So there you have it: It really is a matter of taste, but if one of these wines sounds good to you, maybe it's worth giving one of these wines a shot next time you're at the store. After all, they'll only cost you $3.49.

      And if you've made it to the end of this article and decided you'd rather spend a few extra bucks for some $5 or $8 wine, we've got just the guide for you.

      Ashley Rusch contributed reporting to this article.

    1. Questions of accuracy around Washington Post plan
      The incoming editor of <em>The Washington Post</em>, Robert Winnett, has withdrawn from the job and will remain in the U.K.
      The Washington Post is experimenting with personalized news podcasts created by AI.

      Topline:

      The Washington Post's new offering, "Your Personal Podcast," uses artificial intelligence to customize podcasts for its users, blending the algorithm you might find in a news feed with the convenience of portable audio.

      What critics are saying: The AI podcast immediately made headlines — and drew criticisms from people questioning its accuracy, and the motives behind it.

      What the Post is saying: Bailey Kattleman, head of product and design at the Post, calls it "an AI-powered audio briefing experience" — and one that will soon let listeners talk back to it.

      Read on ... for more details and answers to the biggest questions about this new experiment.

      It's not your mother's podcast — or your father's, or anyone else's. The Washington Post's new offering, "Your Personal Podcast," uses artificial intelligence to customize podcasts for its users, blending the algorithm you might find in a news feed with the convenience of portable audio.

      The podcast is "personalized automatically based on your reading history" of Post articles, the newspaper says on its help page. Listeners also have some control: At the click of a button, they can alter their podcast's topic mix — or even swap its computer-generated "hosts."

      The AI podcast immediately made headlines — and drew criticisms from people questioning its accuracy, and the motives behind it.

      Nicholas Quah, a critic and staff writer for Vulture and New York magazine who writes a newsletter about podcasts, says the AI podcast is an example of the Post's wide-ranging digital experiments — but one that didn't go quite right.

      "This is one of many technologically, digitally oriented experiments that they're doing" that is aimed at "getting more audience, breaking into new demographics," he says. Those broader efforts range from a generative AI tool for readers to a digital publishing platform. But in this case, Quah adds, "It feels like it's compromising the core idea of what the news product is."

      On that help page, the newspaper stresses that the podcast is in its early beta phase and "is not a traditional editorial podcast."

      Bailey Kattleman, head of product and design at the Post, calls it "an AI-powered audio briefing experience" — and one that will soon let listeners talk back to it.

      "In an upcoming release, they'll be able to actually interact and ask follow up questions to dig in deeper to what they've just heard," Kattleman says in an interview with NPR.

      As technically sophisticated as that sounds, there are many questions about the new podcast's accuracy — even its ability to correctly pronounce the names of Post journalists it cites. Semafor reported that errors, cited by staffers at the Postincluded "misattributing or inventing quotes and inserting commentary, such as interpreting a source's quotes" as the paper's own stance.

      In the newspaper's app, a note advises listeners to "verify information" by checking the podcast against its source material.

      In a statement, the Washington Post Guild — which represents newsroom employees and other staff — tells NPR, "We are concerned about this new product and its rollout," alleging that it undermines the Post's mission and its journalists' work.

      Citing the paper's standing practice of issuing a correction if a story contains an error, the guild added, "why would we support any technology that is held to a different, lower standard?"

      So, why is the Post rolling out an AI podcast? And will other news and audio outlets follow its lead?

      Here are some questions, and answers:

      Isn't AI podcasting already a thing?

      "The Post has certainly gone out on a ledge here among U.S. legacy publishers," Andrew Deck tells NPR. But he adds that the newspaper isn't the first to experiment with AI-generated podcasts in the wider news industry.

      Deck, who writes about journalism and AI for Harvard University's Nieman Lab, points to examples such as the BBC's My Club Daily, an AI-generated soccer podcast that lets users hear content related to their favorite club. In 2023, he adds, "a Swiss public broadcaster used voice clones of real radio hosts on the air."

      News outlets have also long offered an automated feature that converts text articles into computer-generated voices.

      Even outside of the news industry, AI tools for creating podcasts and other audio are more accessible than ever. Some promise to streamline the editing process, while others can synthesize documents or websites into what sounds like a podcast conversation.

      Why do publishers want to experiment with AI podcasts?

      "It's cost-effective," says Gabriel Soto, senior director of research at Edison Research, which tracks the podcast industry. "You cut out many of the resources and people needed to produce a podcast (studios, writers, editors, and the host themselves)."

      And if a brand can create a successful AI virtual podcast in today's highly competitive podcasting market, Soto adds, it could become a valuable intellectual property in the future.

      Deck says that if the Post's experiment works, the newspaper "may be able to significantly scale up and expand its audio journalism offerings, without investing in the labor that would normally be required to expand."

      In an interview, Kattleman stresses the new product isn't meant to replace traditional podcasts: "We think they have a unique and enduring role, and that's not going away at the Post."

      What's unique about the Post AI podcast?

      For Deck, the level of customization it promises is an innovation. Being able to tailor a podcast specific to one person, he says, "is arguably beyond what any podcast team in journalism right now can produce manually."

      In an example the Post published, listeners can choose from voice options with names like "Charlie and Lucy" and "Bert and Ernie."

      Kattleman says her team was working from the idea that for an audience, there isn't a "one size fits all" when it comes to AI and journalism.

      "Some people want that really straight briefing style; some people prefer something more conversational and more voicey," she says.

      Quah says that adding an AI podcast is a bid to make stories accessible to a broader audience.

      He says that with the podcast, the Post seems to be trying to reach young people who "don't want to read anymore, they just want to listen to the news."

      A key goal, Kattleman says, is to make podcasts more flexible, to appeal to younger listeners who are on the go.

      Outlining the process behind the Post's AI podcast, Kattleman says, "Everything is based on Washington Post journalism."

      An LLM, or large language model, converts a story into a short audio script, she says. A second LLM then vets the script for accuracy. After the final script is stitched together, Kattleman adds, the voice narrates the episode.

      Will listeners embrace an AI news podcast?

      Soto, of Edison Research, says that 1 in 5 podcast consumers say they've listened to an AI-narrated podcast.

      But, he adds that for podcast listeners, "many prefer the human connection, accepting AI tools to assist in creating the content, but not in executing or hosting the podcast."

      The new AI podcast reminds Deck a bit of the hyper-personalized choices for users offered by TikTok and other social media.

      "There is a level of familiarity
      and, arguably, comfort with algorithmic curation among younger audiences," he says.

      But while younger audiences tend to be tech savvy, many of them are also thoughtful about authenticity and connection.

      "Community is at the core of why people listen to podcasts," Soto says.

      Then there's the idea of a host or creator's personality, which drives engagement on TikTok and other platforms.

      "These creators have built a relationship with their audience — and maybe even trust — even if they haven't spoken to sources themselves," Deck says. "This type of news content is a far cry from the disembodied banter of AI podcast hosts."

      What are the potential downsides of AI podcasts?

      One big potential consequence is the loss of jobs — and for companies, the loss of talent.

      "The automation of it kind of erases the entire sort of voice performance industry," Quah says. "There are people who do this for a living," he adds, who could "produce higher quality versions of these recordings."

      There are also concerns that, if AI chooses a story and controls how it's presented, it might create an echo chamber, omitting context or skepticism that a journalist would likely provide.

      "AI-based news personalization tends to land firmly in the camp of delivering audiences what they want to know," Deck says.

      Deck says he's willing to give the Post's AI podcast a bit of time to see how it plays out. But Deck does have a chief concern: "I can say point blank, generative AI models hallucinate."

      And when AI models are wrong, he says, they're often confidently so.

      Blurring boundaries between human and AI voices could also raise questions of trust — a critical factor for a news organization.

      As Soto puts it, "What happens when your audience expects content from the real you and ends up finding AI instead?"

    2. Sponsored message
    3. Legendary OC venue to close
      Four people -- three men and one women -- posing in the backstage of a concert venue.
      No Doubt, Tony Kanal, Gwen Stefani, Adrian Young and Tom Dumont, backstage at the Wadsworth Theater before a taping of ABC Family's "Front Row Center" in Los Angeles, Ca. Sunday, November 11, 2001. *Exclusive* Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images.

      Topline:

      Sad news for pretty much anyone who went out to see bands big and small over the past few decades. A storied Orange County indie venue is closing down after some 30 years.

      Why it matters: Over the years the venue has hosted budding local bands and big acts alike, including No Doubt and Turnstile.

      Last shows: Chain Reaction in Anaheim announced on their Instagram that their final shows will be on Dec. 18 and Dec. 19. The Rancho Santa Margarita band Movements will headline.

      No word on why the venue is shutting down.

      "This call wasn't made quickly. We wrestled with it and have ultimately made the decision to close our doors," said Chain Reaction management on Instagram.

      "We want to thank you for the friendships and memories made in our special club. Thank you for supporting us through the years and when we needed it most," the post continued.

    4. Fewer characters went through with the procedure
      A teenage girl with brown hair and a jean jacket with a hospital bracelet on talks to a woman with a brownish-red sweater and short brown hair.
      Abby Ryder Fortson portrayed Kristi Wheeler, a teen who came into the hospital for a medication abortion, on The Pitt.

      Topline:

      Storylines about abortion and conversations about it showed up on television 65 times this year, on prestigious dramas like The Pitt and Call the Midwife, on reality shows such as W.A.G.s to Riches and Love is Blind and on lowbrow animated comedies like Family Guy and South Park. That's about the same as last year. In 2024, TV shows featured 66 such plotlines.

      Why it matters: "I think there still is a lot of stigma, even in allegedly liberal Hollywood," says researcher Steph Herold. She says the report, which has come out for about a decade, reflects a profound lack of accurate representation of abortion use in America.

      Read on ... for more details from the annual Abortion Onscreen report.

      Storylines about abortion and conversations about it showed up on television 65 times this year, on prestigious dramas like The Pitt and Call the Midwife, on reality shows such as W.A.G.s to Riches and Love is Blind and on lowbrow animated comedies like Family Guy and South Park. That's about the same as last year. In 2024, TV shows featured 66 such plotlines.

      But in the past few years, there's been a significant drop in the number of characters who actually went through with an abortion. 37% obtained an abortion in 2025, a 14% decline since 2023.

      That's according to the annual Abortion Onscreen report. It comes from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, a research program on abortion and reproductive health based at the University of California San Francisco.

      "I think there still is a lot of stigma, even in allegedly liberal Hollywood," says researcher Steph Herold. She says the report, which has come out for about a decade, reflects a profound lack of accurate representation of abortion use in America. For example, she points to research showing that about 60% of real life Americans who seek an abortion deal with some sort of barrier.

      "But only about a third of people who are characters on screen face any kind of barrier to abortion," Herold said. "Whether it was not being able to come up with the cost of the abortion, not having somebody to watch their kids or cover for them at work, having to deal with clinics that are miles away, or in other states having insurance that wouldn't cover the cost." Most TV shows in 2025 depicting women struggling to get abortions focused on legal obstacles in the past and present.

      On TV, 80% of characters seeking abortions are upper or middle class, but in real life, most abortion patients struggle to make ends meet. "This [disparity] obscures the role that poverty plays in obstructing access to abortion, and perhaps explains why we so rarely see plotlines in which characters wrestle with financial barriers to abortion access," the study says.

      This year, a teenager on The Pitt sought abortion pills to end her pregnancy — one of only three stories depicting medication abortion out of 65 plotlines about abortion this year. That's another disparity between representation on-screen and real-world numbers: research shows that abortion pills account for the majority of abortions in the U.S. Another difference: only 8% of people seeking abortion on TV are parents. In real life, most abortion patients have at least one child.

      It is unrealistic, says Herold, to expect TV to perfectly reflect current abortion use in the U.S., but she said she was disappointed by certain trends. Fewer characters this year received emotional support around their abortions, and more shows, she said, including Chicago Med, 1923, Breathless and Secrets We Keep featured plotlines that emphasized shame and stigma around abortions, especially because of religion. These storylines, the report says, "both obscure the diversity of religious observance among people having abortions, portraying religious patients as exclusively Christian, and also only associating religion with prohibiting abortion, instead of being a meaningful or supportive part of someone's abortion decision-making and experience."

      But even though abortion has long been a hot-button political issue, Herold says millions of Americans have had some sort of experience with abortions. "Whether it's having one themselves or helping a daughter or a friend," she said, adding that stories that reflect a diversity of abortion experiences will be familiar to many viewers.

      One bright spot, she added, was that television is doing a better job of reflecting the racial realities of abortion. A slight majority of characters in abortion plotlines are people of color — and although they are by far the majority of abortion seekers in real life, this marks a notable improvement from a decade ago, when TV shows more often portrayed women seeking abortions as wealthy and white.

    5. Is the brightest meteor show of the year
      A meteor is seen burning in space over a desert. Various stars surround the meteor. A caravan of stargazers is seen in the bottom left.
      A meteor burns up in the sky over al-Abrak desert north of Kuwait City during the annual Geminid meteor shower.

      Topline:

      Geminids, the strongest meteor shower of the year hit their peak this weekend.

      Why it matters: Over 150 meteors per hour are expected to burn through the night sky tonight and Sunday.

      Read on ... to find the best places and learn the best time to watch the celestial phenomenon.

      Geminids, the strongest meteor shower of the year, hit a peak this weekend, sending over 150 meteors per hour through the night sky tonight and Sunday.

      Vanessa Alarcon, an astronomical observer at the Griffith Observatory, says despite being the best and brightest every year, these meteors don’t tend to get many fans.

      " It's usually not as heavily attended, I think because it's a lot colder in the winter. So it's definitely a deterrent, but technically, it's more meteors per hour than the Perseids are," Alarcon said.

      The Perseids are typically visible between July and August, but this summer, they were mostly drowned out because of light pollution from the full moon.

      Alarcon says it will be a different story this weekend.

      " The Geminids ... there's about a 25% crescent moon. So it's actually going be even better than the Perseids," Alarcon said.

      Where to go for the best view

      For the best viewing experience, you'll have to brave the cold of the deserts and mountains at night, but it should be worth the trip.

      "You should go to a darker sky," Alarcon said. "And basically, you just want to get away from the city lights — anything away from the city lights is going to be an improvement from trying to watch it at home."

      When to best see it

      The Geminids are notable for being exceptionally bright, burning like fireballs for several seconds. The meteors can be seen after 8 p.m. tonight, Alarcon said, peaking between 1:20 and 2:20 a.m. and visible until 5:20 a.m.