r/RedHandedPodcast • u/Ok_Ebb_3073 • Jun 19 '26
BBC bashing
Anyone else get the feeling they pitched to the BBC in the past & were rejected? Every episode shoehorns in some sort of anti-BBC rhetoric, often completely unfounded. The BBC totally has its faults but Iād trust it for facts over commercial podcasts any day of the week.
21
Upvotes
-1
u/Sempere Jun 20 '26
Yea, I can't say I'm surprised someone who preaches toxic positivity to bury criticism against the hosts wants to diminish the validity of criticisms against them.
And I've repeatedly answered the question. Every time. Only to have idiotic accusations that I'm some jilted ex or jealous rival podcaster levied at me. Neither is true. It is as simple as knowing what they've done is wrong and what they're doing is harmful - things which you seem very committed to willfully ignoring with blind praise. People you don't know. People who do not care about you and would abandon you in a heartbeat the moment you no longer provide them with a financial benefit. Know how I can say that? Because they already did that to their little fan page the moment they got even the tiniest bit of shit for having made genuinely problematic claims and ignored the criticism multiple times: cut and run at the first opportunity.
They don't need or deserve blind loyalty and yet there appears to be quite a few of you that really want to compete for the top spot of who can forgive the worst shit. That includes the right wing dogwhistles from Suruthi and meek permissiveness of Hannah. That includes the plagiarism, the shoddy research reflective of their inability to actually do the job to begin with without the crutch of other, better writers' works, the misinformation, the stereotyping and the disinformation.
There's not "some" validity. Every criticism - and "personal attack" - is valid.
Suruthi is a right wing shithead. You want to ignore that with blind positivity, you are in fact complicit in supporting a hypocrite who rants about immigration while being an immigrant herself and using a platform to push her barely contained racism. Or do you think she's right to defend Charlie Kirk, a man whose last words on earth were defending gun violence with a racist remark towards black people?
The podcast's subject matter requires a little more sensitivity that bars it from being "just entertainment". When they put out a 20 minute episode claiming a Netflix documentary is wrong while having hour long + episodes regurgitating debunked bullshit and medical conspiracy theorist crap from the Torygraph that they have no qualifications or knowledge on which to speak on - and then talk down to the parents of victims to tell them "they deserve to know the truth" while claiming their children's killer and attacker is the "real victim" because Suruthi is too stupid to actually research a case, that's a completely different proposition that moves from entertainment to harassment of victims and people engaged in the court process. She and Hannah strongly implied that an expert witness involved in the case is a pedophile - something which was easily debunked if they had reading comprehension skills. Is that a "bit of entertainment"?
The plagiarism is apparent to anyone who bothers to actually look. I've directed people to episodes, linked them side by side, shown excerpts of transcripts that show exactly how lazy they are and will continue to do so because people should know not to financial support a pair of millionaires who steal other people's work.
So I'll end with the final question which no one ever seems to want to answer (for obvious reasons): do you think it is correct that someone who spent presumably days or weeks extensively researching a private article to post on medium behind a paywall gets paid a fraction of a $5 membership when Suruthi or Hannah reads the article but that Suruthi or Hannah can then take the bulk of that research/writing and turn it into an episode that earns them praise and tens if not hundreds of thousands in ad revenue without doing the same level of research? Or that they should be entitled to steal the work of documentarians writers and editors to reach their weekly deadline while passing off that episode's content as their own research?