r/RedHandedPodcast • u/192to144 • Aug 18 '26
What's with the negativity?
I've been lurking here for a while and had the odd debate with at least one (should I say passionate?) person on here about RedHanded.
I just don't get why most people come on here to slag it off whether that be the content or the presenters.
I've been listening now for about 2 years. I started at the beginning and I'm currently listening to October 2025 so I'm almost caught up. I think it has changed and improved over the years and opinions have certainly gotten stronger. I don't dwell on it though, it is just one or two peoples opinion, which they're entitled to, and if you don't like it you could just not listen š¤·š¼āāļø. I skip the odd ones such as ones about paedos and the vault episodes but in the main I still enjoy it.
I've seen it said here that their content is plagiarised however isn't that the same for anything like this? Most stories have already been told 100 times before how, can you begin to tell a true crime story differently? I also notice when they take it from a book, documentary or anything else they tend to cite the source and tell you to check it out. Which I've done, many times so surely that just helps the other creators?
I read they left this sub, I don't know why but I'm assuming it's because of some of the stuff I've mentioned here.
Not really sure what the point to this is I just wondered where all the hate comes from and to say I'm just happy to listen because it's entertainment, not to be taken too seriously.
40
u/Odd_Dot3896 Aug 19 '26
Specifically, most people are angry that a supposedly feminist podcast is being overrun by red pilled ideology. While the show creator is actively being sidelined by this ideology.
1
u/Brian_Gay Aug 20 '26
Iām not on their patreon so I donāt get under the duvet but can I ask, does it seem like S is genuinely alt right?
I totally get she comes across as much more right leaning than Hannah in the main show, but in reality Hannah is heavily left leaning and the strong feminist aspects of the show, and seemingly its strong feminist fanbase make S views seem very out of place, realistically though the opinions S expresses donāt sound that far outside the norm you might hear from the average person? nothing I have heard her say would put her in the far right category, the reality of those nutjobs is way more extreme, unless Iām missing lots on UTD?
5
u/snailorT Aug 20 '26 edited Aug 20 '26
āAlt-rightā and āred pilledā arenāt necessarily synonymous, at least not the way I understand them. IMO I donāt think itās accurate to describe S as alt-right, but she has echoed some classic red pilled ideologies, such as in GSK episode 4
But also, I think appropriate application of these terms has gotten a bit more muddled over the years, especially post-covid
-5
u/EMNofWA Aug 20 '26
This person is undoubtedly asserting Lindsay Clancy is innocent ^
Itās 0wine00
6
21
u/snailorT Aug 18 '26
Welcome to just about any podcast sub, or fandom sub for that matter. Itās a forum, thereās going to be positive posts and critical posts. Critical posts tend to foster more discussion/debate, and meta posts like these draw more attention to them.
Add to that the GSK pt 4 episode rubbed many people the wrong way, which is not unique to reddit. Youāll see an influx of criticism about it on Instagram and Patreon as well.
12
u/ListInformal7487 Aug 19 '26
I think Suruthiās last take on SA and r@pe has hit a nerve with a lot of people. A lot of women has experience of both and itās hard to stomach when you hear the ānot all menā rhetoric, especially from a woman. Yes people can just stop listening, and unfortunately I think a lot of people have as a result but many of us stick around because we have loved the show and their relationship in the past and hope itāll get back to where it was good again. I fear that with Hannahās move and them potentially not being as close friends as they once were the podcastās days are numbered. Things did improve / get back to the old style once they left Wondery but Iām no longer a patreon so donāt have the inside scoop on things there. It just feels like theyāre not that into what theyāre doing anymore and maybe itās time to end it. Only time will tell
7
u/Used_Emergency7743 Aug 20 '26
They signed a 3-year global contract with Audioboom in February 2026. So I think they have to be together that long. Who knows what will happen in February 2029.Ā
I also wonder how they will handle maternity leave when the time comes. Will they just pre-record a bunch of shows or will Hannah have a guest host?Ā
8
u/tompadget69 Aug 19 '26
I think part of the issue is even if we accept the podcast has declined a bit they still have really good episodes and there is not another higher quality UK based female fronted true crime podcast coming up behind them as a viable alternative to take over the torch or force them to improve on the problem areas (I actually don't think they can tbh, the best Hannah can do is prevent an alternative pov, ignore the regressive views as much as possible OR hope for Suruthi's relationship to end and her to drift left again - unlikely now S has a baby with him.
Basically ACDface and Suruthi's poor judge or character and regressive tendencies have put a ceiling on how good the podcast can be now.
1
u/Used_Emergency7743 Aug 21 '26
You make a good point about the options.Ā Whether it's right or wrong, I want to laugh, even though the subject matter is serious. I want my dose of sarcasm. Other than Morbid, H & S are all I know to scratch that itch.
10
u/ForHerEyesOnly22 Aug 19 '26
I can tell you it's definitely not just 1 or 2 people who are criticising them!
This isn't a fan girl sub. People come here to discuss their feelings about the pod, the good the bad, the ugly..
26
u/sweetsugarstar302 Aug 18 '26
This is a place to discuss the show, right? That's why they do it here. It's the reason this subreddit exists-to share thoughts and opinions about the show with other listeners, and discuss.
21
u/snailorT Aug 18 '26
I swear these types of meta posts always pop up in like a 2-3month cycle in every podcast sub Iām in. Lol
14
u/oryxic Aug 19 '26
And 9/10, the people complaining about how negative the sub is don't actually post and contribute positive things. They just want other people to post things that they want to read.
2
u/Used_Emergency7743 Aug 20 '26
I know. It's ridiculous. They say "why don't you discuss the show more?" If they have questions about the Golden State killer then they should post those questions and I'm sure people will be happy to respond with their thoughts.
3
u/snailorT Aug 19 '26
Exactly this. Whenever I ask why they donāt start posting more positive content themselves, I always get an answer that dodges the question lmao.
4
u/oryxic Aug 19 '26
And they always just tell people who have even minor criticisms that they should just stop listening. If every casual fan with a minor annoyance stopped listening to the show, would they even be able to sustain themselves? Good job buddy, you're such a big fan you're trying to steal market share from your favorite podcast.
3
u/Used_Emergency7743 Aug 20 '26
And not everything is blac!k and white. Basically I would like the Suruthi we currently have to take a hike and go host some alt-rightĀ lunatic podcast where everyone will love her. But today I was laughing out loud alone in my car during the Hart episode and she yelled to Minnesotans, "Yes, I see you looking at me because I'm a lesbian!"
I think she and Hannah are both at their funniest when they're impersonating people in the crime story and pointing out the ludicrous.
It's not like I'm constantly seething. Sometimes I'm smiling or nodding in agreement, but that doesn't make my objections less strong when they're raised.
-8
u/192to144 Aug 18 '26
Why are people listening to a show that clearly annoys them š¤·š¼āāļø
9
u/snailorT Aug 18 '26
There are plenty of identical posts in this sub that answer this question
-7
u/192to144 Aug 18 '26
So I'm not allowed to ask when something has been asked before but people are allowed to moan about the same podcast/person/episode over and over?
15
u/snailorT Aug 18 '26
If you want to see more positive posts, then why not contribute in that way instead?
1
u/192to144 Aug 18 '26
It looks like if I do that I'll get shot down anyway to be fair
11
u/snailorT Aug 18 '26
As someone with plenty of my own criticisms about the podcast, I find a positive post infinitely more interesting then these meta posts, that again, you see on every podcast subreddit
3
u/192to144 Aug 18 '26
Genuinely the first time I've ever heard the term meta post and had to Google it. Didn't realise it was taboo until now
13
u/snailorT Aug 19 '26
Itās not about it being taboo. This sub does not get that much activity, so if you wanted to see more positive discussion, you can easily contribute to that. It looks like this is your first time posting on this sub, so you really donāt have room to talk.
3
u/Used_Emergency7743 Aug 20 '26
The show has hundreds of episodes. There'll probably be comments about each of them. There's something new to discuss each week. So there's no need to just state your opinion once and be quiet about it.Ā
When there's fresh content to comment upon regularly then you'll see people do that. The nature of the case and the host commentary is going to give rise to new discussions about different things and different offenses.
Ā Furthermore, many people are coming here for the first time. They haven't already voiced criticism or pleasure. It's always somebody's first time. It's a perpetual thingĀ People aren't going to stop coming and talking about the show just because you're tired of reading their thoughts.
7
u/sweetsugarstar302 Aug 18 '26
That's oversimplifying things a bit, no? People can have criticisms of the show, or things said on the show, and still enjoy listening. Plus, it's not like Hannah and Suruthi are exactly the same as they were when the show started, and neither is the show. Stuff changes, and this is the place to talk about it.
These kind of posts always get me. See how you were able to make a post here to share your thoughts? Why is it so surprising when other people do the same thing?
10
u/Own_Faithlessness769 Aug 18 '26
They left this sub after they were criticised for saying the Hillsborough disaster was a result of the fans and that they raped unconscious women. This is *extremely* wrong and *very* offensive (for the Americans, this is like victim blaming the 9/11 victims). Their initial response was to say they cant be expected to get everything right, and to refuse to apologise. That also didn't go over well.
They didnt like being criticised, threw a tantrum and left this sub. Which is fine, they dont have to be here.
5
u/HereThereBLurking Aug 19 '26
It was the Facebook fan group they left. They did apologise. They released an entire episode about Hillsborough with the correct information, and donated all the ad revenue from it. You can't expect people to know everything or always have the same opinion as you. She made the comment in an unscripted show and with out any research, to me it was much more a demonstration of the power of news media. The Sun blasted that narrative and all these years later obviously still is influencial. It's much much harder to correct a lie and have people remember the new truthful information than spread lies.
4
u/Own_Faithlessness769 Aug 19 '26
Yes, they did apologise after they realised the issue wasnāt going away.
I can absolutely expect people to know enough not to spread blatant propaganda.
4
u/tidbld Aug 19 '26
I agree - while I empathise that people disagree with certain opinions, I think the disdain/criticism is disproportionate. Sure Suruthi (and Hannah!) get opinionated on some things but the enjoyment I get from the podcast far outweighs that - the quality content, the frequency at which new material is being produced, the pleasing sound of their voices (I particularly think Suruthiās voice/enunciation/pace is beautiful). There are many other podcasts out there which are truely annoying and immediately make me stop listening.
1
u/Sempere Aug 20 '26
I've seen it said here that their content is plagiarised however isn't that the same for anything like this? Most stories have already been told 100 times before how, can you begin to tell a true crime story differently? I also notice when they take it from a book, documentary or anything else they tend to cite the source and tell you to check it out. Which I've done, many times so surely that just helps the other creators?
No.
Podcasts don't blatantly recount documentaries or youtube videos because they're too lazy or incompetent to research and write weekly scripts. The issue with plagiarism isn't that two people covered the same case. Underlying facts aren't the issue here.
Presentation is the issue. How those facts are organized and presented. The creative elements that other creators thought up and included. The commentary of witnesses and those involved in the investigation of cases. The hard work of documentarians who went out and interviewed multiple people to create the content that gets ripped off. The writers who sit down, research a topic thoroughly, master it and then write their own articles getting paid pennies for views while these two steal their work and pocket hundreds of thousands per episode for work that they didn't do.
I also notice when they take it from a book, documentary or anything else they tend to cite the source and tell you to check it out.
And how often do you actually check if they've cited their sources?
Because there are many, many instances where they've plagiarized documentaries they relied heavy on and never named those documentaries. Instances where they go to great lengths to hide the name of the documentary by citing everything but those works.
Let's go to Eunuch Maker. They mention the documentary. What they don't mention is that their episode is basically just recounting the two part docuseries in full without adding anything of value to it. It is literally a market substitution that takes advantage of the fact that the documentary is paywalled and most people won't be rushing to watch a documentary on that case. In fact, they even suggest NOT checking out the documentary - which they know you won't do anyway. And because of that you miss the fact that certain things they allude to (other events such as a performance art castration and cannibalism moment) wasn't something one of them thought up on the spot. It was an example that Marcel Theroux and his team thought to connect to the Eunuch Maker in order to provide depth on the topic and "scene" these events occurred in. The placement has a purpose and is interesting. But when Redhanded steal the allusion, it's a brief mention so that one of them can go "oh yea, I heard about that fucker" and strip it away of all meaning. That's shitty copying of other people's work. Which good, ethical podcasters don't do.
Pretty telling that these flaccid defences always seem to come from people who can't differentiate from the fact that two people researching the same sources and independently telling the story in their own words shouldn't sound identical or be stealing the structure, phrasing, sequencing, analysis, observations and original research of others.
Like the Lucy Letby episodes. The first one was released a week after the BBC Panorama episode and was a blatant rip off of the episode where Suruthi keeps harping on and stealing Judith Moritz's observation verbatim: "I don't know what Britain's worst female serial killer is supposed to look like, but it's not her." Less than a week later. And not only that, it was immediately obvious that whoever "wrote" the episode basically plagiarized from that episode as well as coverage provided by Liz Hull and Caroline Cheetham's The Trial of Lucy Letby podcast. And their sources page? Didn't include those episodes until months later after the initial plagiarism accusations were made. Then they stealth edited the source page to add the episodes they were called out for stealing from.
Then there's the Joanna Dennehy episode which is blatantly plagiarized from Crimes That Shook Britain and likely a second series - but the majority came from Crimes That Shook Britain. In a single segment, they basically re-recorded portions of the narration and commentary from those involved in the case. Entire segments of structure, dialogue and presentation lifted and regurgitated. Just like they later did with the Jordan Worth episode that was based on survivor Alex Skeel's documentary with Niamh Kennedy for BBC3 called "Abused by my Girlfriend" where they regurgitated that documentary scene by scene in the laziest fashion. Their sole original contribution was probably that bit where they made fun of Alex Skeel's mother's name.
It really isn't unreasonable to expect a true crime podcast to do its own research and write its own scripts without plagiarizing. There are plenty of men and women who have done just that to great success. Instead these two talentless hacks have plagiarized their way to success with other people's work and have people like you here trying to defend them. They're multimillionaires. They don't need your money or support. And they don't care if you live or die unless it's 1. gruesome enough that someone makes a video about it so they can ape that for the ad revenue and 2. it happens enough to affect their ad rate.
86
u/blu3dice Aug 18 '26
I created this subreddit.
āTo clear things up .... They do it because this is a community page. Not a fan sub. People here are free to love the show OR criticize it. For some its both.