Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

What do you think of the Andrew Gold podcast?

49 replies

imabitjealousandembarassed · 05/12/2025 06:54

I was introduced to it by my brother . It's called Heretics, some of the guests seem deliberately controversial. Host seems to be louis theroux inspired. Does anyone else watch?

OP posts:
SelfRaisingFlour · 05/12/2025 07:07

It's called Heretics so it is "deliberately controversial". I listen to it if I'm interested in the guest. He's a good interviewer and it's interesting to get the point of view of people who may have been demonised.

LaLaLoca · 05/12/2025 07:08

I have listened to this podcast and feel that the content is presented as intellectual debate but is dangerously racist/xenophobic and had to stop listening.

Gold uses his Jewish identify as some kind of indemnity to justify his stance, he also has some deeply unsavoury guests and seems to have a crush on Tommy Robinson.

jeaux90 · 05/12/2025 07:15

I quite like him. I particularly liked the one he did with that weirdo Helen Webberley. I enjoyed her mental gymnastics. He has a very nice style.

GeneralPeter · 05/12/2025 07:21

LaLaLoca · 05/12/2025 07:08

I have listened to this podcast and feel that the content is presented as intellectual debate but is dangerously racist/xenophobic and had to stop listening.

Gold uses his Jewish identify as some kind of indemnity to justify his stance, he also has some deeply unsavoury guests and seems to have a crush on Tommy Robinson.

Was it dangerous that you listened to it? Or is it only other people who might be dangerously led astray?

There are a couple of guests I dislike (TR being one), but knowing more about him and what he thinks and why is helpful. Gold also aired many gender critical feminists at a time when the BBC and mainstream media were freezing them out as ‘dangerous’ too. If I had to take both or neither, both is far far preferable.

Original poster
imabitjealousandembarassed · 05/12/2025 07:25

SelfRaisingFlour · 05/12/2025 07:07

It's called Heretics so it is "deliberately controversial". I listen to it if I'm interested in the guest. He's a good interviewer and it's interesting to get the point of view of people who may have been demonised.

No I get the point of the title etc , but even given that, some of the guests hold extreme views

OP posts:
Original poster
imabitjealousandembarassed · 05/12/2025 07:28

I would say I'm a leftie by nature but I do find it important to listen to a range of views and consider them. His style is ok, sometimes a bit annoying when he pretends not to know things he clearly does as he then says the correct thing in the next sentence. That's just podcasts generally though I guess.

OP posts:
Soontobe60 · 05/12/2025 07:31

imabitjealousandembarassed · 05/12/2025 07:25

No I get the point of the title etc , but even given that, some of the guests hold extreme views

Show quote history

Yes - that’s the whole point! Who wants to listen to a podcast of Joe Bloggs from next door talking about how he watches Homes Under the Hammer every Wednesday before he goes to Asda for his tea?
It’s controversial, challenging and gives people something to think about.

RedTagAlan · 05/12/2025 07:31

I used to watch him a couple of years ago, but stopped when the Daily Mail style right wing undertones started to bubble to the surface.

LaLaLoca · 05/12/2025 07:32

@GeneralPeter that’s a really good point you have raised. As a liberal I want to challenge my personal views, friends had mentioned this podcast as being pretty balanced, and Gold as an intuitive interviewer.
It made me question certain aspects of multiculturalism that created dissonance; which to a point had validity, then the discussion pushed some unsettling (to me) typically populist ideology. Just my thoughts and that’s why I had to stop listening, more for my own sanity as the world seems so sadly divisive right now.

Mentalhealthgym · 05/12/2025 07:47

Listen sometimes because it's good to leave my bubble and he's prolific and has a lot of guests from outside the bubble.

But think he's a bad interviewer, talks about himself too much, and is disingenuous. And the themes they tend to talk about have become repetitive - so it's all become less interesting.

If anyone has any recommendations for a better quality alternative with guests and discussion with a more right wing / self-confessedly "anti-woke" angle, would appreciate them.

CurlewKate · 05/12/2025 07:52

I listen because “know thy enemy”

Original poster
imabitjealousandembarassed · 05/12/2025 07:52

Mentalhealthgym · 05/12/2025 07:47

Listen sometimes because it's good to leave my bubble and he's prolific and has a lot of guests from outside the bubble.

But think he's a bad interviewer, talks about himself too much, and is disingenuous. And the themes they tend to talk about have become repetitive - so it's all become less interesting.

If anyone has any recommendations for a better quality alternative with guests and discussion with a more right wing / self-confessedly "anti-woke" angle, would appreciate them.

Yes!! Disingenuous sums it up. Couldn't put my finger on it!

OP posts:
Sequinsontoast754 · 05/12/2025 08:11

I listen to a lot of podcasts while doing my job and there is a certain disingenuousness about him that I dislike. Faux naivety. Actually that’s why I dislike Louis Theroux too.

He’s obviously bright and ambitious but I sense rather a large ego and a fair bit of misogyny.

I would have said his style was more slick
tabloid than intellectual but each to their own.

Marinade · 05/12/2025 08:28

Its not disengenious though, its a known interview style used successfully by Louis Theroux to ask a question you already know the answer to, but pretend that you dont..... He is doing it to inform the listeners not for himself.... I personally like his approach.

I think its good to present a different viewpoint and challenge your own thoughts.

JacquesHarlow · 05/12/2025 08:32

I think it is absolutely ghastly.

A third rate presenter is sitting there, usually with someone else opposite who didn’t make it in mainstream media.

and the entire show is just them bitching about their perception of an A-list presenter or top tier media personality.

if you’ve never listened to Radio 4 or read a serious journal you might think this is insightful. If so, you’ve found your podcast.

TheaBrandt1 · 05/12/2025 08:43

I found the whole trans gender ideology take over of the left eye opening. I no longer feel aligned to the left always felt it was my default but not any more. Now I listen to a broader range of views. Feel my eyes have been opened to be honest.

Marinade · 05/12/2025 13:20

JacquesHarlow · 05/12/2025 08:32

I think it is absolutely ghastly.

A third rate presenter is sitting there, usually with someone else opposite who didn’t make it in mainstream media.

and the entire show is just them bitching about their perception of an A-list presenter or top tier media personality.

if you’ve never listened to Radio 4 or read a serious journal you might think this is insightful. If so, you’ve found your podcast.

If you love operating only within your own silo and echo chamber then I guess its not for you...

BTW you are completely wrong as regards this point below. He covers way more issues than this. Have you ever watched it or are you just being a ghastly ignoramus?

and the entire show is just them bitching about their perception of an A-list presenter or top tier media personality.

GeneralPeter · 05/12/2025 13:50

JacquesHarlow · 05/12/2025 08:32

I think it is absolutely ghastly.

A third rate presenter is sitting there, usually with someone else opposite who didn’t make it in mainstream media.

and the entire show is just them bitching about their perception of an A-list presenter or top tier media personality.

if you’ve never listened to Radio 4 or read a serious journal you might think this is insightful. If so, you’ve found your podcast.

Like the PP, I’m wondering if you are talking about another show. Bitching about A-listers doesn’t really feature.

But also: if you only listen to R4 and read top-tier journals there are lots of perspectives you will be missing, and worse, you won’t even know what they are.

jeremyclarksonsthirdnipple · 05/12/2025 13:59

Love it ..never miss a pod ,who ever it is I always learn something i didn't know.

CurlewKate · 05/12/2025 14:57

JacquesHarlow · 05/12/2025 08:32

I think it is absolutely ghastly.

A third rate presenter is sitting there, usually with someone else opposite who didn’t make it in mainstream media.

and the entire show is just them bitching about their perception of an A-list presenter or top tier media personality.

if you’ve never listened to Radio 4 or read a serious journal you might think this is insightful. If so, you’ve found your podcast.

I don’t think we’re thinking about the same podcast.

junipery · 05/12/2025 15:05

I find it a bit disappointing. I don’t find he challenges guests enough, I’ve listened to a couple where it just feels like a chat. (I appreciate he has platformed the gender critical POV and I’m not anti that type of podcast.)

Sequinsontoast754 · 05/12/2025 15:07

Marinade · 05/12/2025 08:28

Its not disengenious though, its a known interview style used successfully by Louis Theroux to ask a question you already know the answer to, but pretend that you dont..... He is doing it to inform the listeners not for himself.... I personally like his approach.

I think its good to present a different viewpoint and challenge your own thoughts.

Obviously, I understand his reasons for adopting that style, but I still really dislike it!

I prefer more direct, honest respectful questioning. Properly open and curious. Not one that obviously has an agenda attached.

Marinade · 05/12/2025 15:16

Sequinsontoast754 · 05/12/2025 15:07

Obviously, I understand his reasons for adopting that style, but I still really dislike it!

I prefer more direct, honest respectful questioning. Properly open and curious. Not one that obviously has an agenda attached.

Show quote history

But don't you think all interviewers deploy this method in some way? They have researched their subject to the nth degree so likely already likely know the answers to the questions they pose - they just frame them differently..... For instance

I know you went to school in Brighton, but I believe you had a hard time fitting in.

The interviewer knows they had a hard time fitting in from their research.... Its all just done to inform the viewers and present information to them coherently. I don't think the way Andrew interviews is disengenious really when considered in this way.

Mentalhealthgym · 05/12/2025 17:45

I think a massive difference from Louis Theroux is that LT uses the naiive method to let subjects speak for themselves. And it opens things up and they say interesting things.

AG is trying to emulate it (he's even adopted a similar voice) but he talks way too much about himself and shuts things down. And he's internally disingenuous and inauthentic.

Original poster
imabitjealousandembarassed · 05/12/2025 19:19

The disingenuous thing is when he will say things like "who was that guy who..." and when the guest doesn't know he immediately remembers the name

OP posts: