“This podcast added heat, rather than light, to the topic of what is true by ridiculing people with unusual beliefs.
I would have preferred a more exploratory discussion presenting different perspectives in a respectful light. For example using philosophical and possibly Pacific / indigenous perspectives would have been interesting.
Secondly, natural justice requires the accused, or in this case the derided, to be given a right of reply. The podcast just came across as a hatchet job. Judge, jury and journalist is not a good look: especially for a public broadcaster.
Ironically the podcast showed that exploring complex and contentious issues such as what are justified, true beliefs is best not handled by smug, derisive journalists motivated by podcast ratings on social media. It is truly sad that the ABC has to come to this.”
Paikea Ngati Porou via Apple Podcasts ·
Australia ·
08/31/21