Gimlet’s weak take on the story feels personal. It feels like something in between burying the lede and rooting for the villain. The way they’ve handled it is disappointing, as is the decision to choose him as their subject in the first place.

To be fair, there’s this obvious counterpoint: if we don’t like it, why don’t we just tune out these episodes, instead of writing all about it on the internet? And that’s an okay point — that’s the path most of our team has taken. One of our writers, Ashley Lusk, put it this way: “after this week, I absolutely refuse to expend energy or clicks on things I’m morally against. It feels like the only stand I can take.” Right now, at a time when a morally corrupt, sexually predatory man has become the actual leader of the free world, it feels like we don’t really need to be elevating the story of another. But if podcasts are to be taken seriously as a form of media, then we, as listeners, have an obligation to think critically about what’s being presented.

But I’m not tuning out, because it’s important to draw attention to Gimlet’s decision-making here. And I’m writing about it because… well, because it makes me feel frustrated. Gimlet has a large dedicated following, and their choices and stories have an impact on their audience. Even if all the ‘issues’ are addressed thoroughly, is it something that’s worth our time as listeners? “I don’t want to tune in to 4 episodes only for you to facilitate a sexual predator’s comeback,” wrote one (ex) listener in response to a tweet from StartUp. “I personally don’t wish to devote any of my time to listening to a story about him, esp. if the critique is buried,” wrote another. “[The] past allegations were so breezily dismissed in EP 1 — put a knot in my stomach,” one listener said.

I really do want to believe that the creative minds at Gimlet have some greater plan in mind. Maybe they’re trying to explore the concept of blind loyalty to morally corrupt people, and how it happens (and perhaps creating a story arc to draw comparisons to the election). Maybe they’ve got some plot twist in their pocket, some new evidence, something that will make all of these bad feelings worthwhile. But the bottom line is that Gimlet has the power, the potential, to leverage their position to bring attention to worthwhile, underrepresented stories, and they chose this instead; then, they handled the introduction of the story in such a dismissive, problematic way. It’s hard to imagine a satisfying conclusion to this story. But I will try to keep listening. And to the StartUp team: I really hope that you can prove me wrong.

Special thanks to Ashley Lusk and Dana Gerber-Margie for editing assistance on this article.

The Bello Collective is a publication + newsletter about podcasts and the audio industry. Our goal is to bring together writers, journalists, and other voices who share a passion for the world of audio storytelling.

Subscribe to the Bello Collective weekly newsletter for more stories, podcast recommendations, audio industry news, and more.

Hey, readers! Do you have an idea for an op/ed about podcasts & the audio journalism industry? Learn more about writing for the Bello Collective.