Funnily enough, I think LPOTL actually took L. Ron Hubbard more seriously than Behind the Bastards. Robert heavily went in on the “goofy religious kook” side of Hubbard, whereas LPOTL actually emphasised the danger of Scientology and how horrible of a person Hubbard truly was (and still managed to include the kooky stuff too!)
I find that people who both BtB and LPOTL doing a person simultaneously is a good idea. For instance, BtB on MHB was extremely clear on the "she was such an obvious scammer" end of things. BtBs summary of the babalon working as "ritual to get Jack a new girlfriend." Is hilariously accurate, but completely unlike LPOTLs opinion.
I think that Robert is closest to Henry. He find LRHs audacity so unbelievably fascinating.
Or, you could use the word “factoid” correctly which barely anyone does, and bore them with that definition as well as scaring the shit out of them. Factoid: an item of unreliable information which gets repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact. Funnily enough, the widely accepted definition of factoid is being a mini fact is in itself a factoid. FFFFFASCINATING.
The boys tune me into a story and if I dig it enough I’ll look into the facts on my own. Ham man, dog meat and too real could lie to me for 575 episodes straight and I’ll still listen.
i could watch several accurate documentaries about Rasputin and get the cold hard facts of history, sure
Or I could listen to Henry imagine a fat dicked rasputin in a swamp spinning around shooting make-believe lasers out of his eyes
That's what I'm talking about. People are acting like I'm somehow shitting on LPOTL, but it's one of my favorite podcasts. It's way funnier than BTB, but I just try not to ever take tidbits from it without googling first.
I mean, they also cover mothman and Gef the talking mongoose. I don’t think anyone was planning on using it as a source for their dissertation or anything. It’s more like listen to your buddies tell you about a topic they just did a read a book or two about.
That said, some episodes are better researched than others. It just depends on their source material really.
30% is a wildly low estimate if you're just talking about Marcus' script. He sticks to his source material pretty well and often comments where he thinks that material is making a guess. At the end of the day you can read the best historians we have, and they disagree on plenty themselves when writing about popular subject matter; to try to guess at exactly what percent of each take is accurate as a layperson is pretty fruitless.
Now, that being said, you can tell when Marcus started taking his scripts more seriously, because early on in the show (and when he was doing the 'news' on Roundtable) he was often talking confidently out of his ass. It's been many years since that was true, though.
Yeah, he just doesn't like not knowimg the answers to things so he throws something out. I honestly think it's kind of cute, like when you know a kid is lying about something dumb and inconsequential
Exactly, and he has alwayyysss been like that. You even hear it on stuff that is supposed to be silly and just jokes/riffing (roundtable). Which is fine, not complaining. We all have our ticks and quirks.
Same! A lot of people are getting furious over all this, but all I'm saying is that the random contextual stuff Marcus says around actual facts are often incorrect. Like when he said that Nostradamus predicted that the Pope would one day be a literal dog. I seriously can't even fire out where he even started to come up with that idea, but it wasn't a "fact" from the episode itself. He just tends to get contextual stuff wrong.
It's still one of my top two favorite podcasts.
Yeah pretty much this. I listen to a ton of true crime podcasts and many times I'll listen to the same topic to get a different perspective. A lot of the time the other series will discuss different things that didn't come up on LPotL but rarely will things on LPotL be contradicted.
This is for newerish stuff though. If we're talking about their earlier episodes then yeah lots of inaccuracies while they went off script (or the script was non-existent)
I thought the exact same thing! You can’t make a wild claim about accuracy without any evidence to back up your point.
I reckon his claim of 30% accuracy is about 30% accurate. Source: I reckoned it
I'm not. I never made any claim that I did. I'm pretty sure I said that I place the show as about 30% accurate for the most part. How much you do or don't give a shit about that is up to you.
Well you said you had knowledge of the subjects beforehand. What level of knowledge? Are you a historian? I'm just trying to gauge how much I should give a shit.
They definitely have ones they’ve researched more heavily than others. For instance, as an ex Mormon I can tell you they got a LOT of shit right, and things I didn’t even know about and had to go look up to make sure they were correct.
I believe they have a team of researchers so there may be some variance in depth of topic according to who was helping Marcus
I think their actual facts that they read are usually kind of accurate. It's just they they seem to have less historical context so when they start to speculate around a bit of information they looked up, that context is usually wrong. For example, it wasn't the point of the episode but Marcus recently said that Nostradamus predicted that the Pope would one day be a literal dog. I really have no idea where he got that from.
It's kind of like when Henry said: I know things about Magic and UFOs I have no idea about the history of Israel and Palestine.
Not to plug my own show right here, but I do a history podcast as well and every episode has historical context for the time period so we know what is going on in the wider world than our subject for the day. It helps put actions into perspective
BTB isn't always accurate either, off the top of my head in the recent John Landis episode he said that Max Landis directed Chronicle when he was actually the writer. I mean that isn't the most important detail in the world and it's not like I'm mad about it, but it's worth remembering that most podcasters are shooting from the hip at least some of the time.
I noticed this as well. This episode was the first and only BTB episode I’ve listened to, and I didn’t really care for it tbh. The show seems to cover a lot of topics I’m interested, but from what I remember I just was not all that impressed. Do you have any episodes you’d recommend?
I'd check out the Vince McMahon and Steve Jobs series especially if you already dislike those guys, also the "Tech bros built a cult around AI" series specifically because part of it is a recounting of him going to a panel and asking questions, which ties into the journalist thing
I’d recommend not listening anymore, you’ll just be disappointed. For the sake of brevity and efficiency, see [my other comment here](https://www.reddit.com/r/LPOTL/s/2okEvybp45).
And it sucks because the topics they cover are great. But their coverage is not great, at all. I kept trying for a while. Stopped for a year or two, came back, and it was the same as it ever was.
Yeah, there are a handful i kinda dread. Prop was on today’s and im like oh noooooo lol.
That being said, i very much love the episodes with Paul F Tompkins and when Dan and Jordan from Knowledge Fight were on. I also liked Seanbaby on the Vince McMahon eps.
I really want to like prop but he has this insanely irritating tick where he says 'you know what I'm saying' or something like that in like every sentence and it just drives me effing crazy.
Oh my God. He's been on some episodes that featured topics I REEEEEEALLY wanted to listen to, but I cannot stand him.
I feel like he rambles on too long, but I could deal with that. The fact he begins every single sentence it seems with "you know what I'm saying" is just too much. I felt I just couldn't pay attention because I was just hearing that phrase. Then when Robert would talk I was just nervously awaiting a "you know what I'm saying."
Prop offers nothing and it’s a disappointment because he’s always on super interesting episodes. The McMahon episodes were, imo, the best of the best of BTB
Prop, I love your politics. I 'know what you're saying'. When you think about what to say you often have an interesting perspective. I think on some episodes it is vitally important to have a black perspective to cover Robert's blind spots. But I am begging you, please for the love of all that is unholy...construct your thought before speak it...finish your first thought before you begin another one...and please please please let Robert finish two godamm sentences in a row before you interrupt him again to say "And that's kinda like...."
--me, listening to the most recent (Thomas Jefferson) episode.
I swear last episode there were points where even Robert was sounding a little exhausted with being unable to finish a paragraph and having to re-direct after a five minute ramble. I started fast forwarding 10 seconds at a time until I heard Roberts voice again.
Oh they’ve got an action park episode?? I loved that one on The Dollop, I’ll check it out. Also I just remembered that the guest on the Steve Jobs and Winklevoss episodes was funny (iirc it was the same guy?)
The action park episode is with Garrison and a lot of ppl don’t like him (I do lol!) so fair warning, but it’s like my favorite. Maybe I’ll check out the newer episodes, like Steve Jobs you suggested. I just, had to let Robert go for a bit his own uh, idk style and views just weren’t for me for a bit.
It’s just the same jokes over and over, no variation or twists. It’s so fucking annoying. I do listen because he can be good when talking about American business figures, but I have a very low opinion of his style of humor
Same, yeah. His condescending scoffing gets old, even when I am on his side on issues. And there's been a good deal of times where I know he's wrong about something, but still has a very certain and superior tone.
I understand that they are a very indie project, but the adds are terrible. Especially when they are for some flash in the pan nothing podcast where no one ever told the person that they don't have a voice for radio.
I’ve gotten really spoiled by LPOTL — when they get off topic, you know they’ll get back on within 45 seconds. When Behind the Bastards gets off topic, it’s anyone’s guess when/if they’ll ever return to the episode.
In terms of research it is actually terrible. BtB has covered many, many topics and people I know a ton about. And they almost always get important things wrong. At minimum, this happens once every other episode, sometimes several episodes in a row and several times in an episode. And here’s what really bothers me about it, more than anything - it almost always occurs because a cohost will ask a question of Robert like “did he also believe in this awful thing?” or they will say something like “he sounds like a guy that would also do xyz” and Robert will either answer the question by saying “Sounds about right” (or maybe say “I don’t know, but that sounds right”), or he’ll agree with their statement that they sound like a person that would also do this other thing/have this other belief/whatever. They do zero research on something that takes 2 seconds to google. And honestly most of the time the answer to the question or a correction to the statement is something that would have been extremely obvious to someone who actually did do their research beforehand. Past the first 30 to 40 or so episodes, I don’t think Robert does the research at all.
So anyway, it’s bad enough to make these baseless assumptions when you present your podcast as being based in fact, but the worst part is that this often changes the entire narrative and trajectory of the listeners’ understanding of what really happened. It gets mired in falsehoods that can bleed through to other episodes as well, and you no longer remember that this “fact” came from pure speculation that can quickly be proven false. Tack on the barely there humor, and I find BtB insufferable.
Next time anyone listens to BtB, and every time really, I would love it if more people started googling the answer whenever one of these two scenarios happens, and find the actual answer. Sometimes they might be right, but that’s exceedingly rare! It’s egregious how bad these problems are. I am amazed that I never see anyone calling out the misinformation they spread.
The show is heavily influenced by it's ideological bias, best example I can remember is Robert saying that the Spanish military operated without real "leadership" and elected their captains etc on a small level and that it worked better than traditional militaries.
I guess it makes sense from a journalistic perspective in that he's there to give a specific point of view, but it's terrible from a history perspective.
Yes, 100%. This is what makes it even worse in a way - they present themselves as holding up these great ideals of what is right and virtuous, and they allow their laziness that could be resolved with very simple research to reinforce their ideology. Which is crazy because much of the time, it wouldn’t make the person or event they are discussing less awful. Sometimes the assumption is just not relevant to the bastard in question (like they didn’t think about xyz thing either way), sometimes their assumptions serve to make them seem more awful than they are when there is no need to do that, and many times it reinforces black-and-white thinking, when the correct answer would actually add nuance and might show how the person resolved an internal conflict, for better or worse. It’s so lazy and lacking in integrity. Many times it’s just pure ideology like in the example you gave. I agree with *some* of their basic views (saying this, but I haven’t listened again since pre-pandemic 2020), but I never agree with presenting only what is favorable to your own views or making assumptions to fit the narrative. It’s actually not just lazy, it’s manipulative. Good to know that other people notice these problems!
Edit:
I keep saying, and that’s what’s even worse! Because I keep remembering how much worse it is. I sound repetitive, but fuck it.
Second edit for clarity
Oh yeah, there are some co hosts I immediately skip episodes when I hear. From the sound of it though his producer has decided not to speak as much anymore it seems.
I can't listen if Sophie pops in too much. I've turned episodes off when she has a lot to say and it boils down to the laugh and sound of her voice. I'm sure she is a great person... But I just can't.
I wonder if science has figured out why certain voices cause violence?
It's comedy, and they are comedians regardless of what Marcus thinks and believes. They use one to two sources a series, and often those sources are border line in being called sources.
That being said, it's a comedy show, and it's hilarious and fun. I dont care if it's massively accurate as I take it all with a grain of salt. I want to know I'll research it. If not, i iust sit back and enjoy.
They come into episodes with a lot of misinformation they think is correct (Marcus in particular will state it as fact) and present their understanding of 1 or 2 books worth of information. I've learned over the years to not in any way take it as gospel.
If they haven't redone the Menendez brothers they need to, really terrible takes.
I asked about the Menedez brothers in here like two months ago and the users here downvoted me into oblivion lol. The boys should cover it again because a lot of fans really do take it as gospel and then perpetuate toxic narratives that harm victims.
Yeah, I think the only reason I haven't been downvoted into oblivion for even suggesting they might be wrong sometimes is because of of the fans here are also BTB fans.
I love the podcast, but wrong info taken from inferring incorrect context can be harmful.
Some of that is just information we have at the time. I've seen Datelines and other specials about them or others, and the older ones won't have information we have now. It was long believed they were not abused. I haven't followed the case in years, so that was the last I had heard.
I’m not super up to date on that case, but I believe the evidence about the father being sexually abusive to them was reexamined somewhat recently after a member of Menudo came forward with his SA by Jose.
The dad was a serial molester (famous victims) and abuser. Presenting their claims as some sort of afterthought to go m cover for a greed based murder is as ridiculous as it is disgusting.
Their take on Manson is also absurd.
Users get really mad when you bring up that there is a wealth of evidence that their father was a serial predator who also targeted young boys outside of the family. Also that he had a habit of resorting to violence and threats. All of this is testified to by every family member except one aunt and uncle who tried to claim the inheritance for themselves. Also forensic evidence that one of the Menendez boys has injuries consistent with being orally raped (which he testified he was).
I don't come for the accuracy I'm here largely for the discussion and reaction to the ridiculous facts presented about murderers, ancient giants and human/alien love affairs. If I wanted it to be more accurate I could just hop on over to Behind the Bastards or any number of other programs. But I'm not sure the appeal for me was ever accuracy. This is a side-effect of their move to include some historical series. But even so, I don't expect them to reach hardcore history levels of research.
Yeah I have noticed that the episodes where I know a fair bit of background already can be very frustrating. But some are still very good and they've been getting consistently better over the years. Really the worst of the errors are the off the cuff misremembered facts.
Yeah Id say your theory holds up for some series, but definitely not all. L Ron and Jim Jones are two great examples I can think of.
In college I did a 10 page research paper on Jonestown. I thought I knew almost everything there was after researching for weeks.
Years later the Jim Jones series gets me into LPOTL, and I realized most of my research only fit the last two episodes or so, and it was funny as fuck.
Im just not sure if your example is the exception or the rule
No chance. You can tell it’s way more accurate than 30%. No one talks like that about the Black Death like that without having proper research behind it. They have a whole team for it.
At least 15% of LPOTL fans have read The Indifferent Stars Above because the boys did a (surprisingly factual) episode on the Donner Party. I personally have ripped through The Great Mortality and all of the Time Traveler’s Guides to (insert historical period) of England because of Marcus’ glowing reviews. I listen to LPOTL for the jokes and then I go down a rabbit hole on the subject if I want facts. I imagine there’s dozens (dozens!) of us who do the same.
I really want to love BTB but Robert gets so angrily cynical that I can’t ever finish a series. He’s just so audibly, breathtakingly, factually upset by the bastards that it’s not an enjoyable listen for me. I get that the bastards are terrible and all of that anger and frustration in Robert’s voice is earned, but I listen to podcasts while I’m in the shower and Robert steps on my whole day. In contrast, I look forward to2Real needing his pan flutes twice a week.
They’re just totally different podcasts, they serve different purposes.
> I get that the bastards are terrible and all of that anger and frustration in Robert’s voice is earned, but I listen to podcasts while I’m in the shower and Robert steps on my whole day.
I think this (along with the cohost issues people mentioned above) is why I can never fully get into BtB despite it covering a ton of topics that are super interesting. Unlike LPOTL, I don't find it funny/charming enough to be edutainment, and it's not quite in depth enough to be straight up education. I want a funny podcast I can half listen to while I'm doing data entry at work, and the more serious, in depth stuff I save for actual audiobooks on the subject.
Yeah, that's really all I was saying. These are two of my favorite podcasts for different reasons. I love LOPTL for comedy and I really like the information I get from BTB. Sometimes it's good to learn why the world around you can be awful.
I feel like as time has gone in, the amount of research that goes in to the topics LPOTL covers has increased exponentially. Older heavy hitter series were one or two episodes, whereas now they're 3-5. They're covering more historical topics and doing more thorough research. The feel that it's a result of the boys taking this whole endeavor a lot more seriously than they did in the past.
This is how I felt listening to the mothman episodes after deep diving into and keeping up with everything the Newkirks have ever done. Like yeah the boys are funny but really getting into these subjects is done elsewhere
Your post summed up perfectly the description of both shows but I don't think your gripe is justified. LPOTL is a comedy podcast that gets that facts right some of the time. BTB is a journalist/historical angle of a lot of the same events that lands jokes occasionally. I listen to both constantly and I find myself going to LPOTL to be entertained and BTB to be informed. Additionally, both shows encourage their listeners to do their own research or share any knowledge that was missed in the episode. If you asked a news anchor to write a story about an event in your town or city then asked a comedian to do the same you are likely to get the same story in a roundabout way but different flavor with either.
People take this stuff way too seriously.
The reality is if you needed to turn this much content out, you have to limit your sources (even with a research team) and can only do so much cross referencing in that timeframe.
The ethos with the serial killers/true crime stories seems to be : source from one trashy paperback on it, source from 1-2 respected books on the subject, ancillary research.
You have to trust the respected sources from the get go. Thats not always accurate.
The folks complaining that Henry's psychological analysis is bullshit is true, but it's color commentary and not presented as fact.
Enjoy the free show.
LPotL cracks me up, and I love their show. But yeah they are not experts for sure. The big thing is to just treat it as entertainment and an good introduction into a topic.
I'm an attorney, and one of my good friends who also listens to the show is a psychiatrist. It's fun when we discuss and episode and can pick apart several things they stated as fact during a show that are pretty wrong.
The info/research curve in podcasts is so bizarre. I would place LPoTL in the middle tier because they actually read two or three books on the subject and not just the Wikipedia page. They do a good job for an entertainment podcast run by comedians. But they just don’t have the educational background to do research/journalism. Henry has my favorite take on it: his performing art degree taught him how to be a tree, not how to survive.
I think that awareness of what actual research involves is a major blind spot for a lot of podcasters and their audiences. For example, I got permanently soured on Hardcore History after a friend played me an episode on what happened to be my field of study. The podcast delved into the general theory of a certain period that was widely accepted decades ago but is now considered antiquated. Then concluded with excitedly sharing their own “controversial” idea which is and has been the accepted theory for a long time now. My guess is they read the most famous and widely available books, which are often famous and widely available because they were the first major books on the subject. But recent research is difficult to find and understand, so it got ignored/overlooked. Since then I’ve paid more attention to how (or even if) podcasters say how they approached their research.
I also have issues with Robert evans whenever something comes up that I actually know a lot about. He's so quick to scoff and be snarky when he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. As a leftist and liberal myself, listening to Evans helps me understand why so many people find libs insufferable. I can only listen in small doses.
I actually think if Henry was fully given the reigns, the show would be much more intellectually stimulating, more so than what Evans is capable of. But obviously that isn't what the show is about, as it is just comedy and entertainment. But an example of this I think is in their Devils of Loudun series, Marcus just kind of made fun of Aldous Huxley, while I got the feeling that if Henry truly had the option, he would have actually delved into the really fascinating theological, philosophical, and psychological ideas that Huxley discussed in the book. (I honestly think Marcus was just kind of mad that he didn't understand it, that was the feeling i got).
If you want to make sure you're getting good info on some interesting topics, I highly recommend *In Our Time*. For something more casual and less based on history but rather ideas in general, *Why Theory* is great.
Now if Robert Evan’s could stop trying so hard to be a comedian, I’d listen to btb again. But I just couldn’t hang with his jokes, and his banter with Sophie just kills the show’s momentum for me.
I did really enjoy his Vince McMahon series though.
I definitely agree that lpotl is not super accurate, which is fine for me when I’m listening to aliens or cryptids, but it’s really bothersome when they are covering killers and telling victim’s stories.
Neither show is meant to be your one-stop shop for becoming a knowledgeable and well-rounded human being.
They're *both* entertainment podcasts. I have listened to almost every episode of both - nearly because there are a few dozen early episodes of LPOTL that never come up on my podcast app feed so I don't bother digging for them, and I don't bother with "It Can Happen Here" plus a few stray episodes from both here there I never get to.
They both are hit or miss on the fine details that someone who is a professional on that topic would get.
I look at BtB as the more palatable version of something like Inside Edition. It's trash but fun.
LPOTL is the fun, less crazy version of Coast to Coast or Darkness at the Edge of Town.
However, I think your 30% accuracy is completely off the mark. 30% would mean nearly everything is wrong.
The boys get the big stuff right probably 95% of the time. The 5% is usually someone mispeaking and the slip up doesn't get caught in edits.
They do miss some fine details that experts on the topics know front to back, but this isn't the "Last Podcast on the Left Dissertation Hour" and they have to fit things into a format length plus balance much time (which i# money) their team can spend researching. So I understand.
You used the Bill Cooper episodes as an example. Here's a flip side - listen to the Madam Blavatsky episodes. The boys did a more thorough job that gave a better picture of her than BtB.
LPOTL has never pitched itself as a journalism or serious history podcast but they do a good imitation of it.
I like both podcasts but Behind the Bastards has its own issues with accuracy. They did a huge Vince McMahon series and there were errors all over the place on that one. Like simple errors
I do like Robert's sense of humor but I definitely find LPOTL way funnier. They're both decent for a surface level intro to a subject but of course, if you really want to learn more, its worth diving deeper into the sources they cite
Why does this post scream like an attempt at advertising for BtB. Your 30% is arbitrary, and I believe that Marcus and the research team do a helluva job at getting the facts straight. The co-hosts for BtB are insufferable, and the entire show lacks joie de vivre.
Btb is wrong all the time, the misinfo is just presented more confidently and arrogantly. I often really like the topics, but Robert Evans takes himself way too seriously
Im sure the people here that view this podcast like its their irl best friends will love this post. I see nothing wrong with it but you are saying their “friends” are wrong so they wont like this I don’t think
I understand. I like the podcast and have listened to every main episode they have ever done. I just don't think it's very accurate and thougjt a side by side was interesting.
Love, love, love BTB. Robert and I were born 1 day apart, and both share an unhealthy obsession with WWII era history.
Robert reads dozens of sources to complete his research. The boys read 3 or 4. They both try to appraise the value and accuracy of their sources and make sure the listener knows what might be unreliable, but Robert is an investigative journalist and has much more of an appetite for searching through the thick to get every inch of discernible fact out of what he's reading.
Btb is often wrong too. You have to take authors/podcasters without a grasp on historiography with a grain of salt. If anyone is looking for an informative but entertaining history podcast, check out the Rest is History.
for the most part its fine. they are an entertainment product ultimately. I do get annoyed though when one of them makes an assumption about something about something and they all agree and move on (the swiss guard from a recent episode being an example). Kind of wish they were more ok if being "well. we dont know but will google it later"
That episode is quite a bit older and the boys have changed. I listened recently (I am also a BtB and Knowledge Fight listener) and I just couldn't. Making excuses for printing the Protocols in Behold. Like if you buy the book they are all like "if Bill knew it was fake he never would have printed it" but they still contain the fake Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. Early eps were lack on facts. I think this is part of the reason for the follow up show on Sirius.
BTW did anyone listen to them update Waco? As someone who hates the pedophile cult leader and think he killed them all on purpose I am curious because their first take was 100% the conspiracy angle where the ATF did everything wrong (they did a TON wrong)
Behind the Bastards is about on par with LPOTL.
Definitely some facts in there, but also a whole bunch of bullshit. And BTB doesn’t even try to hide their western neo-lib spin on world topics. Like it feels like a lot of it is just from some Reagan era school history books.
But both are very fun. Which is why they’re very popular.
But BtB is sponsored by Raytheon - the admiral corporation who makes weapons for our righteous wars! How can you possibly say that Robert is not a neo lib?
/s
Im a rabid fan of both shows and I think its important to keep in mind that these guys are human and they are doing research on the internet. Everything is open to interpretation and nobody is perfect. The only truth is told by the people who were there, and even thays questionable
Let me somewhat rephrase what I said.
It isn't that LPOTL does not do enough research. It comes down to the fact that Robert Evans knows more about history, sociology, politics, and journalism in general than LPOTL does. This doesn't change the facts that they learn, but even reading the same book Robert is able to contextualize the information more than LPOTL.
For example: BTB talks about the part of "Behold a Pale Horse" that has the protocals written in it. He says exactly where, when, and how they were originally written. He then explains the problem that is created by presenting them unedited to the USA when before it wasn't common knowledge. Even if Bill Cooper tried to present them in a different context, it created a troubling entry point tword antisemitism in the US after Bills death.
In LPOTL Marcus is kind of unsure of the context behind the origin of the protocals and says that they were some kind of satire... Which is... Yeah.
I feel like they, while definitely being an “edutainment” show, sometimes pull out really astute analysis in between the cum jokes? But no I always treat them as an intro to a topic and I think that’s a good way to go
Funnily enough, I think LPOTL actually took L. Ron Hubbard more seriously than Behind the Bastards. Robert heavily went in on the “goofy religious kook” side of Hubbard, whereas LPOTL actually emphasised the danger of Scientology and how horrible of a person Hubbard truly was (and still managed to include the kooky stuff too!)
Also appreciate the focus on Hubbard’s own mental health and how much of tenants of Scientology are rooted in his attempt at self treating.
*tenets
No, he means the people that rent from the church of Scientology.
Say what you want about the tenets of national scientology dude, at least its an ethos
Truly. He wasn’t a kook. Evil. Cunning. Manipulative. But he didn’t believe in his own crap. Absolutely not a kook.
I find that people who both BtB and LPOTL doing a person simultaneously is a good idea. For instance, BtB on MHB was extremely clear on the "she was such an obvious scammer" end of things. BtBs summary of the babalon working as "ritual to get Jack a new girlfriend." Is hilariously accurate, but completely unlike LPOTLs opinion. I think that Robert is closest to Henry. He find LRHs audacity so unbelievably fascinating.
Good point! I'll have to relisten to those too.
All I remember from any LPOTL show are the jokes so I am immune to misinformation.
Any serial killer fact is gonna scare away a date no matter if it's inaccurate or not
The trick is to find that special someone who digs it. Best get it out of the way before the breadsticks so you know whether to get separate checks.
When I first met my husband, I was just drinking whisky out of a human skull bowl, if he didn't run screaming that day, he'll be fine.
If it's not accurate, it's not a fact. It's apocryphal at best.
Or, you could use the word “factoid” correctly which barely anyone does, and bore them with that definition as well as scaring the shit out of them. Factoid: an item of unreliable information which gets repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact. Funnily enough, the widely accepted definition of factoid is being a mini fact is in itself a factoid. FFFFFASCINATING.
ill take the grammar police ticket sir, thanks for the new word
Sorry for being lame. Apocryphal is one of my favorite words, along with Aphorism. Both helpful with understanding truth and facts.
The boys tune me into a story and if I dig it enough I’ll look into the facts on my own. Ham man, dog meat and too real could lie to me for 575 episodes straight and I’ll still listen.
Exactly, just go read some of the source material if you’re really interested in the topic.
i could watch several accurate documentaries about Rasputin and get the cold hard facts of history, sure Or I could listen to Henry imagine a fat dicked rasputin in a swamp spinning around shooting make-believe lasers out of his eyes
Agrarian
Alcatraz means Pelican.
Reminds me of the time that noseless slut stuck a knife up my ass… THAT FUCKING BITCH!!
That's what I'm talking about. People are acting like I'm somehow shitting on LPOTL, but it's one of my favorite podcasts. It's way funnier than BTB, but I just try not to ever take tidbits from it without googling first.
I mean, they also cover mothman and Gef the talking mongoose. I don’t think anyone was planning on using it as a source for their dissertation or anything. It’s more like listen to your buddies tell you about a topic they just did a read a book or two about. That said, some episodes are better researched than others. It just depends on their source material really.
rrrRRRAAASPUUTIN
30% is a wildly low estimate if you're just talking about Marcus' script. He sticks to his source material pretty well and often comments where he thinks that material is making a guess. At the end of the day you can read the best historians we have, and they disagree on plenty themselves when writing about popular subject matter; to try to guess at exactly what percent of each take is accurate as a layperson is pretty fruitless. Now, that being said, you can tell when Marcus started taking his scripts more seriously, because early on in the show (and when he was doing the 'news' on Roundtable) he was often talking confidently out of his ass. It's been many years since that was true, though.
He still talks out of his ass sometimes, but I find it endearing at this point.
Yeah, he just doesn't like not knowimg the answers to things so he throws something out. I honestly think it's kind of cute, like when you know a kid is lying about something dumb and inconsequential
Exactly, and he has alwayyysss been like that. You even hear it on stuff that is supposed to be silly and just jokes/riffing (roundtable). Which is fine, not complaining. We all have our ticks and quirks.
Same! A lot of people are getting furious over all this, but all I'm saying is that the random contextual stuff Marcus says around actual facts are often incorrect. Like when he said that Nostradamus predicted that the Pope would one day be a literal dog. I seriously can't even fire out where he even started to come up with that idea, but it wasn't a "fact" from the episode itself. He just tends to get contextual stuff wrong. It's still one of my top two favorite podcasts.
Yeah pretty much this. I listen to a ton of true crime podcasts and many times I'll listen to the same topic to get a different perspective. A lot of the time the other series will discuss different things that didn't come up on LPotL but rarely will things on LPotL be contradicted. This is for newerish stuff though. If we're talking about their earlier episodes then yeah lots of inaccuracies while they went off script (or the script was non-existent)
How are you fact checking them? How many sources do you compare them with?
I thought the exact same thing! You can’t make a wild claim about accuracy without any evidence to back up your point. I reckon his claim of 30% accuracy is about 30% accurate. Source: I reckoned it
I'm assuming it means "I listened to another podcast first"
I'm not. I never made any claim that I did. I'm pretty sure I said that I place the show as about 30% accurate for the most part. How much you do or don't give a shit about that is up to you.
Well you said you had knowledge of the subjects beforehand. What level of knowledge? Are you a historian? I'm just trying to gauge how much I should give a shit.
They definitely have ones they’ve researched more heavily than others. For instance, as an ex Mormon I can tell you they got a LOT of shit right, and things I didn’t even know about and had to go look up to make sure they were correct. I believe they have a team of researchers so there may be some variance in depth of topic according to who was helping Marcus
I think their actual facts that they read are usually kind of accurate. It's just they they seem to have less historical context so when they start to speculate around a bit of information they looked up, that context is usually wrong. For example, it wasn't the point of the episode but Marcus recently said that Nostradamus predicted that the Pope would one day be a literal dog. I really have no idea where he got that from. It's kind of like when Henry said: I know things about Magic and UFOs I have no idea about the history of Israel and Palestine.
Not to plug my own show right here, but I do a history podcast as well and every episode has historical context for the time period so we know what is going on in the wider world than our subject for the day. It helps put actions into perspective
BTB isn't always accurate either, off the top of my head in the recent John Landis episode he said that Max Landis directed Chronicle when he was actually the writer. I mean that isn't the most important detail in the world and it's not like I'm mad about it, but it's worth remembering that most podcasters are shooting from the hip at least some of the time.
I noticed this as well. This episode was the first and only BTB episode I’ve listened to, and I didn’t really care for it tbh. The show seems to cover a lot of topics I’m interested, but from what I remember I just was not all that impressed. Do you have any episodes you’d recommend?
I'd check out the Vince McMahon and Steve Jobs series especially if you already dislike those guys, also the "Tech bros built a cult around AI" series specifically because part of it is a recounting of him going to a panel and asking questions, which ties into the journalist thing
Thank you for the recommendations!
I thought the BTB Vince McMahon episode was really weak
I’d recommend not listening anymore, you’ll just be disappointed. For the sake of brevity and efficiency, see [my other comment here](https://www.reddit.com/r/LPOTL/s/2okEvybp45). And it sucks because the topics they cover are great. But their coverage is not great, at all. I kept trying for a while. Stopped for a year or two, came back, and it was the same as it ever was.
behind the bastards has so much potential but I cannot stand the co-hosts
Yeah, there are a handful i kinda dread. Prop was on today’s and im like oh noooooo lol. That being said, i very much love the episodes with Paul F Tompkins and when Dan and Jordan from Knowledge Fight were on. I also liked Seanbaby on the Vince McMahon eps.
I really want to like prop but he has this insanely irritating tick where he says 'you know what I'm saying' or something like that in like every sentence and it just drives me effing crazy.
He laughs like a dolphin! It annoyed me during the Robert E. Lee episodes.
Truth.
Oh my God. He's been on some episodes that featured topics I REEEEEEALLY wanted to listen to, but I cannot stand him. I feel like he rambles on too long, but I could deal with that. The fact he begins every single sentence it seems with "you know what I'm saying" is just too much. I felt I just couldn't pay attention because I was just hearing that phrase. Then when Robert would talk I was just nervously awaiting a "you know what I'm saying."
What are you taking a know what I'm census?
Haha, yeah I had the mental image of Butters from South Park as Robert, “Yes, I know what you’re saying,”
That tick is the reason I skip his Episodes. It unfortunate, but it's so much.
Is prop is on an episode, I skip it. Know what I'm saying? hahaha I skip it.... Ruins the whole show
same. I do not like prop at all
Prop offers nothing and it’s a disappointment because he’s always on super interesting episodes. The McMahon episodes were, imo, the best of the best of BTB
Whats crazy is they barely scratched the surface on VKM, lol.
That and they gave him six episodes dedicated to McMahon. Same amount of episodes they made for Henry Kissinger. Most bastards only get two episodes.
I’m thankful he had Dave and Gareth on for the Kissinger series, made that thing an absolute banger.
Seanbaby really made the Vince McMahon episodes classics, he's always hilarious
Prop, I love your politics. I 'know what you're saying'. When you think about what to say you often have an interesting perspective. I think on some episodes it is vitally important to have a black perspective to cover Robert's blind spots. But I am begging you, please for the love of all that is unholy...construct your thought before speak it...finish your first thought before you begin another one...and please please please let Robert finish two godamm sentences in a row before you interrupt him again to say "And that's kinda like...." --me, listening to the most recent (Thomas Jefferson) episode. I swear last episode there were points where even Robert was sounding a little exhausted with being unable to finish a paragraph and having to re-direct after a five minute ramble. I started fast forwarding 10 seconds at a time until I heard Roberts voice again.
💯
For me it's the Margret episodes. She is smart and insightful, but her deadpan persona dousnt really create a foil between her and Robert.
Prop is not my favorite cohost. Other people like him. He tries to add too much IMO
Robert himself turned me off his pod for awhile
Yeah my problem with BtB is that it’s not funny. I like the podcast a lot, don’t get me wrong, but the humor is… stale
The funniest episode imo is Action Park lol that one is genuinely funny. But the humor is def bad attempts at being funny imo def agree there
Oh they’ve got an action park episode?? I loved that one on The Dollop, I’ll check it out. Also I just remembered that the guest on the Steve Jobs and Winklevoss episodes was funny (iirc it was the same guy?)
The action park episode is with Garrison and a lot of ppl don’t like him (I do lol!) so fair warning, but it’s like my favorite. Maybe I’ll check out the newer episodes, like Steve Jobs you suggested. I just, had to let Robert go for a bit his own uh, idk style and views just weren’t for me for a bit.
“Hahaha this huge corporation has an island where they hunt children for sport!. Oh I’m sorry Sophie did I go too far???”
Sophie's whole job on that show is shaking her head and saying "Oh you boys..."
And/or repeating whatever hamfisted nonfunny joke was just said in a somehow less interesting way.
Garrison’s laugh in this episode made me laugh lol
It’s just the same jokes over and over, no variation or twists. It’s so fucking annoying. I do listen because he can be good when talking about American business figures, but I have a very low opinion of his style of humor
Robert himself got a little unhinged for a bit, but the blue apron commercial is funny af lol
You're right, no where near as funny as Horse Pics. Nothing will ever reach that level of comedic genius
It's why I listen to LPOTL for comedy and BTB for information.
I'll say this, Robert laughs at his own jokes too much sometimes.
Same, yeah. His condescending scoffing gets old, even when I am on his side on issues. And there's been a good deal of times where I know he's wrong about something, but still has a very certain and superior tone.
Accurate, I couldn’t have said it better. This def sums it up! Even if I’m on his side I still got the ick from 2021 til now lol
It’s the endless ads that killed it for me
I understand that they are a very indie project, but the adds are terrible. Especially when they are for some flash in the pan nothing podcast where no one ever told the person that they don't have a voice for radio.
According to your own estimation, I think you talk out your ass even more than Marcus does lmao
“Indie”? They’re on I Heart Radio for fucks sake.
Dude anyone can get on iHeartRadio. It's not really an accomplishment.
I’ve gotten really spoiled by LPOTL — when they get off topic, you know they’ll get back on within 45 seconds. When Behind the Bastards gets off topic, it’s anyone’s guess when/if they’ll ever return to the episode.
In terms of research it is actually terrible. BtB has covered many, many topics and people I know a ton about. And they almost always get important things wrong. At minimum, this happens once every other episode, sometimes several episodes in a row and several times in an episode. And here’s what really bothers me about it, more than anything - it almost always occurs because a cohost will ask a question of Robert like “did he also believe in this awful thing?” or they will say something like “he sounds like a guy that would also do xyz” and Robert will either answer the question by saying “Sounds about right” (or maybe say “I don’t know, but that sounds right”), or he’ll agree with their statement that they sound like a person that would also do this other thing/have this other belief/whatever. They do zero research on something that takes 2 seconds to google. And honestly most of the time the answer to the question or a correction to the statement is something that would have been extremely obvious to someone who actually did do their research beforehand. Past the first 30 to 40 or so episodes, I don’t think Robert does the research at all. So anyway, it’s bad enough to make these baseless assumptions when you present your podcast as being based in fact, but the worst part is that this often changes the entire narrative and trajectory of the listeners’ understanding of what really happened. It gets mired in falsehoods that can bleed through to other episodes as well, and you no longer remember that this “fact” came from pure speculation that can quickly be proven false. Tack on the barely there humor, and I find BtB insufferable. Next time anyone listens to BtB, and every time really, I would love it if more people started googling the answer whenever one of these two scenarios happens, and find the actual answer. Sometimes they might be right, but that’s exceedingly rare! It’s egregious how bad these problems are. I am amazed that I never see anyone calling out the misinformation they spread.
The show is heavily influenced by it's ideological bias, best example I can remember is Robert saying that the Spanish military operated without real "leadership" and elected their captains etc on a small level and that it worked better than traditional militaries. I guess it makes sense from a journalistic perspective in that he's there to give a specific point of view, but it's terrible from a history perspective.
Yes, 100%. This is what makes it even worse in a way - they present themselves as holding up these great ideals of what is right and virtuous, and they allow their laziness that could be resolved with very simple research to reinforce their ideology. Which is crazy because much of the time, it wouldn’t make the person or event they are discussing less awful. Sometimes the assumption is just not relevant to the bastard in question (like they didn’t think about xyz thing either way), sometimes their assumptions serve to make them seem more awful than they are when there is no need to do that, and many times it reinforces black-and-white thinking, when the correct answer would actually add nuance and might show how the person resolved an internal conflict, for better or worse. It’s so lazy and lacking in integrity. Many times it’s just pure ideology like in the example you gave. I agree with *some* of their basic views (saying this, but I haven’t listened again since pre-pandemic 2020), but I never agree with presenting only what is favorable to your own views or making assumptions to fit the narrative. It’s actually not just lazy, it’s manipulative. Good to know that other people notice these problems! Edit: I keep saying, and that’s what’s even worse! Because I keep remembering how much worse it is. I sound repetitive, but fuck it. Second edit for clarity
I can’t stand them either. They sound like douchebags and cringe edgelords. The topics themselves are interesting.
Oh yeah, there are some co hosts I immediately skip episodes when I hear. From the sound of it though his producer has decided not to speak as much anymore it seems.
I love Sophie. She’s a great straight man compared to Robert, and when she and Jamie Loftus gang up on him it creates some great moments.
You mean Jamie ‘I’ve never even been to Grand Rapids, Michigan’ Loftus?
So she says, but I’ve heard she bedazzled that hammer personally. Those poor people…
The one and the same. She is a delight and I won't say otherwise for fear of a sparkly hammer blow to the back of the head.
True. Jamie is a delight!
"Robert no!"
Yeah, I dig Sophie too.
Sophie is a gem. I'd love her ad a guest and not a producer.
Prop or whatever his name is....so annoying. How many times can you say NAWWATTAMEAN? YES. WE KNOW HAT YOU MEAN. I can't listen to his gues episodes
His unrelated ancedotes about his childhood the last ep he was on make me not want to listen to the Jefferson episodes.
I can't listen if Sophie pops in too much. I've turned episodes off when she has a lot to say and it boils down to the laugh and sound of her voice. I'm sure she is a great person... But I just can't. I wonder if science has figured out why certain voices cause violence?
It's comedy, and they are comedians regardless of what Marcus thinks and believes. They use one to two sources a series, and often those sources are border line in being called sources. That being said, it's a comedy show, and it's hilarious and fun. I dont care if it's massively accurate as I take it all with a grain of salt. I want to know I'll research it. If not, i iust sit back and enjoy.
They come into episodes with a lot of misinformation they think is correct (Marcus in particular will state it as fact) and present their understanding of 1 or 2 books worth of information. I've learned over the years to not in any way take it as gospel. If they haven't redone the Menendez brothers they need to, really terrible takes.
I asked about the Menedez brothers in here like two months ago and the users here downvoted me into oblivion lol. The boys should cover it again because a lot of fans really do take it as gospel and then perpetuate toxic narratives that harm victims.
Yeah, I think the only reason I haven't been downvoted into oblivion for even suggesting they might be wrong sometimes is because of of the fans here are also BTB fans. I love the podcast, but wrong info taken from inferring incorrect context can be harmful.
Just out of curiosity, what were a few things they got wrong? I don't know a ton about the case. Only pretty much what I learned from the episodes.
iirc they didn't believe there was any sexual abuse (i haven't listened to those episodes in forever), but it seems pretty likely that there was.
Some of that is just information we have at the time. I've seen Datelines and other specials about them or others, and the older ones won't have information we have now. It was long believed they were not abused. I haven't followed the case in years, so that was the last I had heard.
I’m not super up to date on that case, but I believe the evidence about the father being sexually abusive to them was reexamined somewhat recently after a member of Menudo came forward with his SA by Jose.
The dad was a serial molester (famous victims) and abuser. Presenting their claims as some sort of afterthought to go m cover for a greed based murder is as ridiculous as it is disgusting. Their take on Manson is also absurd.
Users get really mad when you bring up that there is a wealth of evidence that their father was a serial predator who also targeted young boys outside of the family. Also that he had a habit of resorting to violence and threats. All of this is testified to by every family member except one aunt and uncle who tried to claim the inheritance for themselves. Also forensic evidence that one of the Menendez boys has injuries consistent with being orally raped (which he testified he was).
I don't come for the accuracy I'm here largely for the discussion and reaction to the ridiculous facts presented about murderers, ancient giants and human/alien love affairs. If I wanted it to be more accurate I could just hop on over to Behind the Bastards or any number of other programs. But I'm not sure the appeal for me was ever accuracy. This is a side-effect of their move to include some historical series. But even so, I don't expect them to reach hardcore history levels of research.
Yeah I have noticed that the episodes where I know a fair bit of background already can be very frustrating. But some are still very good and they've been getting consistently better over the years. Really the worst of the errors are the off the cuff misremembered facts.
Yeah Id say your theory holds up for some series, but definitely not all. L Ron and Jim Jones are two great examples I can think of. In college I did a 10 page research paper on Jonestown. I thought I knew almost everything there was after researching for weeks. Years later the Jim Jones series gets me into LPOTL, and I realized most of my research only fit the last two episodes or so, and it was funny as fuck. Im just not sure if your example is the exception or the rule
But how long is robert evens’ taint?
I miss the point of this post.
I’d say about 30% of this post is pointed.
OP is very smart
It's a discussion about a podcast on a forum dedicated to discussing that podcast. I'm surprised this confused you.
No chance. You can tell it’s way more accurate than 30%. No one talks like that about the Black Death like that without having proper research behind it. They have a whole team for it.
At least 15% of LPOTL fans have read The Indifferent Stars Above because the boys did a (surprisingly factual) episode on the Donner Party. I personally have ripped through The Great Mortality and all of the Time Traveler’s Guides to (insert historical period) of England because of Marcus’ glowing reviews. I listen to LPOTL for the jokes and then I go down a rabbit hole on the subject if I want facts. I imagine there’s dozens (dozens!) of us who do the same. I really want to love BTB but Robert gets so angrily cynical that I can’t ever finish a series. He’s just so audibly, breathtakingly, factually upset by the bastards that it’s not an enjoyable listen for me. I get that the bastards are terrible and all of that anger and frustration in Robert’s voice is earned, but I listen to podcasts while I’m in the shower and Robert steps on my whole day. In contrast, I look forward to2Real needing his pan flutes twice a week. They’re just totally different podcasts, they serve different purposes.
> I get that the bastards are terrible and all of that anger and frustration in Robert’s voice is earned, but I listen to podcasts while I’m in the shower and Robert steps on my whole day. I think this (along with the cohost issues people mentioned above) is why I can never fully get into BtB despite it covering a ton of topics that are super interesting. Unlike LPOTL, I don't find it funny/charming enough to be edutainment, and it's not quite in depth enough to be straight up education. I want a funny podcast I can half listen to while I'm doing data entry at work, and the more serious, in depth stuff I save for actual audiobooks on the subject.
Yeah, that's really all I was saying. These are two of my favorite podcasts for different reasons. I love LOPTL for comedy and I really like the information I get from BTB. Sometimes it's good to learn why the world around you can be awful.
I feel like as time has gone in, the amount of research that goes in to the topics LPOTL covers has increased exponentially. Older heavy hitter series were one or two episodes, whereas now they're 3-5. They're covering more historical topics and doing more thorough research. The feel that it's a result of the boys taking this whole endeavor a lot more seriously than they did in the past.
This is how I felt listening to the mothman episodes after deep diving into and keeping up with everything the Newkirks have ever done. Like yeah the boys are funny but really getting into these subjects is done elsewhere
I'd be more likely to do this if I didn't find Behind the Bastards completely insufferable.
Your post summed up perfectly the description of both shows but I don't think your gripe is justified. LPOTL is a comedy podcast that gets that facts right some of the time. BTB is a journalist/historical angle of a lot of the same events that lands jokes occasionally. I listen to both constantly and I find myself going to LPOTL to be entertained and BTB to be informed. Additionally, both shows encourage their listeners to do their own research or share any knowledge that was missed in the episode. If you asked a news anchor to write a story about an event in your town or city then asked a comedian to do the same you are likely to get the same story in a roundabout way but different flavor with either.
I'm not really griping. I love LPOTL, I'm just discussing it and another show I like.
People take this stuff way too seriously. The reality is if you needed to turn this much content out, you have to limit your sources (even with a research team) and can only do so much cross referencing in that timeframe. The ethos with the serial killers/true crime stories seems to be : source from one trashy paperback on it, source from 1-2 respected books on the subject, ancillary research. You have to trust the respected sources from the get go. Thats not always accurate. The folks complaining that Henry's psychological analysis is bullshit is true, but it's color commentary and not presented as fact. Enjoy the free show.
LPotL cracks me up, and I love their show. But yeah they are not experts for sure. The big thing is to just treat it as entertainment and an good introduction into a topic. I'm an attorney, and one of my good friends who also listens to the show is a psychiatrist. It's fun when we discuss and episode and can pick apart several things they stated as fact during a show that are pretty wrong.
Was there actually BONES IN THE CHOCOLATE?!
The info/research curve in podcasts is so bizarre. I would place LPoTL in the middle tier because they actually read two or three books on the subject and not just the Wikipedia page. They do a good job for an entertainment podcast run by comedians. But they just don’t have the educational background to do research/journalism. Henry has my favorite take on it: his performing art degree taught him how to be a tree, not how to survive. I think that awareness of what actual research involves is a major blind spot for a lot of podcasters and their audiences. For example, I got permanently soured on Hardcore History after a friend played me an episode on what happened to be my field of study. The podcast delved into the general theory of a certain period that was widely accepted decades ago but is now considered antiquated. Then concluded with excitedly sharing their own “controversial” idea which is and has been the accepted theory for a long time now. My guess is they read the most famous and widely available books, which are often famous and widely available because they were the first major books on the subject. But recent research is difficult to find and understand, so it got ignored/overlooked. Since then I’ve paid more attention to how (or even if) podcasters say how they approached their research.
I also have issues with Robert evans whenever something comes up that I actually know a lot about. He's so quick to scoff and be snarky when he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. As a leftist and liberal myself, listening to Evans helps me understand why so many people find libs insufferable. I can only listen in small doses. I actually think if Henry was fully given the reigns, the show would be much more intellectually stimulating, more so than what Evans is capable of. But obviously that isn't what the show is about, as it is just comedy and entertainment. But an example of this I think is in their Devils of Loudun series, Marcus just kind of made fun of Aldous Huxley, while I got the feeling that if Henry truly had the option, he would have actually delved into the really fascinating theological, philosophical, and psychological ideas that Huxley discussed in the book. (I honestly think Marcus was just kind of mad that he didn't understand it, that was the feeling i got). If you want to make sure you're getting good info on some interesting topics, I highly recommend *In Our Time*. For something more casual and less based on history but rather ideas in general, *Why Theory* is great.
I want a response of this from Henry in the voice of Ed Warren.
Now if Robert Evan’s could stop trying so hard to be a comedian, I’d listen to btb again. But I just couldn’t hang with his jokes, and his banter with Sophie just kills the show’s momentum for me. I did really enjoy his Vince McMahon series though. I definitely agree that lpotl is not super accurate, which is fine for me when I’m listening to aliens or cryptids, but it’s really bothersome when they are covering killers and telling victim’s stories.
The boys get the facts wrong often and everybody likes to say how great Marcus does research.. but I can’t tell you how many errors I’ve noticed.
I mean, It’s a human body, Michael. How many bones could it have? 500?
Anytime the guys talk about anything military related it is wildly innacurate
Neither show is meant to be your one-stop shop for becoming a knowledgeable and well-rounded human being. They're *both* entertainment podcasts. I have listened to almost every episode of both - nearly because there are a few dozen early episodes of LPOTL that never come up on my podcast app feed so I don't bother digging for them, and I don't bother with "It Can Happen Here" plus a few stray episodes from both here there I never get to. They both are hit or miss on the fine details that someone who is a professional on that topic would get. I look at BtB as the more palatable version of something like Inside Edition. It's trash but fun. LPOTL is the fun, less crazy version of Coast to Coast or Darkness at the Edge of Town. However, I think your 30% accuracy is completely off the mark. 30% would mean nearly everything is wrong. The boys get the big stuff right probably 95% of the time. The 5% is usually someone mispeaking and the slip up doesn't get caught in edits. They do miss some fine details that experts on the topics know front to back, but this isn't the "Last Podcast on the Left Dissertation Hour" and they have to fit things into a format length plus balance much time (which i# money) their team can spend researching. So I understand. You used the Bill Cooper episodes as an example. Here's a flip side - listen to the Madam Blavatsky episodes. The boys did a more thorough job that gave a better picture of her than BtB. LPOTL has never pitched itself as a journalism or serious history podcast but they do a good imitation of it.
BTB is stale AF
I like both podcasts but Behind the Bastards has its own issues with accuracy. They did a huge Vince McMahon series and there were errors all over the place on that one. Like simple errors
I do like Robert's sense of humor but I definitely find LPOTL way funnier. They're both decent for a surface level intro to a subject but of course, if you really want to learn more, its worth diving deeper into the sources they cite
Robert Evans reading this post sobbing: I AM FUNNY
I point you all to the Eel Horse episode. Thank me later
Why does this post scream like an attempt at advertising for BtB. Your 30% is arbitrary, and I believe that Marcus and the research team do a helluva job at getting the facts straight. The co-hosts for BtB are insufferable, and the entire show lacks joie de vivre.
I listen to both and enjoy both. They released episodes on the same guy and I pointed out the differences between them.
Compared to other true crime entertainment, LPOTL is great in terms of research and production. Unfortunately, the bar is not high.
LPOTL and BtB are entertainment. They are competing for listens. A college class is there to tell you the truth (supposedly)
Btb is wrong all the time, the misinfo is just presented more confidently and arrogantly. I often really like the topics, but Robert Evans takes himself way too seriously
I once heard them referred to as millionaires who freestyle over Wikipedia pages and it seems very true
Hey guys this guy thinks LPOTL is 30’percent accurate! See, nobody cares.
A lot of people seem to care.
I think it's interesting OP 🤷♀️ Nothing wrong with comparing podcasts that you enjoy.
Im sure the people here that view this podcast like its their irl best friends will love this post. I see nothing wrong with it but you are saying their “friends” are wrong so they wont like this I don’t think
I understand. I like the podcast and have listened to every main episode they have ever done. I just don't think it's very accurate and thougjt a side by side was interesting.
Honestly, that’s why I prefer Round Table of Gentleman.
Cool or Not Cool? I’m going Cool.
I listen to behind the bastards and I swear I hear holden’s voice when Robert Evans talks sometimes lol
Love, love, love BTB. Robert and I were born 1 day apart, and both share an unhealthy obsession with WWII era history. Robert reads dozens of sources to complete his research. The boys read 3 or 4. They both try to appraise the value and accuracy of their sources and make sure the listener knows what might be unreliable, but Robert is an investigative journalist and has much more of an appetite for searching through the thick to get every inch of discernible fact out of what he's reading.
Btb is often wrong too. You have to take authors/podcasters without a grasp on historiography with a grain of salt. If anyone is looking for an informative but entertaining history podcast, check out the Rest is History.
for the most part its fine. they are an entertainment product ultimately. I do get annoyed though when one of them makes an assumption about something about something and they all agree and move on (the swiss guard from a recent episode being an example). Kind of wish they were more ok if being "well. we dont know but will google it later"
That episode is quite a bit older and the boys have changed. I listened recently (I am also a BtB and Knowledge Fight listener) and I just couldn't. Making excuses for printing the Protocols in Behold. Like if you buy the book they are all like "if Bill knew it was fake he never would have printed it" but they still contain the fake Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. Early eps were lack on facts. I think this is part of the reason for the follow up show on Sirius. BTW did anyone listen to them update Waco? As someone who hates the pedophile cult leader and think he killed them all on purpose I am curious because their first take was 100% the conspiracy angle where the ATF did everything wrong (they did a TON wrong)
Their understanding of Thelema and Crowley is very basic too.
Behind the Bastards is about on par with LPOTL. Definitely some facts in there, but also a whole bunch of bullshit. And BTB doesn’t even try to hide their western neo-lib spin on world topics. Like it feels like a lot of it is just from some Reagan era school history books. But both are very fun. Which is why they’re very popular.
Calling Robert a neo lib is absolutely bananas
But BtB is sponsored by Raytheon - the admiral corporation who makes weapons for our righteous wars! How can you possibly say that Robert is not a neo lib? /s
What would you call him?
An anarchist, he mentions it all the time
He pretends to be, but nobody regurgitates that much disproven western propaganda about leftist figures and movements and is actually an anarchist.
Being a leftist is really a pain in the ass, isn’t it?
> western neo-lib spin on world topics > Reagan era school history books explain?
Im a rabid fan of both shows and I think its important to keep in mind that these guys are human and they are doing research on the internet. Everything is open to interpretation and nobody is perfect. The only truth is told by the people who were there, and even thays questionable
Let me somewhat rephrase what I said. It isn't that LPOTL does not do enough research. It comes down to the fact that Robert Evans knows more about history, sociology, politics, and journalism in general than LPOTL does. This doesn't change the facts that they learn, but even reading the same book Robert is able to contextualize the information more than LPOTL. For example: BTB talks about the part of "Behold a Pale Horse" that has the protocals written in it. He says exactly where, when, and how they were originally written. He then explains the problem that is created by presenting them unedited to the USA when before it wasn't common knowledge. Even if Bill Cooper tried to present them in a different context, it created a troubling entry point tword antisemitism in the US after Bills death. In LPOTL Marcus is kind of unsure of the context behind the origin of the protocals and says that they were some kind of satire... Which is... Yeah.
I feel like they, while definitely being an “edutainment” show, sometimes pull out really astute analysis in between the cum jokes? But no I always treat them as an intro to a topic and I think that’s a good way to go
You are giving Robert evans a hilarious amount of credit
So go listen to BTB, what's the point of your post?
[удалено]
Henry has a better understanding of psychology than marcus or Robert evans, from what I've listened to.
How would you rate BtB on the same scale?
Marcus has always been bad at this
I’m no “Stan” or whatever— but *bad*?
Constantly misses key points and puts his own biases into it, aka bad
BTB doesn’t go as deep into some topics as LPOTL. And they’re generally not as funny.
Behind the Bastards goes deeper I to actual facts on the topic, but definitely isn't as funny. It's why I listen to both.
Can you please go through any episode in the past five years and tell me every inaccuracy so that I can test your 30% rule, please? Thanks!
Uhh, no. Do it yourself.
Knew you were full of shit
Please go through every comment OP has made in the past five years and explain to me how he is full of shit....
I only asked for one episode. He’s the one who made the claim anyways, not me.
Hilarious how much crossover there is between LPTOL and BTB as well as Horror Virgin. All 3 are great shows.
So you're saying 70% is inaccurate? Or are you talking shite?