With Robert Pattinson playing Hansen in A24’s upcoming film Primetime, hear from the real man behind “Have a seat”.

From the original Dateline NBC investigations to Takedown …

Read more

We laughed at them. Then they took over. Gavin’s theory begins with the outsiders who became powerful—and ends with a society where he believes the wrong people are making the rules.

---

Follow…

Read more

Investigative journalist Nate Friedman followed the money behind what looked like grassroots activism. He says he uncovered repeat organisers, nonprofit pass-throughs, more than $20 million connected to one little-known billionaire—and the same network a…

Read more

The KISS co-founder and Rock & Roll Hall of Famer explains why he believes the public should igno…

Read more

“They are sanitising you and pasteurising you and trying to make sure you don’t say anything that’s really controversial.”

So begins Vanessa Feltz on my latest interview on Heretics.

Yet, within minutes, Vanessa takes exception when I make a joke she deems unacceptable.

Click here to watch on YT

Click here to watch on Spotify

“This is where I screw you to the wall,” she says.

“Are you sorry? And are you ashamed of yourself?”

If you get value from these open conversations, please subscribe to support the show:

Subscribe now

So what was the offensive joke I made?

To my shame, I had forgotten the name of my brilliant former guest Carol McGiffin. This always happens, as I hardly remember my own name. When Vanessa asked me what Carol looked like, I replied: “Like all the Loose Women.”

Admittedly, I wouldn’t open with it.

I’m not even sure what I was trying to say. Vanessa’s analysis of my joke was far more sophisticated than the joke itself. She said it suggested that I believed there was a type of woman of a certain age who had become, in my mind, an “amorphous blob”.

Fair enough. It was a flippant, mildly ageist and sexist remark.

But it wasn’t exactly an Andrew Tate manifesto!

Share

Vanessa didn’t simply tell me it was a rubbish joke. She wanted an apology. She wanted to know if I was sorry and, more importantly, if I was ashamed.

Was she trying to cancel me?

Only slightly.

She wasn’t trying to take away my livelihood. She didn’t summon a mob or demand that YouTube remove my channel. But she did reach instinctively for the first stage of the cancellation ritual. The offender must admit that he has done wrong, express the appropriate amount of shame and reassure everyone watching that the moral order has been restored.

It is the classic television sequence: offence, confrontation, apology, advert break.

Except this wasn’t television.

There was no nervous producer talking into my earpiece. Nobody was waiting behind the camera with an approved form of words. There was no boss for someone to pressure into sacking me.

So I didn’t perform a hostage-video apology.

Vanessa called me nasty. I told her why I thought that was unfair. We argued about it and then carried on talking.

Nothing happened.

The ceiling didn’t collapse. Nobody lost a job. Ofcom did not smash through the windows. Two adults disagreed, sometimes quite fiercely.

The Loose Women joke was only the opening skirmish. We later clash over Katie Hopkins, biology and whether kindness means affirming what somebody says or being prepared to tell them something they don’t want to hear.

At one point, Vanessa announces that she has lost the will to live.

I find her fascinating. She is intelligent, funny, ludicrously quick and capable of turning a passing remark into a full Old Bailey prosecution within seconds.

In other words, she is exceptionally well-suited to podcasting and YouTube.

But you can take Vanessa out of daytime TV. It may take a little longer to get daytime TV out of Vanessa.

Decades in broadcasting teach certain habits. You anticipate the complaint before it arrives. You qualify the controversial sentence before you finish it. You protect the channel, the producer and the advertisers. You don’t even notice you’re doing it.

The great irony is that the entertainment world spent decades congratulating themselves for defeating Mary Whitehouse and the old censors. Actors, comedians and broadcasters fought valiantly for the right to depict sex, violence and blasphemy without being told that vulnerable members of the public might be corrupted by it.

Now, many of their cultural descendants make the same arguments about offensive opinions.

They don’t see the connection because their taboos are about “compassion”. The old censors were protecting “decency”. Both claimed to protect vulnerable people from harm.

Those concerns are sincere. But every censor in history has thought their particular forbidden subject was different.

The vocabulary changes. The urge to say “you can’t say that” survives. But something has changed:

Why this feels different on YouTube

The YouTube audience tends to resist this sort of sanitisation.

Not always nobly. YouTube has mobs, orthodoxies, advertisers and algorithms of its own. Creators can become terrified of upsetting their subscribers.

But the relationship is more direct. A viewer chooses to watch. If they dislike what they see, they can argue in the comments, unsubscribe or go somewhere else. There are fewer people standing between the conversation and the audience, trying to remove anything that might cause trouble.

That is why, when Vanessa asked whether I was ashamed, I didn’t have to pretend that I was.

There was no struggle session and no PR statement. We simply had the argument.

For once, the people on the screen spoke like people in normal homes. One person made a bad joke. Another person was offended. They disagreed about how serious it was and continued with their afternoon.

Television used to be full of moments like this.

Vanessa’s YouTube problem

Vanessa’s Channel 5 programme has now ended, and she has launched a new YouTube show called At Home with Vanessa.

I think it has real potential. She interviews famous guests on her bed, harking back to her wonderfully bonkers 1990s show.

It is a strong idea because it immediately looks different from the thousands of podcasts featuring…well, chairs and tables and people. There’s a bed, for crying out loud.

Chicken Shop Date has its chicken shop. Hot Ones has its increasingly violent chicken wings. Vanessa has a bed.

But the show currently has a problem.

Read more

What follows is a collision between two very different ideas of public conversation: one prioritises care and responsibi…

Read more

In this Heretics interview, the Everybody Loves Raymond and The Middle star tells Andrew Gold why “Hollywood’s dead”—and what changed inside its comedy writers’ rooms. Patricia reveals …

Read more

Investigative journalist Tom O’Neill spent 20 years examining Charles Manson, the Manson Family and the murders of Sharon Tate and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. His acclaimed book, CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, challenged the ac…

Read more

In this unfiltered Heretics interview, Andrew Gold sits opposite the former beauty queen, author and viral sociopathy creator to dis…

Read more

in this deep dive, Rob reveals why he’s choosing to stay in “Siberia” rather than conform to the new authoritarianism of the film world.

From secret phone calls with A-list stars who are too afraid to speak out, to his famous (and surprisingly touching) confron…

Read more

I went into this interview expecting to talk about jobs disappearing...

Roman Yampolskiy is worried about something much bigger: humanity disappearing. He believes AI could soon begin improving itself, become vastly more intelligent than us and pass a point where nobody - not governments, tech companies or its own creators - can control what happens nex…

Read more

Read more

From her complex relationship with the press and the reality of living with body dysmorphia to the truth behind the kidnapping of her husband in Dubai, Katie holds nothing back. She discusses the heavy tol…

Read more

Bjorn Lomborg believes climate change is real - but argues that Net Zero is an enormously expensive solution that will achieve very little. We discussed what these policies will cost ordinary people, why politicians hide the trade-offs, and what might actually work instead.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on Spotify

Share

Three things I learned:

1. Net Zero could cost trillions while barely changing global temperatures.

2. Developing countries will only switch when green energy becomes cheaper and more reliable.

3. Innovation and adaptation may achieve far more than bans, targets and higher energy bills.

Sign up as a paid member to ask my guests questions and get the bonus parts. Paid members can watch below:

Subscribe now

Read more

Read more

Whether that account was completely accurate or not, the wider pattern was clear: the outrage online may have been fake, but the fear, phone calls and lost work were very real.

If you believe in the Heretics mission to give audiences an alternative to the mainstream - and to give cancelled comedians a second chance - subscribe now. You’ll get the bonus content (at the bottom of this article) where you ask my guest questions:

Subscribe now

Watch on Spotify (from 5pm UK time)

Watch on YouTube (from 6pm UK time)

Three things I learned:

1. Cancellation often happens in private. It is not always thousands of ordinary people demanding someone lose their job. Often it is agents, venues and powerful people quietly deciding someone is too risky.

2. The worst part is not always the money. Andrew said being pushed out of the comedy world felt like being thrown out of his tribe. Losing your community can hurt more than losing work.

   Share

3. Success can become a trap. Andrew believes mainstream comedy made him safer, richer and less interesting. Losing that world eventually gave him the freedom to make the comedy he actually wanted to make.

Leave a comment

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more