The top producer of the hit podcast “The Diary of a CEO” says the show has raised its bar for accuracy, an effort that began after a BBC investigation found it had shared harmful health misinformation.
“We’re being more rigorous than we have in the past,” Hans Sahni, the executive producer for “DOAC,” told Business Insider. “That bar gets higher and higher every day.”
The BBC reported in late 2024 that 15 of 23 health-related episodes contained an average of 14 potentially harmful claims.
A core part of “DOAC’s” accuracy effort is fact-checking its guests. The show began its own fact-checking about six months after the BBC report. The team runs every episode through an AI-assisted review using Claude, Gemini, and Consensus. It also hired an independent medical Ph.D. researcher to review its health and wellness episodes.
Sahni said the show is putting every new episode through this process, and has fact-checked 71 episodes with the Ph.D. researcher. That amounts to about 13% of the 540 long-form interviews in its YouTube catalog. Sahni said the team is exploring the idea of fact-checking previously published episodes.
“DOAC’s” fact-checking effort shows how independent creators are acting more like traditional media companies as they grow their audiences and attract the interest of big advertisers, who want their ads to run in brand-safe environments. Health and wellness have become particularly fraught topics, as many creators — including major stars like Joe Rogan — have been criticized for not pushing back against fringe views espoused by some of their guests.
“DOAC” host Steven Bartlett has come under more scrutiny as his megaphone has grown. “DOAC” has about 21 million subscribers on YouTube and regularly ranks as the top business podcast on Spotify. Bartlett recently told Fortune he projects the show will make $60 million this year from sponsorships and other sources.
In the video version of “DOAC” on platforms like YouTube and Spotify, when contested or complex topics arise, the show displays temporary pop-ups called “DOAC Community Notes” to rebut a guest or provide additional context. These are the result of the internal team’s review or collaboration between the researcher and the show’s team, who make the final call on what to put on screen.
The decision is based on the stakes of the claim, how strongly it’s challenged by scientific literature, and what context is useful to the viewer in the moment — with an emphasis on fewer, higher-value interruptions.
The audio version doesn’t have community notes, but information shared by the guest is cut if the team determines it to be inaccurate. An extensive fact-checking research document is linked in the show notes.
Sahni said the show’s guest-booking and research teams have also become more disciplined in evaluating potential guests.
Jeff Spicer/Getty Images for smoov
‘DOAC’s’ approach has its limits
Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, a Poynter project, applauded the show for making an effort to provide more accurate and contextual information.
“I would like to see more podcast hosts presenting information in context,” she said. “The bigger the audience, the bigger the responsibility, especially when there’s risk for harm.”
Holan saw some limitations to “DOAC’s” approach, though.
She said the sourcing on the Community Notes was unclear to viewers, as was who wrote the research briefings. She questioned whether the audience would read them, given that they’re long and dense and don’t present clear takeaways. The research documents often run upward of 80 pages. “DOAC” said it didn’t have reliable user data on readership but was looking at getting that measurement.
Holan suggested that, overall, it’s better to vet guests beforehand and have the interviewer fact-check the guest as they go.
Sahni said “DOAC” isn’t a news program and doesn’t present itself as such. At the same time, the show has a responsibility to the audience, he added.
Sahni said his team is working to improve the fact-checking process based on audience feedback and to expand its scope. For example, some viewers have said the pop-ups disappear too quickly or that there are too many of them.
The team uses Consensus, an AI research platform, in the fact-checking process and is exploring the use of its Consensus Meter, a visual feature, on-screen.
Figuring out how to present the same info on audio as on video without interrupting the listening experience is another hurdle. Right now, audio listeners can access the research document, but there’s no audio equivalent of the on-screen pop-up.
Helen Healey/NBC via Getty Images
Pop-ups challenged guests on drug and science claims
“DOAC” has had ample opportunity to put its fact-checking to work. Bartlett recently interviewed neuroscientist and podcaster Andrew Huberman, who’s been called out for promoting unapproved treatments.
Throughout the interview, which has over 8 million views, occasional pop-ups challenge Huberman’s medical claims, especially about peptides and weight-loss drugs.
Huberman said his sleep improved after he took the peptide pinealon. A 20-second pop-up appeared that read in part, “Evidence from human clinical studies remains limited.”
Another pop-up read, in part: “Interest in peptides has surged, particularly for weight loss and skin health, but many marketed products are not FDA-approved and lack strong evidence from human clinical trials.”
When Huberman calls the weight-loss drug Retatrutide “amazing” and says people lost about one-third of their body weight on it, a pop-up cautions that the drug remains under investigation and isn’t FDA-approved.
In an episode with sleep specialist Michael Breus that has 13 million views, Breus said 75% of the reason for insomnia is anxiety and depression. The research doc said insomnia has multiple contributors.
When aging researcher David Sinclair recommended eating a Brazil nut a day for its selenium, a pop-up warned that excessive intake can cause toxicity.
“There’s a tension between having a provocative guest and presenting the most accurate information we possibly can,” Sahni said. “We’re always going to lean toward being as accurate as we feel we can be. We’re not journalists. None of us are and don’t purport to be the news.”
