Question Everything – Host Brian Reed Confronts His Toughest Critic

Podcast: Question Everything
Host: Brian Reed
Episode: Host Brian Reed Confronts his Toughest Critic
Date: January 1, 2026

Overview

This episode is a reflective and deeply introspective conversation in which host Brian Reed revisits the origins and fallout of his hit podcast, S Town. To kick off the new year—and the launch of his new podcast, Question Everything—Brian rebroadcasts an episode centered around an honest, sometimes uncomfortable dialogue with Gay Alcorn, an accomplished Australian journalist and one of his most pointed critics.

Together, they grapple with the ethical dilemmas of storytelling: What are a journalist's responsibilities when telling the story of a private citizen, especially posthumously? Was S Town a work of journalism or voyeurism? And, crucially, how do journalists build trust by confronting their own judgments and mistakes?

The discussion journeys through criticism, self-doubt, personal regret, and the blurred boundaries between storytelling and intrusion—all as Brian interrogates the values of his craft and its impact on real people.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Genesis and Impact of S Town

• Brian Reed recalls the origins of S Town, following John B. McLemore’s request to investigate local corruption in rural Alabama.

• After uncovering that the murder at the story's core was rumor, the narrative shifted to a portrait of John’s complex life, touching on his brilliance, sexuality, pain rituals, and eventual suicide.

• S Town became a sensation, but also drew significant ethical criticism centered on privacy, consent, and the degree of detail revealed about John’s life.

  “The story this person criticized was S Town, a podcast series I hosted in 2017 about a man named John B. McLemore… John was funny, outrageous, profane, brilliant.” – Brian Reed [02:39]

2. Consent, Transparency, and the Journalist's Role

• Gay Alcorn’s main critique: John initiated contact for an investigative story, not to have his life—and most intimate details—probed for millions to hear, especially after his death.

• The central dilemma: When a subject dies unexpectedly, what is ethical to include without explicit, current consent?

• Reed reflects he hadn’t fully internalized concerns about whether the existence of the story was justifiable, focusing more on reporting choices than the overall undertaking.

  “That’s different: to understand another human being, to do a seven-part podcast series on them, revealing every intimate and sordid detail…when they haven’t given you explicit consent…” – Gay Alcorn [13:43]

• Alcorn argues that transparency about decision-making and ethical conflicts should have been foregrounded in S Town.

  “I could have forgiven you almost anything if you’d taken me through the process of explaining why you thought this was worthwhile to do…” – Gay Alcorn [14:13]

3. Reporting vs. Voyeurism: Where is the Line?

• Both discuss the risk that telling a detailed, dramatic life story (especially of a private individual) can tip into voyeurism, regardless of outcome or audience impact.
• Reed concedes that the show could have done more to share their internal debates and editorial struggles:

  “We should have been clearer or could have been clearer and more transparent about our decision making process… And that criticism, I think is legitimate and real.” – Brian Reed [24:34]

4. The Limits and Grey Zones of Consent

• Alcorn presses Reed about whether John ever gave consent for the most sensitive aspects of his life to be broadcast. Reed acknowledges, “No,” and says these dilemmas weren’t explicitly discussed because John died while the process was still unfolding.

  “He obviously consented to give you all sorts of interviews… but he never consented for you to do a story that would go into the most private and painful and sordid details of his life…” – Gay Alcorn [28:39]

• Reed describes months of reporting, conversations with John’s loved ones, and a focus on whether including details served a genuine public interest or preserved John’s legacy in a meaningful way.

5. Journalism as Craft—and as Personal Responsibility

• The conversation turns introspective as both journalists reflect on their younger selves’ hunger for bylines and acclaim, often at the expense of full consideration for subjects’ emotional well-being.

• Alcorn shares story of reporting on a gambler in Melbourne, regretting that she didn’t support the subject’s family enough after publication, exposing a tension between journalistic ambition and human responsibility.

  “People think you’re...their friend and you’re not their friend. The story is ultimately the thing. And that’s what my daughter said to me. That’s what you do.” – Gay Alcorn [38:23]

6. Grief, Guilt, and Aftermath

• Reed confides in his deeper regret: not for storytelling choices, but for not saving John. He expresses human guilt for not knowing how to intervene, having since learned about suicide prevention.

  “I feel real guilt about…that I wasn’t able to or didn’t do enough to stop John from killing himself. Like, that’s the actual just human guilt that I feel… I feel less conflicted about what I did after and much more conflicted about what I didn’t do before.” – Brian Reed [40:31]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the core dilemma:
  “Maybe we didn’t have a right to know any of these things about this dead man who never really understood that after he died, a story of his life would be made and then downloaded by 40 million people.”
  — Vox reporter, quoted by Brian Reed [06:44]

• On transparency:
  “You reveal all other things in this podcast. You don’t pretend you’re an objective reporter, but those issues you don’t talk about much. And that I do think was a real weakness of the show.”
  — Gay Alcorn [25:03]

• On consent and public interest:
  “My decision about it came out of many months of reporting and talking to people and getting a sense of, is this important to the story, and is there public interest in this, and what effect will this have on John’s legacy and on his community?”
  — Brian Reed [21:12]

• On the challenge of the journalist–subject relationship:
  “Ultimately these stories are your stories. It is the reporter’s story. And ultimately what we care about most…your first obligation is to do the very best story you can. People think you’re their friend…and you’re not their friend. The story is ultimately the thing.”
  — Gay Alcorn [37:05–38:23]

• Personal guilt beyond journalism:
  “If I really think about the real thing I regret in this whole experience…is that I wasn’t able to or didn’t do enough to stop John from killing himself.”
  — Brian Reed [40:31]

Important Timestamps & Segments

• [00:00 – 04:00]: Brian reflects on a year of journalism, S Town origins, and why he’s revisiting this conversation
• [13:33 – 16:53]: Alcorn’s core criticisms—shift from murder investigation to personal portrait, lack of consent
• [18:56 – 20:33]: The heart of the ethical critique: “Why do you think this is a story at all?”
• [23:19 – 24:34]: Consent, sexuality, and the decision to include sensitive details
• [25:03 – 26:51]: Alcorn’s call for transparency; Reed reflects on a passage he’d redo
• [28:39 – 29:07]: Deep dive on explicit consent and its limitations posthumously
• [32:57 – 36:11]: Alcorn shares her own regrets over a narrative series; the human cost of reporting
• [38:23 – 41:13]: Journalist as non-friend, personal reflections on guilt and loss
• [43:02 – 43:28]: Reed apologizes for declining Alcorn’s earlier interview request

Structure & Tone

• Emotional, probing, and raw—the episode intentionally blurs lines between interview and therapy, with both Reed and Alcorn exposing vulnerabilities, doubts, and the unresolvable greys of journalism.
• Candid, analytical, sometimes defensive—the tone swings as Reed seeks both self-understanding and mutual recognition.
• Reflective and self-critical—Reed is often more willing to admit mistakes in hindsight, especially regarding transparency and consent.

Conclusion

This episode stands as a unique, meta-reflection on the ethics of journalism, the consequences of narrative ambition, and the responsibilities storytellers bear—especially when the trust of their subjects cannot be renewed or revoked. Reed’s willingness to confront his toughest critic, and himself, offers listeners rare insight into the anxiety and care behind headline-making storytelling.