While there is much to enjoy about this podcast (in particular the jousting between Brian Reed and his co-host Hamza Syed), it palls as storytelling because it gets bogged in the weeds of dreary details, relies heavily on unrelieved narration and does not deliver key interviewees as three-dimensional characters. Syed is variously cheeky, funny and furious, but his mission is clear: to overturn the Trojan Horse letter’s cascading effects, which saw British Muslims demonised and conflated as terrorists. Reed is a generous mentor and the pair’s increasingly heated exchanges on their very different cultural and professional approaches are raw and revealing. Their arguments illuminate the role of advocacy in journalism: a newly urgent topic since #BlackLIvesMatter and other social justice movements.But perhaps because it was built over four years on different continents, the podcast has uneven narrative force. Crucial figures decline to be interviewed – which the hosts note with increasing irritation and at times, what feels uncomfortably like entitlement. The Trojan Horse Affair makes clear that Islamophobia thrives in the UK and that it suits certain establishment figures to keep things that way. One episode, in which the pair dismantles the testimony of husband-and-wife teachers Steve and Sue Packer, whose threadbare “evidence” had fuelled anti-Muslim hysteria, is a knockout. But as with other enthralling narrative podcasts (Wind of Change, West Cork), Trojan Horse is more about savouring the journey than reaching the destination.