Yes. Just listening to the podcast as I type. Let's see if you can convince me I have no taste in Who ;-)

Shooting in the Utah desert: I've got a couple points on this. (1) Surely, since this part of the story is not resolved yet, we don't know whether there's a story reason why it's set there? (2) Even if "it could have been shot anywhere" in that case, why not in Utah unless there's somewhere better? (I think it looks great).

Reply to @Simon: It's not that it doesn't look great, but it's rather like stunt casting. :)

Reply to @Eugene: I like that it looks great, though. It might have looked exotic to you if they'd filmed it in Croydon, but I doubt it would have had a comparable aesthetic...

River Song: I think you're setting up a straw man in your criticism here. You argue that travelling in opposite directions is a bad story idea, but you also acknowledge that this is not what is happening. Indeed, the comparing the diaries occurs in this story itself, so it's quite clear that this is not the case. In fact, all we have here, is that a character says something which is not true. Which is part of the great dialogue which you acknowledge, and an essential part of drama. It certainly makes following the plot more complex, and places some of the burden of understanding the story logic onto the viewer. But I think Moffatt is writing for the iPlayer age, when people will watch and re-watch these episodes after broadcast, and again and again on DVD.

Reply to @Simon: Regarding the issue of River and The Doctor traveling temporaly in opposite directions, I would be fine with the idea if River were simply incorrect about how they are meeting in opposite directions (I do prefer Amy's explanation that they simply meet out of order), but when Moffatt himself says that they are meeting in "opposite directions" then I have to make a complaint. This is the man who is writing the stories and even HE is getting the details wrong!

Reply to @Ben: I'm only going by what we've seen in the episodes (I don't watch the behind the scenes stuff they put out on BBC3) and even within these episodes Moffat makes it plain enough - even for a viewer who hadn't seen the previous River episodes - by the time she delivers that line that she is grossly oversimplifying for Rory. So I'd agree with your criticism that if Moffatt has said this in an interview then that's misleading, but it certainly doesn't affect the episodes - from my perspective, at least.

One thing I'll agree about is that there are lots and lots of unanswered questions in these stories. But I think your criticisms, if they are justified, ought to wait to see if/how they are resolved, rather than in many cases supposing "maybe X is an explanation, and X is really rubbish, therefore it's a poor episode"... ;-)

Gay & black: Er "gay agenda"? Ugh, no, I really disliked all the discussion among the fan-base that linked it to RTD, as if a writer who wanted to write about black characters would have to be black, or about women a woman; or conversely that they would only write about black or female issues. (RTD wrote plenty of straight characters). Why should you assume that Moffatt would only being doing this as a nod to RTD?

I'm going to defend the position.

When a writer is working in a medium as constrained as television or movies, they have to be economical with the plot points. I'm not advocating that idea as a stylistic choice, but as a function of the constraints of time. Screenplays are a heavily constrained art form versus something with far less restrictions such as a novel.

Given these constraints, non-relevant dialog and scenes tend to get rather mercilessly removed, and when they don't it usually indicates that the writer hasn't got the story to fill the time. It's why it's so easy to spot a story with lots of "filler".

Now that the RTD era is over, I think we can look back on it as a complete work and, it's not a straw man. There were simply too many gay references to be coincidence. With the exception of Capt Jack (Moffat's creation) absolutely none of it had any purpose towards story or even character building. (Although, One might argue the lesbian couple in Gridlock were used as a character building point for Mr. Cat-man.)

The refences were in most cases no less prominent than "bad wolf.". It's no wonder than fans watching the show would pick up on it, but there was never a payoff (I'd also argue the was no payoff for bad wolf, but at least they tried — sort of.)

So if there was no plot or character point, then the references themselves were the point. Whether it should be considered an "agenda" is a distinction, but it was deliberate and had some objective.

Now, is Moffat doing the same with Canton? Perhaps not, he did give us Capt. Jack, and we're almost certain that Canton will be back later this series. His sexuality may yet be germane to the story, but as it stands, it was meaninglessly anachronistic and therefore feels shoehorned into the wrong place - and that's what harkens back to the RTD era.

As for black secret service men, well I'm impressed that Kennedy hand-picked one to be in the presidential guards; however, Kennedy was a Democrat who is generally remembered for championing equal rights. Whether a bold act by a forward-thinking man, or a cynical political ploy to help garner black voter support, Kennedy's action was not the norm for the day. I noticed from the article you referenced that he was immediately drummed out of the Secret Service upon Kennedy's assassination. Status quo restored.

While I can only speak for myself, I was not, nor do I believe Ben was, really making a direct point about the so-called gay agenda, but more about the feeling that re-writing for a modern audience the ugly history of treatment of blacks and gays is wrong and diminishes the memory of their struggles and sacrifices on the long road to equality. Yes, Doctor Who is fiction, but the format was originally conceived to educate and I think, despite that being virtually abandoned, it still has an obligation to get it's history at least partially correct when it isn't necessary to the fantasy of the story.

Reply to @Eugene: I agree with you, writing out "ugly treatment" would be wrong. It's just that I don't think that was what happened here. There's clearly discrimination going on. I'm not necessarily going to argue that Nixon was as liberal as he was portrayed, I don't know enough to know that, but I think the historical sequence involving Kennedy's protection shows that whilst it Doctor Who may not be 100% historically accurate (shock horror!) it's not playing fast and loose with the sense or spirit of the politics of the age.