Funnily enough I was having this conversation at lunch with a philosophy professor. A few areas I have particular interest have always been accurate and indeed informative - and I look forward to topics I know a reasonable amount about as much as those I know nothing about. Incidentally the professor said the exact same was true for his field, indeed he uses them as a resource for his first year undergraduates.

The only thing I would say that on some occasions they can miss certain parts or nuances at times. However this isn't because they are wrong but simple the constraint of time, medium,variation of guests and the nature of topics.

I cannot rate In our time enough!

It's one of my favorite podcasts and I eagerly consume every new episode. Virtually every episode in my field that I've listened to has been excellent and the guests are almost always among the best historians in (British) academia.

I can, however, think of individual episodes that I disliked for one reason or another. There's one very old episode in the archive that I recall having to turn off if I'm remembering it right because it basically became an argument between Melvyn and one of the guests about wanting to make incredibly politicized points about British Imperialism. In the episode on the Third Crusade, Tariq Ali showed up late and then took the discussion off the rails into a historiographical debate about the extent or reality of Christians massacring non-Christian civilians during the crusades which is certainly an interesting topic but it felt to me like the discussion stopped being historical.

But those are very much the exception, I recommend it wholeheartedly.