Toxicity in digital media poses significant challenges, yet little attention has been given to its dynamics within the rapidly growing medium of podcasts. This paper addresses this gap by analyzing political podcast data to study the emergence and propagation of toxicity, focusing on conversation chains-structured reply patterns within podcast transcripts. Leveraging state-of-the-art transcription models and advanced conversational analysis techniques, we systematically examine toxic discourse in over 30 popular political podcasts in the United States. Our key contributions include: (1) creating a comprehensive dataset of transcribed and diarized political podcasts, identifying thousands of toxic instances using Google's Perspective API, (2) uncovering concerning trends where a majority of episodes contain at least one toxic instance, (3) introducing toxic conversation chains and analyzing their structural and linguistic properties, revealing characteristics such as longer durations, repetitive patterns, figurative language, and emotional cues tied to anger and annoyance, (4) identifying demand-related words like 'want', 'like', and 'know' as precursors to toxicity, and (5) developing predictive models to anticipate toxicity shifts based on annotated change points. Our findings provide critical insights into podcast toxicity and establish a foundation for future research on real-time monitoring and intervention mechanisms to foster healthier discourse in this influential medium.

Recently efforts have been made by social media platforms as well as researchers to detect hateful or toxic language using large language models. However, none of these works aim to use explanation, additional context and victim community information in the detection process. We utilise different prompt variation, input information and evaluate large language models in zero shot setting (without adding any in-context examples). We select three large language models (GPT-3.5, text-davinci and Flan-T5) and three datasets - HateXplain, implicit hate and ToxicSpans. We find that on average including the target information in the pipeline improves the model performance substantially (~20-30%) over the baseline across the datasets. There is also a considerable effect of adding the rationales/explanations into the pipeline (~10-20%) over the baseline across the datasets. In addition, we further provide a typology of the error cases where these large language models fail to (i) classify and (ii) explain the reason for the decisions they take. Such vulnerable points automatically constitute 'jailbreak' prompts for these models and industry scale safeguard techniques need to be developed to make the models robust against such prompts.