The article gives a plethora of examples which show history podcasts deliberately and seriously mistelling history in favor of intrigue. There are many more that the article does not mention.

Please, let’s not cherry-pick phrases to present an unbalanced view of the article.

And that example has nothing to do with misrepresentation or mistelling. Unless the podcast is specifically about slavery, I see no reason why the podcaster should be expected to mention slavery in reference to Jamestown.

I'm taking issue with that specific example, but if podcasts are rife with inaccuracies and misrepresentations it's odd that the writer felt the need to include that example, which does not support their point.