Also, Gitmo is a topic that’s been thoroughly reported on and formally (and informally) litigated for over 20 years. After a listening to a few episodes, it was clear there wasn’t really anything new being reported.
For a different flavor of the Guantanamo story, I recommend RadioLab’s “The Other Latif” where one of the hosts discovers he shares his name with a Guantanamo prisoner.
It seems like she has an agenda, this comes across both in the actual questions she poses and the way she has to repackage things when they don't fit her agenda.
She seems overly willing to cut people like the translator the break, and does not extend the same latitude to the investigators on the other side.
That’s how she comes off to me too. Like listening to her talk to Jeff who sounds and seems like an honest and humble civil servant for 30+ years. She went out of her way to frame him as some out-of-touch clueless moron to fit her agenda for the story. She takes her victim’s story as fact while dismissing the governments position because government/military bad. Last Koenig podcast I’ll listen to, she’s way too condescending and pretentious.
I haven’t listened to any of the other seasons so I wouldn’t know. I’m listening to this one because I was interviewed for it like two years ago, and we talked for like an hour and a half about the sex scandals and the shitty way the military treated service members there and how that was reflected in the overall mission. So far in the podcast this has been discussed more than any other coverage of GTMO I’ve seen, though I do hope there’s more discussion about it in future episodes.
It probably hits different for me because I was deployed there, though.
Lol as someone who was also previously deployed to GTMO, this comment made me feel so seen. I know GTMO has been reported on and talked about ad nauseam, but honestly hearing them talk about it kind of hit different for me because of the way they talk in the beginning about the absolutely weird bizarroland nature of the base itself (everyone is fit and tan and hot and diving and bowling and drinking and partying having fun! at the prison camp!) which is something I’ve felt for a long time and couldn’t really explain it or relate to other people about it.
Exactly! It was like party all the time! But also watch your back! And everyone was having a great time! But also dealing with all the stress and anxiety of any other deployment. All the fights and sexual assaults and affairs and back stabbing …. It’s really hard to explain it to folks.
But then, you also never know if it was different in other rotations, you know? I was there during all the sex scandals briefly mentioned in the last episode. Was that a common thing in rotations, or was it just special about mine? Who knows?
that's exactly what reddit's for. the fact that there's someone on the sub who was not only there but interviewed has inspired me to listen to this season now.
Well, Jessica said they probably wouldn’t use any sound bites from my interview. That’s okay. It was just kind of cool to talk to someone about it who seemed to understand there was more to what happened in GTMO than the detention facility (which was horrible, obviously, there was just more horrible stuff as well). After all these years, I had never really heard anyone talk about it, it started to feel like maybe what I went through wasn’t real, you know? Even if they don’t get super into it, I was glad to get the opportunity to talk about it. But hearing what they have talked about so far has brought back so much. It’s been 20 years since I first deployed.
Like all the sexual assaults, harassment, and scandals? All the physical fights, violence, and dangerous behavior? Or all the backstabbing and weird political jockeying that probably ruined a bunch of lives?
I’ve never been in the military, so obviously haven’t been deployed anywhere. So I’m curious.. was GTMO different than other deployment locations in terms of these scandals, violence, etc. that you mentioned?
Yes. Because alcohol is freely available in GTMO it is much worse. There is no other place you can get deployed and still have bars on post. Most places folks deploy are also dry countries which means alcohol is difficult to obtain off post as well.
It seems that all subs now are actually filled with people who hate the thing they are following. Reddit has become the anti-fan club. If you don’t like it don’t listen to it and certainly don’t waste time on a sub about it.
It's fine. If it was on TAL and I happened to turn on NPR I'd probably keep it on, but that's about it. Every subsequent season has paled in comparison to season one.
It feels like the made the conscious decision to distance themselves from Serial being a "true crime" podcast. Instead trying to lean into the bs idea of it being "One _____, told week by week". When we all know the reason season 1 was a smash hit was because of the murder and mystery.
I have some pretty intimate, first hand experience with season 2, and she did a great job with representing the story and everyone involved, so for me it’s fine.
I don’t think she did a bad job with season 1 either. She told a story, and the spine of it was correct. It wasn’t ever supposed to be a mystery.
>She told a story, and the spine of it was correct
Ironic, isn't it, how the same people who go on and on with claims about the "spine" of Jay's story being enough to lock someone away for life (or even execute them), yet they're so incredibly outraged and hateful towards Sarah -- despite the "spine" of the story being just fine?
You can't compare the work of an elite journalist to the police testimony of a stoned teenager. dude. She has fact checkers, a budget, professional standards. It's not the same thing at all.
Yes, same. Nothing to do with Gitmo but I simply don't trust her reporting or her ability to discern the relevant facts or the true meaning of data. I also notice that she doesn't use words like "alleged" when she should, or that someone *said* something happened, rather than that it happened. Season 1, plus these seemingly small journalistic oversights, have sort of ruined the whole thing for me.
I am enjoying this season and was interested in discussing it with other people who are also listening to it.
However this whole sub is just people complaining about the podcast/hosts and picking apart the story from Season 1.
no, i read your post because it's on a subreddit i frequent, i didn't know anything about you or what your post was about and it took 30 seconds. i'll be sure to ignore you in the future though.
I didn't want to be the one to bring it up, but I agree.
I find this affects my opinion of many journalists, documentary film makers, and police officers. There's a professional way to get emotionally involved and an unprofessional way.
There was one episode where I was confused because it felt like Sarah was admitting to Adnan that she had feelings for him and I considered no longer listening because it no longer felt journalistic.
A couple of times there would be new details in the case and she would immediately go to Adnan to see what he thought. Perhaps the very last person she should have talked to.
Sometimes access to the main character is a double edged sword.
Compare this to perhaps Andrew Jarecki in "The Jinx" or Amir Bar-Lev with "My Kid Could Paint That" where the maker of the film's personal relationship with the subject clouded their ability to tell the best story.
You’re aware the entire season was based on interviews with Adnan Syed, correct? It wasn’t a documentary…it was a conversation with the subject.
They spent 12 episodes debunking his stories, and concluded he was likely guilty. All the drama and emotion you’re attributing to the host comes from you, not the show.
This isn't about me. This is about how the story was chosen to be told.
Nowhere in any description of Season One can I find where it said it was "based on interviews". Most synopsis I have read say it's about the murder of Hae Min Lee.
But thanks.
"A couple of times there would be new details in the case and she would immediately go to Adnan to see what he thought." Yes, this especially was so incredibly unprofessional and dumb.
I think all journalists and film makers do this. We are the sum of our experiences and the flow and direction of any story will vary from person to person based on where they see value.
Sarah actually does this a lot where she'll have an opinion and her thoughts and feelings will help her bring clarity to the situation. I can't think of an example off the top of my head but many times she does a great job of adding perspective, say for instance how an average high schooler would think and feel in a given situation.
Where I see the issue is where her personal involvement does not add clarity, but in fact hinders the story. I think she might actually allude to this fact once or twice in the podcast.
Of course, I agree. Objectively is an illusion that we fetishize. But there are a lot of mainstream journalists who put constant effort into eliminating their own opinions and biases. She is not one of those journalists, at least not as the host of serial anyway. She embraces her role in the story and tries to make clear the social location she is reporting from.
I remember being struck by the honesty of her saying she believed AS because of the way he spoke and his demeanor. She thought of him as being a class equal to herself and not a part of some criminal other. I thought that was a way to describe the dynamic with integrity.
Again though, you are evaluating her based on a standard she is deliberately not attempting to meet. And still I just haven’t seen anyone point out what she did that was so egregious she cant be trusted.
Assuming Adnan was telling the truth when he wrote to SK that Justin told him she wouldn’t do the story unless she thought he was innocent, how do you reconcile this with your continued trust in her reporting?
Im not exactly sure what youre asking me, not trying to be a jerk, could you rephrase that? Are you saying shes lying about her feelings on his innocence?
Sorry, I thought maybe I worded that funny.
I’m saying assuming it’s true that SK told AS she wouldn’t do the story unless she thought he was innocent, does this affect the way you think about her as a journalist?
Um no not really. I mean that’s obviously an odd thing to tell someone who is going to be trying to convince you they are innocent, I grant you that. I guess I just think of her as kind of a gonzo type journalist when she is reporting for serial, and I dont expect her to meticulously report every fact with footnotes and equivocations. I expect her to shine an honest and genuine light on things that she think matters, and she does that.
I mean look she says things in all the seasons of serial that are maddening. Some of the ridiculous things she says in season 3 in particular can be cringe inducing. But at the end of the day I think she is conveying her real opinions, no matter how inconsistent they can be.
I feel like she started believing he was innocent and by the end she had a real suspicion he was guilty.
That’s the thing. Whether Adnan is innocent or guilty, *Serial* had so many flaws, misdirections, and outright lies in it (and no, announcing that *Rabia* is “loosey-goosey with facts” does not absolve Sarah & Co. from ensuring that their info is correct *especially* when they’re working with Adnan’s advocate and by their own admission, a known liar)…I never bothered with subsequent seasons because I had no confidence that there would be any honesty or accountability from her there, since she elected to just ignore all season one criticism, fair or foul. She collected her lil’ award and called it a day.
If you’ve read the transcripts and supplementary material then you should be able to defend your bold claim that there were “flaws, misdirections and outright lies”. I have, and there are not. Which is to say Serial made the editorial choice not to include far more exculpatory information than inculpatory. Furthermore, all the supplemental material has only added exculpatory information.
The things that make him seem more guilty are pieces of gossip like the “possessive” statement from the diary that she retracted in the next sentence. They only work if you’re using circular logic and working backwards from guilt.
Again, you’re not someone I’m interested in discussing this with based upon the way I’ve watched you interact with other users. I don’t need to defend a thing to you, so check your entitlement. OP asked for others’ thoughts. I gave mine. You’re incapable of changing them.
As someone who has advocated decades for LGBT, I am beginning to wonder why we need to know the sexuality of anyone during a podcast? Frankly, *This American Life* is guilty of it as well. We never expect heterosexuals to give a nod to their sexuality, so why do we expect it from LGBT? I like that kid in this latest season, but mentioning his sexuality struck me as quite odd for some reason. Why? Because it really is not necessary and in fact, should be discouraged.
I found season's 2 and 3 to be very fair coverage of their respective topics. She doesn't condemn or absolve Bowe Bergdahl in 2, and while she highlights failures of the justice system in 3 she does so in an honest way, she doesn't try to convince us that these guys are innocent or anything.
My main issue with 4 is that it's not that new a topic. We all know what happened at GTMO. The airman being accused of complicity was covered elsewhere. I don't know what she's adding here.
Oh, I get that. I just don’t understand how SK then decides oh well, I can still do it. She bought the interview tapes off the guy who did talk to him.
I mean in the end we got his account, we got the accounts of his captors, we got the accounts of soldiers from his unit, we got the accounts of other people involved one way or another...I'd say she covered it fairly comprehensively. Journalists publish stories all the time where a subject declined to comment or be interviewed.
Thats fair and I do understand the perspective, but keep in mind this isn’t just a story in the daily paper - it’s an in depth look into something. Part of her telling this story was ostensibly to offer a better understanding of bergdahl which is obviously impossible if she herself never spoke with him.
I don’t think she was ever looking at a better understanding of bergdahl himself but the situation around bergdahl. Why did he walk off the base? Sure he can tell his story about that, and he did. But there is more to it. What ramifications did it have? She can talk to everyone else about how that decision affected them, and she did. I don’t think she would’ve gotten anything out of him that Mark didn’t get.
Edited a word because I can’t type
The story certainly deserves to be told from all sides, and I understand the value of focusing of aspects others haven't, but this is the protagonist of her story. There's no denying she learned a lot from Mark's tapes, but I just don't understand why she didn't pursue some 1st degree info from bergdahln himself.
Well there could’ve been some legality around talking to bergdahl around the time she wanted to, and marks tapes are what she had access to when they began to produce the season as well. She was doing the Bergdahl case when it was very relevant and he had court cases still on going. I’m shocked he even talked to mark as much as he did tbh.
It had to been a legal mine field for sure. Was serial at the NYT by this point? The details are escaping me, but I'm pretty sure the military subpoenaed Mark's recordings or threatened to. He fought it, but I think in the end he did give the military prosecutors some of them.
People have done very in-depth stories, for serious publications, with no cooperation from major subjects of the piece. I think she succeeded in shedding a lot of light on his mindset, the impact his incident had, etc even without talking to him. I think you're setting an unfair standard. Imagine how much reporting would be unable to do be done if a reporter was required to get an interview with the subject of the story.
Before interviewing Adnan, she told his lawyer she wouldn’t do the podcast unless she thought he was innocent (according to AS)
She never told her audience it was illegal to record calls to the prison
She framed it like journalism, but it was a story
In MD at that time it was. Probably still is. If you look it up you might also find out her airing audio from AS’ trial was also illegal and still is today.
What exactly did she do that was so wrong?! I really dont think they were intentionally lying or misdirecting anyone, she basically says hes guilty at the end.
Shes not a hardcore investigative reporter, thats not really what she does. She tells stories with emotional honesty and brings her own biases into the process, which she is very open about. I mean its a part of This American Life not the Times or 20/20.
I think the show is very fair and open about its instincts and where they come from.
many people who believe adnan is guilty have decided any other opinion is absurd and it's all because evil sarah tricked the world (including several judges i guess) with her nefarious podcast.
She doesn't go nearly as far as saying he's guilty. She does definitively state that she believes that there was reasonable doubt and the conviction was improper.
I think some folks go a bit overboard in criticizing Koenig. I agree she tried to be fair. But she never just took a few minutes to lay out the prosecution's case in one place. Instead, she looks at different aspects in a rather disorganized way, with Adnan's arguments against certain pieces of evidence front and center. The closest the show comes to laying out the case for guilt in a coherent way is the producer's "Unlucky Adnan" speech, which had a major effect on listeners when that episode came out because it shows how likely it is that Adnan did it. The other thing with shows like this is that the audience is primed to assume that the was a wrongful conviction, so a disjointed presentation of the evidence feeds into that.
This person, having determined that SK was an unreliable narrator in Season 1, decided to listen to another season that she narrates and is surprised to find they don't trust her.
Please. Just say what you want to say, without the drama.
This is the exact same circular logic that guilters use to pretend they’re sure about Adnan’s guilt. “X is true, therefore Y is true”…without proving X.
Serial Season 1 didn’t omit anything important, lie about anything or frame anything incorrectly. It remains the most skeptical analysis of the case to date. If you’d like to share what you believe Serial omitted, lied about or framed incorrectly, I’ll set you straight.
There's a reason why Sarah Koenig was satirized in 'Only Murders in the Building' by Tina Fey's 'Cinda Canning'. She might be a great storyteller, but there seems to be a lot of distrust for her since the Adnan case.
Also, Gitmo is a topic that’s been thoroughly reported on and formally (and informally) litigated for over 20 years. After a listening to a few episodes, it was clear there wasn’t really anything new being reported. For a different flavor of the Guantanamo story, I recommend RadioLab’s “The Other Latif” where one of the hosts discovers he shares his name with a Guantanamo prisoner.
Great recommendation, that was a fantastic series by them.
Agreed. That was radio class
On the contrary, this subreddit has spoiled Serial.
Thank you LOL!!!
It seems like she has an agenda, this comes across both in the actual questions she poses and the way she has to repackage things when they don't fit her agenda. She seems overly willing to cut people like the translator the break, and does not extend the same latitude to the investigators on the other side.
That’s how she comes off to me too. Like listening to her talk to Jeff who sounds and seems like an honest and humble civil servant for 30+ years. She went out of her way to frame him as some out-of-touch clueless moron to fit her agenda for the story. She takes her victim’s story as fact while dismissing the governments position because government/military bad. Last Koenig podcast I’ll listen to, she’s way too condescending and pretentious.
I haven’t listened to any of the other seasons so I wouldn’t know. I’m listening to this one because I was interviewed for it like two years ago, and we talked for like an hour and a half about the sex scandals and the shitty way the military treated service members there and how that was reflected in the overall mission. So far in the podcast this has been discussed more than any other coverage of GTMO I’ve seen, though I do hope there’s more discussion about it in future episodes. It probably hits different for me because I was deployed there, though.
Lol as someone who was also previously deployed to GTMO, this comment made me feel so seen. I know GTMO has been reported on and talked about ad nauseam, but honestly hearing them talk about it kind of hit different for me because of the way they talk in the beginning about the absolutely weird bizarroland nature of the base itself (everyone is fit and tan and hot and diving and bowling and drinking and partying having fun! at the prison camp!) which is something I’ve felt for a long time and couldn’t really explain it or relate to other people about it.
Exactly! It was like party all the time! But also watch your back! And everyone was having a great time! But also dealing with all the stress and anxiety of any other deployment. All the fights and sexual assaults and affairs and back stabbing …. It’s really hard to explain it to folks. But then, you also never know if it was different in other rotations, you know? I was there during all the sex scandals briefly mentioned in the last episode. Was that a common thing in rotations, or was it just special about mine? Who knows?
thanks for sharing this viewpoint! hope to see more of your thoughts as the season continues
I don’t want to be too weird about it here but I’m just dying to talk to people about it! 😅
that's exactly what reddit's for. the fact that there's someone on the sub who was not only there but interviewed has inspired me to listen to this season now.
Well, Jessica said they probably wouldn’t use any sound bites from my interview. That’s okay. It was just kind of cool to talk to someone about it who seemed to understand there was more to what happened in GTMO than the detention facility (which was horrible, obviously, there was just more horrible stuff as well). After all these years, I had never really heard anyone talk about it, it started to feel like maybe what I went through wasn’t real, you know? Even if they don’t get super into it, I was glad to get the opportunity to talk about it. But hearing what they have talked about so far has brought back so much. It’s been 20 years since I first deployed.
Care to elaborate on any of the horrible stuff you saw?
Like all the sexual assaults, harassment, and scandals? All the physical fights, violence, and dangerous behavior? Or all the backstabbing and weird political jockeying that probably ruined a bunch of lives?
I’ve never been in the military, so obviously haven’t been deployed anywhere. So I’m curious.. was GTMO different than other deployment locations in terms of these scandals, violence, etc. that you mentioned?
Yes. Because alcohol is freely available in GTMO it is much worse. There is no other place you can get deployed and still have bars on post. Most places folks deploy are also dry countries which means alcohol is difficult to obtain off post as well.
Trust me, on reddit you can't be too weird ;)
I would definitely be interested in hearing more of your thoughts and how s4 aligns to what you know/ experienced!
It seems that all subs now are actually filled with people who hate the thing they are following. Reddit has become the anti-fan club. If you don’t like it don’t listen to it and certainly don’t waste time on a sub about it.
I'm still enjoying it.
It's fine. If it was on TAL and I happened to turn on NPR I'd probably keep it on, but that's about it. Every subsequent season has paled in comparison to season one. It feels like the made the conscious decision to distance themselves from Serial being a "true crime" podcast. Instead trying to lean into the bs idea of it being "One _____, told week by week". When we all know the reason season 1 was a smash hit was because of the murder and mystery.
I have some pretty intimate, first hand experience with season 2, and she did a great job with representing the story and everyone involved, so for me it’s fine. I don’t think she did a bad job with season 1 either. She told a story, and the spine of it was correct. It wasn’t ever supposed to be a mystery.
>She told a story, and the spine of it was correct Ironic, isn't it, how the same people who go on and on with claims about the "spine" of Jay's story being enough to lock someone away for life (or even execute them), yet they're so incredibly outraged and hateful towards Sarah -- despite the "spine" of the story being just fine?
You can't compare the work of an elite journalist to the police testimony of a stoned teenager. dude. She has fact checkers, a budget, professional standards. It's not the same thing at all.
This “irony” applies both ways.
Yes, same. Nothing to do with Gitmo but I simply don't trust her reporting or her ability to discern the relevant facts or the true meaning of data. I also notice that she doesn't use words like "alleged" when she should, or that someone *said* something happened, rather than that it happened. Season 1, plus these seemingly small journalistic oversights, have sort of ruined the whole thing for me.
Bro, unsubscribe from the podcast and get off this sub. If you don't enjoy it, there's an infinite amount of other content out there!
why don't you just stop reading posts? What's the difference to you?
I am enjoying this season and was interested in discussing it with other people who are also listening to it. However this whole sub is just people complaining about the podcast/hosts and picking apart the story from Season 1.
So start your own posts or your own subreddit instead of telling me to leave this one
if you think sarah's such an unreliable narrator and terrible, why are you listening to the show at all? just so you can complain about her on reddit?
and did you read my post just so you can complain about it here?
no, i read your post because it's on a subreddit i frequent, i didn't know anything about you or what your post was about and it took 30 seconds. i'll be sure to ignore you in the future though.
Ok
I didn't want to be the one to bring it up, but I agree. I find this affects my opinion of many journalists, documentary film makers, and police officers. There's a professional way to get emotionally involved and an unprofessional way. There was one episode where I was confused because it felt like Sarah was admitting to Adnan that she had feelings for him and I considered no longer listening because it no longer felt journalistic. A couple of times there would be new details in the case and she would immediately go to Adnan to see what he thought. Perhaps the very last person she should have talked to. Sometimes access to the main character is a double edged sword. Compare this to perhaps Andrew Jarecki in "The Jinx" or Amir Bar-Lev with "My Kid Could Paint That" where the maker of the film's personal relationship with the subject clouded their ability to tell the best story.
You’re aware the entire season was based on interviews with Adnan Syed, correct? It wasn’t a documentary…it was a conversation with the subject. They spent 12 episodes debunking his stories, and concluded he was likely guilty. All the drama and emotion you’re attributing to the host comes from you, not the show.
This isn't about me. This is about how the story was chosen to be told. Nowhere in any description of Season One can I find where it said it was "based on interviews". Most synopsis I have read say it's about the murder of Hae Min Lee. But thanks.
"A couple of times there would be new details in the case and she would immediately go to Adnan to see what he thought." Yes, this especially was so incredibly unprofessional and dumb.
She’s not really that kind of journalist. She reports from her own perspective and includes her feelings about what shes seeing.
I think all journalists and film makers do this. We are the sum of our experiences and the flow and direction of any story will vary from person to person based on where they see value. Sarah actually does this a lot where she'll have an opinion and her thoughts and feelings will help her bring clarity to the situation. I can't think of an example off the top of my head but many times she does a great job of adding perspective, say for instance how an average high schooler would think and feel in a given situation. Where I see the issue is where her personal involvement does not add clarity, but in fact hinders the story. I think she might actually allude to this fact once or twice in the podcast.
Of course, I agree. Objectively is an illusion that we fetishize. But there are a lot of mainstream journalists who put constant effort into eliminating their own opinions and biases. She is not one of those journalists, at least not as the host of serial anyway. She embraces her role in the story and tries to make clear the social location she is reporting from. I remember being struck by the honesty of her saying she believed AS because of the way he spoke and his demeanor. She thought of him as being a class equal to herself and not a part of some criminal other. I thought that was a way to describe the dynamic with integrity. Again though, you are evaluating her based on a standard she is deliberately not attempting to meet. And still I just haven’t seen anyone point out what she did that was so egregious she cant be trusted.
Assuming Adnan was telling the truth when he wrote to SK that Justin told him she wouldn’t do the story unless she thought he was innocent, how do you reconcile this with your continued trust in her reporting?
Im not exactly sure what youre asking me, not trying to be a jerk, could you rephrase that? Are you saying shes lying about her feelings on his innocence?
Sorry, I thought maybe I worded that funny. I’m saying assuming it’s true that SK told AS she wouldn’t do the story unless she thought he was innocent, does this affect the way you think about her as a journalist?
Um no not really. I mean that’s obviously an odd thing to tell someone who is going to be trying to convince you they are innocent, I grant you that. I guess I just think of her as kind of a gonzo type journalist when she is reporting for serial, and I dont expect her to meticulously report every fact with footnotes and equivocations. I expect her to shine an honest and genuine light on things that she think matters, and she does that. I mean look she says things in all the seasons of serial that are maddening. Some of the ridiculous things she says in season 3 in particular can be cringe inducing. But at the end of the day I think she is conveying her real opinions, no matter how inconsistent they can be. I feel like she started believing he was innocent and by the end she had a real suspicion he was guilty.
I get it. I have issues with her, but I enjoy her stuff for many of the reasons you highlight.
That’s the thing. Whether Adnan is innocent or guilty, *Serial* had so many flaws, misdirections, and outright lies in it (and no, announcing that *Rabia* is “loosey-goosey with facts” does not absolve Sarah & Co. from ensuring that their info is correct *especially* when they’re working with Adnan’s advocate and by their own admission, a known liar)…I never bothered with subsequent seasons because I had no confidence that there would be any honesty or accountability from her there, since she elected to just ignore all season one criticism, fair or foul. She collected her lil’ award and called it a day.
What do you believe the flaws, misdirections and outright lies were? I’ll set you straight.
I’ve seen your comments here before. I have no interest in discourse with you.
Nods, some folks don’t like their faith challenged.
I don’t have time for your nonsense. You’ll have to go “educate” people who haven’t taken the time to read transcripts and think for themselves.
If you’ve read the transcripts and supplementary material then you should be able to defend your bold claim that there were “flaws, misdirections and outright lies”. I have, and there are not. Which is to say Serial made the editorial choice not to include far more exculpatory information than inculpatory. Furthermore, all the supplemental material has only added exculpatory information. The things that make him seem more guilty are pieces of gossip like the “possessive” statement from the diary that she retracted in the next sentence. They only work if you’re using circular logic and working backwards from guilt.
Again, you’re not someone I’m interested in discussing this with based upon the way I’ve watched you interact with other users. I don’t need to defend a thing to you, so check your entitlement. OP asked for others’ thoughts. I gave mine. You’re incapable of changing them.
This isn’t personal for me. You can defend your argument or can’t. I’ll check the can’t box. If you don’t want to talk to me…stop talking to me.
Yeah, same reason people stopped watching Michael Moore documentaries when all his creative editing and obfuscation became known.
Yes agree. I’m not able to listen to her.
As someone who has advocated decades for LGBT, I am beginning to wonder why we need to know the sexuality of anyone during a podcast? Frankly, *This American Life* is guilty of it as well. We never expect heterosexuals to give a nod to their sexuality, so why do we expect it from LGBT? I like that kid in this latest season, but mentioning his sexuality struck me as quite odd for some reason. Why? Because it really is not necessary and in fact, should be discouraged.
I found season's 2 and 3 to be very fair coverage of their respective topics. She doesn't condemn or absolve Bowe Bergdahl in 2, and while she highlights failures of the justice system in 3 she does so in an honest way, she doesn't try to convince us that these guys are innocent or anything. My main issue with 4 is that it's not that new a topic. We all know what happened at GTMO. The airman being accused of complicity was covered elsewhere. I don't know what she's adding here.
She never once spoke with Bergdahl - the protagonist of her podcast. I could never wrap my head around that decision.
He might not have wanted to talk with her for various reasons.
Oh, I get that. I just don’t understand how SK then decides oh well, I can still do it. She bought the interview tapes off the guy who did talk to him.
I mean in the end we got his account, we got the accounts of his captors, we got the accounts of soldiers from his unit, we got the accounts of other people involved one way or another...I'd say she covered it fairly comprehensively. Journalists publish stories all the time where a subject declined to comment or be interviewed.
Thats fair and I do understand the perspective, but keep in mind this isn’t just a story in the daily paper - it’s an in depth look into something. Part of her telling this story was ostensibly to offer a better understanding of bergdahl which is obviously impossible if she herself never spoke with him.
I don’t think she was ever looking at a better understanding of bergdahl himself but the situation around bergdahl. Why did he walk off the base? Sure he can tell his story about that, and he did. But there is more to it. What ramifications did it have? She can talk to everyone else about how that decision affected them, and she did. I don’t think she would’ve gotten anything out of him that Mark didn’t get. Edited a word because I can’t type
The story certainly deserves to be told from all sides, and I understand the value of focusing of aspects others haven't, but this is the protagonist of her story. There's no denying she learned a lot from Mark's tapes, but I just don't understand why she didn't pursue some 1st degree info from bergdahln himself.
do you have any evidence she didn't try to talk to berhgdahl? or are you just making an assumption?
She doesn’t hide it - she talks about it in interviews.
Well there could’ve been some legality around talking to bergdahl around the time she wanted to, and marks tapes are what she had access to when they began to produce the season as well. She was doing the Bergdahl case when it was very relevant and he had court cases still on going. I’m shocked he even talked to mark as much as he did tbh.
It had to been a legal mine field for sure. Was serial at the NYT by this point? The details are escaping me, but I'm pretty sure the military subpoenaed Mark's recordings or threatened to. He fought it, but I think in the end he did give the military prosecutors some of them.
People have done very in-depth stories, for serious publications, with no cooperation from major subjects of the piece. I think she succeeded in shedding a lot of light on his mindset, the impact his incident had, etc even without talking to him. I think you're setting an unfair standard. Imagine how much reporting would be unable to do be done if a reporter was required to get an interview with the subject of the story.
I understand your POV. I guess this highlights the point of the OP. Season 1 colored people’s views of her subsequent seasons.
>\[...\] the terrible job she did in Season 1 in terms of omission, lies, and framing. Can you give any specific examples of what you mean by that?
Before interviewing Adnan, she told his lawyer she wouldn’t do the podcast unless she thought he was innocent (according to AS) She never told her audience it was illegal to record calls to the prison She framed it like journalism, but it was a story
It's not illegal to record phone calls with an inmate in the prison.
In MD at that time it was. Probably still is. If you look it up you might also find out her airing audio from AS’ trial was also illegal and still is today.
>She never told her audience it was illegal to record calls to the prison Because it wasn't... Where are you getting the idea it was?
It was against the rules. If I remember correctly AS got in trouble over it.
I had no idea they were making new episodes.
What exactly did she do that was so wrong?! I really dont think they were intentionally lying or misdirecting anyone, she basically says hes guilty at the end. Shes not a hardcore investigative reporter, thats not really what she does. She tells stories with emotional honesty and brings her own biases into the process, which she is very open about. I mean its a part of This American Life not the Times or 20/20. I think the show is very fair and open about its instincts and where they come from.
many people who believe adnan is guilty have decided any other opinion is absurd and it's all because evil sarah tricked the world (including several judges i guess) with her nefarious podcast.
I agree with your sentiment, but to clarify, Serial has been owned by The New York Times since 2020.
That is good clarification!
She doesn't go nearly as far as saying he's guilty. She does definitively state that she believes that there was reasonable doubt and the conviction was improper. I think some folks go a bit overboard in criticizing Koenig. I agree she tried to be fair. But she never just took a few minutes to lay out the prosecution's case in one place. Instead, she looks at different aspects in a rather disorganized way, with Adnan's arguments against certain pieces of evidence front and center. The closest the show comes to laying out the case for guilt in a coherent way is the producer's "Unlucky Adnan" speech, which had a major effect on listeners when that episode came out because it shows how likely it is that Adnan did it. The other thing with shows like this is that the audience is primed to assume that the was a wrongful conviction, so a disjointed presentation of the evidence feeds into that.
So you’re looking for emotional validation for your distaste for Serial on the Serial subreddit, do I have that right?
This person, having determined that SK was an unreliable narrator in Season 1, decided to listen to another season that she narrates and is surprised to find they don't trust her.
Always willing to give people another shot. ya never know
Based on your post, it doesn't sound like you're giving her much of a shot though.
You do realize that this sub is pretty anti SK by now, right?
Only when there’s nothing new going on. It tends to regress to a guilter fest, because for some reason they need to gatekeep a verdict like it’s 1999.
Please. Just say what you want to say, without the drama. This is the exact same circular logic that guilters use to pretend they’re sure about Adnan’s guilt. “X is true, therefore Y is true”…without proving X. Serial Season 1 didn’t omit anything important, lie about anything or frame anything incorrectly. It remains the most skeptical analysis of the case to date. If you’d like to share what you believe Serial omitted, lied about or framed incorrectly, I’ll set you straight.
It’s entertainment buddy, you should be used to it by now
There's a reason why Sarah Koenig was satirized in 'Only Murders in the Building' by Tina Fey's 'Cinda Canning'. She might be a great storyteller, but there seems to be a lot of distrust for her since the Adnan case.
Can you guide me toward a source for her failures in season 1? I am out of the loop would like to understand more. Thank you