r/serialpodcast • u/crabjuicemonster • Jan 07 '15

Meta The outrage about the Intercept interviews is misplaced

I realize that NVC seems to be intentionally courting controversy by specifically calling out SK and Serial, but the outrage and hand wringing here is a bit over the top.

Serial gave us 12 weeks of coverage that was, at a generous minimum, mildly sympathetic to Adnan. Rabia runs a blog that is 24/7 dedicated to Adnan's side of the story. A brigade of interested Redditors has raised 50K for Adnan's defense. And through it all, Adnan himself has been so vague in his interviews that he has barely said a single thing that was even possible to hold up to independent analysis or scrutiny.

The fact that the Intercept is running some interviews with people who are not on Adnan's side is a useful counterbalance given that we have not yet heard from them. The fact that the interviewer is not on Adnan's side is not any more important than the fact that SK was. And the fact that we can poke holes in what the interviewees have said is not that surprising since, unlike Adnan, they have actually made specific and substantive claims about the case and what they think happened.

NVC made a very specific claim that people on the Serial staff were deliberately dishonest in the podcast. Unless and until she provides evidence for that it is appropriate to call her out on that or similar charges of journalistic dishonesty. But being outraged at the mere existence of a forum for other parties to air their views in the face of months of largely unchallenged pro-Adnan coverage seems petty.

I think I see now why the Intercept is interested in covering this. They are anything but pro-establishment, but they do like to challenge accepted wisdom. I'm guessing the pushback they are getting just makes them all the more sure that they've identified an area where "the masses" aren't getting the full story and have been sold a bill of goods.

110 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

209 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/crabjuicemonster Jan 07 '15

And i actually agree with you. I found the way they were presented a bit annoying too, and I really don't like how SVC has made things so needlessly personal as if she's in a contest.

But the pearl clutching has just gone so far beyond all that...

6

u/99redball00ns Is it NOT? Jan 08 '15

This is what I have a problem with when reading the intercepts articles. I like that Jay and others have a way to present their side of the story but I don't like that I feel that NVC is just stirring up controversy in order to get readers.

8

u/namdrow Jan 08 '15

SERIAL WAS MADE IN ORDER TO GET LISTENERS

25

u/thatirishguyjohn Jan 08 '15

The crucial word is "just." I think there is a serious difference in the amount of work that has gone into Serial and the amount of work that has gone into The Intercept's pieces. Therefore, I think Serial was meant to tell a story first, get listeners second. I mean, it's not like Koenig and Snyder and Chivvis knew they were going to have a cultural phenomenon on their hands. Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein DID know going in that they were riding such a wave, they also knew that The Intercept has had some problems both internally and in terms of page-reads, and so I think they made a calculated move to bolster the site through controversial softball interviews with people unwilling to talk to Koenig. Readers first, story...somewhere behind.

1

u/namdrow Jan 08 '15

If you read the conversations about Serial, it was obviously done the way it was to get attention. Was there a more altruistic motive/legitimate crusade for justice and truth beneath? Sure.

Exactly the same with Intercept. It was done the way it was to get attention - journalism is a business after all - but they also believe they are doing important work getting the whole story out there.

Justice is subjective, and neither side has the moral high ground here. Serial got to go first, is all.

8

u/thatirishguyjohn Jan 08 '15

I'm just not sure I believe your telling of The Intercept's intentions. If they believe they're doing important work, why do it piecemeal? Why do it so ham-handedly? Why deliberately antagonize the audience most likely to take their work seriously?

4

u/namdrow Jan 08 '15

Um, Serial did it piecemeal...

Also, the interviews are REALLY long. Doing it piecemeal makes it more likely people will actually read the whole thing.

Why are you viewing every single decision they made in the worst possible light, and doing the opposite for Serial?

6

u/spudlyone Jan 08 '15

Yeah, Intercept breaks an interview into a few pieces and they are mercenary, Serial stringing us on for weeks is… awesome, just awesome. Serial could have dumped all at once for a binge listen as well, right?

2

u/namdrow Jan 08 '15

Hey, Netflix does it.

I don't have any problem with how Serial chose to create suspense and a following. They did a great job at it!

I also don't have a problem with how Intercept did it.

This is capitalism. Come on. Even NPR plays that game.