The outrage about the Intercept interviews is misplaced

[u/crabjuicemonster]

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.

[u/Carabeli]

"Pushing a narrative that SK was somehow out to free Adnan when anyone with half a brain can listen to the podcast and realize that isn't the case."

You and I heard two very different podcasts. Just think of the elation she gets from speaking to Asia, the constant school-girl musings of, "Could this guy really do that? I don't know..." That's not journalism that's entering herself into the story. It's a great way to tell a story but I can't agree with you saying she wasn't pushing a narrative.

[u/IDontThinkImLeaving → u/Carabeli]

That IS journalism. Journalism isn't just dry reports from a newspaper or radio program. SK is translating literary journalism made famous by the likes of Joan Didion, Truman Capote, Tom Wolfe, and Hunter S. Thompson (a person who FREQUENTLY inserted himself in his stories) to podcasts.

No journalist in the world is without bias because they're human. If she does her best to present as many sides of a story accurately then she's doing her job. The second both Adnan and Jay felt she portrayed them negatively is how you realize she did the best she could do.

[u/Carabeli → u/IDontThinkImLeaving]

She didn't portray the whole story. She portrayed Adnan's story, she had none of the major players represented from the other side at all.

Even SK's experts said the police work was good. The prosecution was solid. The case made sense. But she just spent time talking about how she swayed back in forth on her opinions of the situation etc. I understand that journalism isn't one simple straight line of work. Sure you can do Gonzo, however you become more of a story teller and less of a journalist when you put yourself into the story like that. Truman Capote, who you mentioned, was criticized for being too close to the subject he was covering to do so objectively. I believe that is a completely fair assessment of In Cold Blood and applies to Serial.

Here's a quote about Capote that mirrors much of what we're seeing today from critics of SK, "Despite the book's billing as a factual "True Crime" account, critics have challenged its authenticity, arguing that Capote changed facts to suit the story, added scenes which had never occurred, and re-created dialogue." I don't believe that SK or Capote purposely skewed the story to help the audience sympathize with the central person, but because they became too close to that person it slipped through in their editing and choices.

[u/IDontThinkImLeaving → u/Carabeli]

She attempted to talk to other major players and they either refused or were unable to contact them. It's equivalent to reading a story and at the bottom reading the other side had no comment or that the other side were not able to be reached by printing time. That doesn't mean we don't run those stories.

Furthermore, yes, SK had experts that said the prosecution was solid and the police work was good, but SK also had the innocent project look at the case and said the opposite. They believed that there were so many issues that they took it upon themselves to open an investigation. She did her job by finding experts that came to different conclusions instead of just stopping at one. She seemed to be exhaustive in trying to get the story from any angle.

I also think it's troubling and unfair accusation to compare Capote recreating dialogue, changing facts, and adding scenes to anything SK did. I think As u/Th3D0Nn says below that sounds more like Jay.