Serial - the podcast *spoilers*

Wow, you guys really want people to rot in jail, no matter how weak their cases are, huh?

wow
no i don't

Wow, you guys really want people to rot in jail, no matter how weak their cases are, huh?

― Frederik B, Monday, December 22, 2014 10:52 AM (39 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Remind me what this show did to get anyone a shot at getting out of jail?

You maybe need to take a break from this thread Fred. You're taking this all a little personal.

also there are professionals who dedicate their lives to handling these cases and SK briefly talked with one of them http://www.innocenceproject.org/
that was a really mean-spirited thing to say

As I said above, I'm all for innocent project-type groups looking at the case again, as many times as they want. That could have been done just as easily without a, frankly, dumb show.

*innocence project

Jesus, Frederik. Enough already.

in fairness - the Innocence Project didn't look at the case without Serial prompting them to do so, and they say Serial producers did uncover useful information for a possible appeal: http://time.com/3639655/serial-innocence-project-deirdre-enright/

(but i find the serial killer scenario as laid out by Deirdre "Big Picture" Enright really hard to believe, at least based on how it's been laid out so far)

And, fuck, sorry but this is bugging me - for someone who consistently complains about having his points misunderstood and misrepresented to equate people saying "I have problems with the way this story was told" to people saying they "really want people to rot in jail, no matter how weak their cases are" is some bullshit.

Well this is a guy who thinks someone adding a C to his name is some kind of savage American insult

In Denmark they would kill for that insult and the murderer only get 14 years.

but the only witness was a J

I think Innocence Projects are great, but Deidre frankly sounds a little loopy to me in the show (and also in the Time interview).

Big picture, Alex, big picture.

Well, guys, sorry I upset you. Didn't mean to, didn't think it would. My mistake.

BUT: What are you guys mad at Serial about? Note, I didn't say Adnan was innocent, I said his case was weak. And the podcast did a hell of a lot to show the weaknesses of his case, uncovered a possible alibi nobody bothered to follow up on, then undermined that revelation by showing that the timeline of the case was complete bullshit anyway, so the alibi might not have mattered. Uncovered that at least one juror based her verdict partly on a 'misunderstanding' of the witness' plea deal. Broadcast the anti-muslim bigotry the prosecution every now and then lowered itself to. So much bullshit to shore up a weak case.

And that is the final conclusion to the podcast: We don't know whether Adnan was guilty or innocent, but he should def never have been convicted with this evidence. That is an INCREDIBLY important point, something completely worth every stupid storytelling choice the producers did. Not 'innocence' project, but 'weak case' project. And that point was broadcast to millions of listeners, hopefully someone of whom got it, even if you guys didn't. That is a point that points to systemic failure, how the justice system is actually pretty crappy at establishing truth in any case, and perhaps realizing that might make more people less quick to demand tough automatic sentencing. That is a point something like Thin Blue Line failed to make, because it was actually pretty obvious that the truth could have been found if the system hadn't been completely incompetent.

And I'm sorry, but you guys - at least some of you guys, and nobody contradicted that sentiment - are being really, really angry at this show, even though it forcefully broadcasted that point to millions of listeners, because of 'the way this story was told'. Writing angry letters to the show; saying it's 'unethical'. Thinking storytelling details are more important than points about people with weak cases rotting in jail. It was put meanly, but sorry, it's not 'bullshit'.

This show was valuable. Really valuable. And I do feel sorry for the family of Hae, but I put the blame completely on the US justice system, which keeps cases like these alive through imposing life sentences on weak cases, ensuring the defendants will always want to keep the cases alive.

There's a guy with a really weak case rotting in jail, for 15 years so far. The rest is unimportant. Not worth being angry about.

Also, lol at saying I take this 'too personal', then fifty minutes later making fun of me, as a person. Bullshit move.

'How weird that you take this completely unpersonal thing personal. That must be because there is something wrong with you, as a person!'

yeah good post frederik imo. I do appreciate that the "seems dishonest/unethical" criticisms of this were reached after a lot of thought, but that just doesn't match my take on it in any way

i tried to express my reaction to this as level-headedly as i could -- it struck me because it reminded me of another "i'm gonna try on this professional hat for a while and record it" tv show: the one where tony danza teaches high school english.
not surprisingly, the show did not turn out as tony danza expected it to. he was not fulfilled by his year of hard work (he admitted it was hard work ad infinitum) and he wound up disappointed with a class full of students who, at best, learned nothing and at worst, were prevented from learning by his direct interactions with them. i mean, those stakes are high too.

if i find it unethical, it's because i know there are problems with the system that botches investigations; i also know from these two examples that it's not going to be solved by two people filming their personal journeys through this experience. so that's why it seems unethical to me. i respect the right of others to feel differently.

i also expect that my reaction is given the benefit of the doubt and that i am not someone who wants people "to rot in jail." that's inflammatory language, and i have not been inflammatory itt and i would appreciate if we kept this convo cool. thank you.

"i don't care about how distastefully the producers sold the show as a storytelling exercise, because the end product made a large number of people more aware of how fucked up the justice system is" is sentiment i can respect.

but "if you find how the producers sold the show as a storytelling exercise distasteful, you must not care about how fucked up the justice system is" is the most obtusely contemptuous way to phrase it.

The thing that this podcast made me realize is that I don't really know how much jury members adhere to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part of their duty to declare somebody guilty or not guilty.

If you are in a jury and some sort of gut feeling or whatever that the accused probably did it, would that be enough for a typical jury member to vote guilty? Things like a jury member mentioning that they thought that Adnan not testifying made him look guilty really make me wonder about the fairness of trials by jury.

I think it's unethical to publicly cast new suspicion on Jay when you have no evidence. Like there is NO "hard evidence" that Jay was more involved than he said.

And the show certainly didn't dig up anything new in that regard.

most people i know who listened to serial already thought the justice system was messed up, at least in the abstract. the conversations i get to hear at parties now are about who they think did it. the show was sold as an exciting breakthrough in the world of whodunit and has been largely received as such. that it also normalizes the idea that the legal system is messed up is good, but i don't think that disqualifies it from all other criticism.

Most of my criticisms are just about sloppiness in storytelling - which have an ethical dimension when you're talking about a murder and a man's life behind bars.

It was bullshit to put a promo at the end of episode one with a quote that was never used in the show, or explained. A woman's voice saying she felt threatened, that she believed in that moment she might end up like Hae. Just so sloppy to leave that hanging. The kind of thing Sarah Koenig would go nuts for if someone else did it... That's a huge thing to throw out there and never name your source or explain if its actually relevant or not.

It was bullshit to never mention that Adnan was married and divorced, and it smells like something she agreed to hold off on mentioning at his request. Or because she thought it was too distracting from what she thought was important. Again - probably no bearing on the case - but just such a clearly biased way of reporting to hold off on that but spend a good chunk of time telling us how well liked he is and the awards he's won, etc. It's just bad reporting to hold off on that.

Her obsession with the Best Buy payphone was bullshit. It's lousy judgement to give more weight in your story to a shoplifter who claims to remember something 15 years ago than the architectural plans of a building.

These are just little details, just off the top of my head. But it's bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. And it's a pattern of telling the story that favours one side of events.

And thinking that Serial is above criticism because the show can be seen as an indictment of an evil system is bullshit.

There would be plenty of better cases to indict the criminal justice system with.

I do feel kind of a renewed curiosity to learn more about inquisitorial (non-adversarial) justice systems since I've always had doubts about the efficacy of an adversarial system.

It's almost insane to expect human beings on a jury to become a robot and disregard things like a defendant choosing not to defend himself on the stand. Like the entirety of Serial is built around shit like "Is that something a guilty/innocent person would do?"

or to become robots

A la the Demolished Man.

i kinda changed my mind abt her when she dropped a "that was the money shot" about a piece of evidence in an early episode

― difficult-difficult lemon-difficult (VegemiteGrrl), Sunday, December 21, 2014 2:23 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol this is why i thought SK was in her early 20s for awhile

Was *In Cold Blood* unethical?

yes

There certainly appear to be reasonable arguments that it's not terribly great journalism... Not sure if that's "unethical" but I think that's a pretty similar argument as what Serial's detractors are making (Serial not half as good as In Cold Blood, but that's kinda an unfair comparison since most things aren't even a quarter as good).

the thing that makes that book unethical is capote's readiness to fill his "characters"' psychic space as though they are entirely his fictive creations. i have made this comparison ad nauseum on ilx, but the ethical version of what capote did would be didion's new journalism which was much more self-conscious about the gap between reporter and subject and the ethics between. or janet malcolm, though i tend to agree with her that journalism can't be ethical in the naive way american mainstream journalists sometimes defend it as being.

sometimes i found serial unethical and sometimes i didn't. i'm not sure it needs to meet the highfalutin', slightly imaginary journalistic standards some have raised (not necessarily in this thread) but i don't think it needed a "rumors" episode, particularly.

xp

the thing it ended up being about is more psychological than legal. i do find that thing interesting, and i find adnan a really compelling subject. i'm not sure sarah koenig even fully understood what made him interesting.

like she mentioned that people observed that adnan's careful weighing of how others must perceive him made him seem guilty--wouldn't an innocent man be screaming his innocence from the rooftops? but i identified with the way adnan was always backtracking and acknowledging the way his words would strike a person who was already convinced of his guilt. i know it's easy for me to speculate, but i think i would be exactly the same way if i were accused of a crime. i have always attributed this tendency in me to an innate over-analytic streak, but hearing it in adnan made me wonder if it was symptomatic of a double-consciousness that comes from belonging to a minority community.

Ftr I do think it was irresponsible to cast aspersions on Jay without damning evidence that suggested he was more involved in the crime than he claimed--SK repeatedly says she won't report on speculation, but throughout the series she tries to get into Jay's head and casts around for what his motives for lying might have been; SK is doing just the same kind of psychic-space-filling Capote was doing.

Outside of that irresponsible speculation, though, I don't know that I'd be ready to call the show unethical--maybe tasteless or poorly considered in its dredging up this case without the skills to come to a stronger conclusion. That I can see.

i couldn't tell if koenig was being deliberately naive about the way she reported some of the stuff i found most interesting. like remember when she duly investigated the possibility of anti-Muslim bias after Shameem explained that that was how she understood her son's conviction? and she recorded that interview with one of the jurors who was like, "yeah, i probably brought anti-Muslim bias to the case, but it magically disappeared once i examined the facts" like are you kidding me with this shit, i guess we should just take you at your word, huh? such a searing indictment of the jury system when racial/religious minorities aren't tried by a jury of their peers but koenig said not a word about it!

SK is doing just the same kind of psychic-space-filling Capote was doing.

no. because she is in the story. capote magically elided himself; turned himself into a godlike narrator. it's part of what makes in cold blood beautiful but it's fucked up.

I'd rather have the unethical version of In Cold Blood than the ethical one

it's about ethics in games podcast journalism

Whoa!

Slim Wilds
38 mins · Edited ·
For the followers of the serial podcast produced by Sarah Koenig: I will make my self available for one interview : 1st, to answer the question of the the people who I hope are concerned with the death of Hae Min Lee (the person who's paid the ultimate price for Entertainment). 2nd, to out this so called reporter for who she truly is.

I can't imagine any circumstance where Jay comes out of this not wanting to defend himself from 12 hours of speculation about his guilt.

i buried a chick in a park AMA

yup, although it might be a no-win for him. Especially since holes have already been poked in his story. But IDK what he can do, he probably now has thousands of people digging through his personal life and past, concocting theories about him, etc. Rabia posted something to her fb page I thought was pretty shitty, an alternate reading of the phone records titled "Here's How Jay Did It" and it was so wildly speculative but she accepted it as though true and so did a lot of her followers, it seemed.

I also listened to Sarah Koenig on Fresh Air, fwiw, and I felt a little less mad at the show, because it seemed like she took her responsibilities so seriously and maybe tripped some wires she hadn't realized she could trip and felt pretty bad about it.

Aren't the "holes" in Jay's story the same ones that were known in 99? I can't imagine a reddit AMA is more terrifying than being key witness in a 1st degree murder trial.

This can't end well.