It's compelling, but I didn't know when I started listening that it was "real." In fact, through most of the first episode, I thought it was a very impressively constructed and recorded fiction series. When I started rethinking that assumption based on its verisimilitude, I thought, "No, NPR wouldn't fashion a serialized 'drama,' even in the trappings of investigative journalism, the gas tank of which is fueled by essentially exploiting the death of a young girl."
So, I'm still listening, but now I'm conflicted about it.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
I'm on episode 3 as well and will be listening to the rest of the available eps on a long drive tomorrow. I hate to admit it, but it kinda lives up to the hype. Addictive stuff. It's also become a massive phenomenon and was already the number 1 podcast in iTunes by its first week apparently. I know people use "NPR" as a metonym for all of public media, but it's, perhaps, worth noting that NPR has nothing to do with this. It's produced by WBEZ Chicago and Ira Glass/This American Life.
Oh, thank you for the correction, HT. In my head, they -- along with American Public Media -- are the same thing, as they all air together on my local NPR station.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
Sorry, Growly, didn't mean to be so finger-wagg'y. I worked in public media for several years, so the whole NPR = all of public media thing drives me balmy.
So, I'm thru ep 6 now and while I still think this podcast is great, I hope that future editions involve less scratchy archive tape and phone interviews. The poor audio quality makes this a less than ideal listening experience. Obviously, in this particular case, there's not much they can do about that.
I'm caught up now to the most recent ep - ep 9. Although I think the host/producer sometimes makes her experience as a journalist (hello, privilege!) too central to the narrative, it remains absolutely compelling. I totally had a cliche driveway moment yesterday and stayed in my car to listen to the last 15 mins of ep 9.
It's crazy how popular this has become, but it is compelling.
Their are good arguments (the sane ones anyway) on both sides of whether it's exploitative or not, so Growly you are not alone, and I had a similar feeling. That said, apparently in the future some installments MAY be purely fictional.
Can the host even be called a journalist? This is more like true crime ala Capote--no valid journalist would offer so much of her own opinion (or statements like how she wanted to believe someone due to his eyes, etc.) I mean that makes it more compelling, but...
I've been addicted for the past couple weeks, and while I can't say that I found this episode terribly interesting or informative, it is strange to think that next week will be the final episode. I'm SO curious to see how all of this will come together.
I will say, despite my dissatisfaction with this episode, the final letter from Adnan was strangely moving.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
For me it reached the peak with the appearance of the woman from The Innocence Project. In fact, I wanted her to take over the podcast with a brusque, "We'll take it from here." I can only assume the fact that it was never mentioned again while the narrative since has just been spinning the wheels means that is what we'll hear about in the finale.
If not, well, it's good they got all those donations when they did.
Namo, I kind of agree. I loved the Innocence Project lawyer/teacher. Then again, she's so direct that the program would consist of two brief episodes.
I know this is not investigative journalism in the strictest sense. It's a combo of that and storytelling and narrative journalism. Getting to know our narrator is probably important, but the way she constantly inserts herself into the story feels kind of unnecessary. I find the actual case far more interesting than her experience investigating it, but of course we wouldn't be hearing a thing about this case if it weren't for her.
Random off-the-wall-with-zero-evidence-to-support-it-theory: Adnan and Jay were gay/bi/bicurious lovers, Hae found out, Hae threatened to tell their friends.
Welp, that sinking feeling episodes 10 and 11 gave me must have lowered my expectations sufficiently that I am not surprised I guessed the ending we got. Which is that the serial ended.
Episodes 10 and 11 were rough - there was nothing really NEW or exciting added there. The last episode was all right, and pretty much what I expected in terms of an ending.
Agreed, Namo, eps 10-11 definitely lowered my expectations as well. Frankly, I guess there was no other way the podcast could have ended at this point. That said, I do think this was a strong final episode. I hope they do a bonus update podcast next year when we learn more about the Innocence Project team's efforts. I mean, that DNA testing could be huge. But even if the DNA testing is granted and even if matches the now dead convict they talked about, why would Jay be involved and why would he pin it on Adnan?
Of course the producers did the responsible thing and avoided talking about all of their speculative theories, but it would be so interesting to be a fly on the wall as they recounted what must have been dozens of different theories. I wonder if one of them was that Jay and Adnan were secretly lovers and they both killed Hae to prevent her from outing them.