Serial: I've Solved The Case

[John Doe]

It is a bizarre idea that newspapers don't cover crime.

Why?

And is it more bizarre for newspapers not to report crime than TV news or other media? Less bizarre? Equally so?

Are newspapers making money off Bernie Madoff's victims because they covered his crime? Are they making money off holocaust victims because they wrote about the liberation of concentration camps? I don't have any idea what the alternative would be?

I suppose they are indirectly.

The alternative to doing something is always the same: not doing it. Should we keep doing a thing just because we've already been doing it for a while?

 

[Mr Noone]

Why?

And is it more bizarre for newspapers not to report crime than TV news or other media? Less bizarre? Equally so?

No, I meant news outlets generally. Papers, radio, tv, wire services, websites. All the same.

I suppose they are indirectly.

The alternative to doing something is always the same: not doing it. Should we keep doing a thing just because we've already been doing it for a while?

Fine; then all the above media outlets will just have cat videos. And if you want to know what's going on in the courthouse, you can go down yourself.

 

[John Doe]

Fine; then all the above media outlets will just have cat videos. And if you want to know what's going on in the courthouse, you can go down yourself.

Reductio ad absurdum.

So you do want crime news for entertainment? Otherwise I don't understand the comparison to cat videos as there is obviously other news. It's just that a lot of news in general involves crime.

I was really hoping you had a reason other than tradition or entertainment.

 

[cjh]

Why?

And is it more bizarre for newspapers not to report crime than TV news or other media? Less bizarre? Equally so?




I suppose they are indirectly.

The alternative to doing something is always the same: not doing it. Should we keep doing a thing just because we've already been doing it for a while?

Somewhere along the line our country decided--or at least gave lip service to the idea--that an informed citizenry was better than an uninformed citizenry.

In doing so, we encouraged media outlets of all sorts to report on things of public interest permitting the media and the public to decide what was of interest.

We did this despite the resulting product sometimes being rude or impolite or offensive.

Certainly crime is a matter of public interest. And different media cover it different ways.

Sarah Koenig's program reminded me too much of what I did for years for me to pay much attention to it. Her route was similar to that traveled by many who pick up a cold trail to see whether someone can be exonerated.

I can see, though, why many would find value in traveling that route--even if only second hand--for themselves. And I can see how some people would be startled to discover just how murky the question of guilt or innocence can be.

 

[Mr Noone]

Reductio ad absurdum.

So you do want crime news for entertainment? Otherwise I don't understand the comparison to cat videos as there is obviously other news. It's just that a lot of news in general involves crime.

I was really hoping you had a reason other than tradition or entertainment.

Well there is political news. Hundreds of million of victims. Are media outlets profiting from all the people for (or against) obamacare?

There's science news, but that seems always to be involved in politics; see above.

War? Plenty of victims there, so we'll skip that.

 

[Queersetti]

Anyway, the chimp did it.

 

[Sean]

Has anyone blamed Obama yet?

 

[Mr Noone]

Has anyone blamed Obama yet?

I think he was still in high school when the original crime occurred. Not that that's an alibi.

 

[John Doe]

Well there is political news. Hundreds of million of victims. Are media outlets profiting from all the people for (or against) obamacare?

There's science news, but that seems always to be involved in politics; see above.

War? Plenty of victims there, so we'll skip that.

You don't know what reductio ad absurdum means, do you?

 

[John Doe]

Somewhere along the line our country decided--or at least gave lip service to the idea--that an informed citizenry was better than an uninformed citizenry.

In doing so, we encouraged media outlets of all sorts to report on things of public interest permitting the media and the public to decide what was of interest.

We did this despite the resulting product sometimes being rude or impolite or offensive.

Certainly crime is a matter of public interest. And different media cover it different ways.

Sarah Koenig's program reminded me too much of what I did for years for me to pay much attention to it. Her route was similar to that traveled by many who pick up a cold trail to see whether someone can be exonerated.

I can see, though, why many would find value in traveling that route--even if only second hand--for themselves. And I can see how some people would be startled to discover just how murky the question of guilt or innocence can be.

There is a big difference between being informed, being entertained and even being dazzled by sensationalism.

 

[cjh]

There is a big difference between being informed, being entertained and even being dazzled by sensationalism.

Draw up the rules of what's permitted and what isn't.

It's hard to imagine that a serial series broadcast via podcast is sensationalism.

Have you listened to any of the episodes?

 

[Wrong Element]

Draw up the rules of what's permitted and what isn't.

It's hard to imagine that a serial series broadcast via podcast is sensationalism.

Have you listened to any of the episodes?

A substantial portion of its final episode was devoted to tracking down a 1999-vintage user agreement from Verizon. Another episode was mostly Koenig and her co-producer driving around Baltimore to see how long it took them to get from place to place. The average episode of House Hunters has more sensationalism.

 

[John Doe]

Draw up the rules of what's permitted and what isn't.

So it's not even worth discussing these issues unless 'there oughtta be a law...'?

It's hard to imagine that a serial series broadcast via podcast is sensationalism.

Have you listened to any of the episodes?

Episodes of what?

 

[cjh]

So it's not even worth discussing these issues unless 'there oughtta be a law...'?




Episodes of what?

Heh.

characters

 

[John Doe]

Heh.

characters

I already said I'd check out the show Q referred to so you must be referring to something else.

 

[cjh]

A substantial portion of its final episode was devoted to tracking down a 1999-vintage user agreement from Verizon. Another episode was mostly Koenig and her co-producer driving around Baltimore to see how long it took them to get from place to place. The average episode of House Hunters has more sensationalism.

Which is true to form.

Tedium, tedium, tedium.

Except, sometimes one turn into tedium produces a lead that changes the case.

 

[John Doe]

Which is true to form.

Tedium, tedium, tedium.

Except, sometimes one turn into tedium produces a lead that changes the case.

If you don't like "tedium" don't listen to NPR. Duh.

 

[Queersetti]

I think he was still in high school when the original crime occurred. Not that that's an alibi.

It was Adnan's alibi.

 

[QueenLevitra]

Just finished listening to ep. 1.

I'll make no judgements.

I may listen to the rest some other time, just not now.

However, I do truly hope the real truth outs.

My head is spinning with that whole "there but for the grace of doG, go I" thing.

How much hope do you hold out for Adnan?

 

[Queersetti]

Just finished listening to ep. 1.

I'll make no judgements.

I may listen to the rest some other time, just not now.

However, I do truly hope the real truth outs.

My head is spinning with that whole "there but for the grace of doG, go I" thing.

How much hope do you hold out for Adnan?

I think that with the attention brought to the case by the program, the truth may come out one way or the other. Jay is now saying he wants to be interviewed, and who knows what might come from that?

 

[John Doe]

Just finished listening to ep. 1.

I'll make no judgements.

I may listen to the rest some other time, just not now.

However, I do truly hope the real truth outs.

My head is spinning with that whole "there but for the grace of doG, go I" thing.

How much hope do you hold out for Adnan?

You worship a dog? That's interesting.

 

[gravyrug]

I haven't heard it myself, but the major complaint I've heard in reviews were about the lead reporter emphasizing what a nice guy Adnan was (something he himself complained about on the show). From the descriptions of the actual case, it sounds like he was railroaded, regardless of whether or not he's actually guilty. That's far more important than how nice a guy he seems to be.

 

[Queersetti]

I haven't heard it myself, but the major complaint I've heard in reviews were about the lead reporter emphasizing what a nice guy Adnan was (something he himself complained about on the show). From the descriptions of the actual case, it sounds like he was railroaded, regardless of whether or not he's actually guilty. That's far more important than how nice a guy he seems to be.

He makes that point himself, explicitly stating that he wants people to say "I don't believe he's innocent because I've looked at the evidence", rather than "I believe he's innocent because he's such a nice guy."

But Sarah Koenig is upfront about her own susceptibility to his charms, pointing out when she feels she may be letting his demeanor get in the way of her investigation. And thats for good reason, because, as she points out, his ability to win people over may have played a part in the commission of the crime, and may be part of a calculated strategy he is using now.

 

[gravyrug]

He makes that point himself, explicitly stating that he wants people to say "I don't believe he's innocent because I've looked at the evidence", rather than "I believe he's innocent because he's such a nice guy."

But Sarah Koenig is upfront about her own susceptibility to his charms, pointing out when she feels she may be letting his demeanor get in the way of her investigation. And thats for good reason, because, as she points out, his ability to win people over may have played a part in the commission of the crime, and may be part of a calculated strategy he is using now.

And that's a big part of why prosecutors need to be extra careful to make sure they do things right the first time. When they pull the kind of stuff they purportedly did in this case, it can come back to bite them, even if they have the right guy.

 

[John Doe]

Is there a butler involved? It seems when there is it's usually the butler who did it.