I think it's her storytelling that makes her voice sound compelling... Because you know you're going to hear a good story. The first time I heard Lea Thau's voice, I thought "this person is in radio?" After listening to her podcast, I'm hooked on her voice because it signifies a great story to follow.
I don't really see how much good can come from this season of the podcast if they've chosen such a politically polarized subject. Surely they know there's very little chance the program will be judged on its merits; instead, I fear people will use it as another way to wedge themselves against one another, making for more unfriendly/uncomfortable political discussions between friends and family.
There's already been much ballyhoo about his role as a "traitor" and a "coward," and it seems very few on the political right even valued his life enough to trade him for a few prisoners. Is this podcast meant to change their minds? Studies typically show that facts make people more entrenched in their opinions. What, then, should we expect of the subjective opinions of the target of their derision?
I was completely thinking this same thing before I started listening. Now, even just 11 minutes into the first episode, I'm changing my opinion. As was the case with the first season, the details make this much more complex and interesting than a simplistic "Is Bergdahl a traitor or not?" line of investigation.
Ha, I haven't had the time to listen to it yet, but I was hoping my opinion would change as well. Glad to hear it's changed at least one person's opinion.
I think Serial is perfect for an issue like this. Judging from the first season I believe they are making an honest effort to understand all sides of an issue. It won't give the ultimate, right answer but we need more of this kind of journalism instead of the cr.p we usually see in the media.
I think they wanted to avoid shining light on an unknown story this season - the last season had some devastating effects on people's lives. Going with a story everyone already knows about and trying to dig deeper in it is a safer option.
They are boasting exclusive access to the man that no one else has had, and SK said over the summer that she really didn't want to start another witch hunt that would shine a spotlight on the show's subjects like season one.
The purpose of the show would be to try to tell the story as fully as they can. The first season did not present itself as a way to exonerate Syed, but rather an attempt to explore the case.
I think it's a good choice to switch to a more well known story. What comes of it remains to be seen. For all we know, Sarah Koenig will end season 2 firmly convinced that Bergdahl is a traitor and should rot in prison.
Why should a story be avoided just because it is politically polarizing? There will always be people who have already made up their minds and have decided not to change it one way or the other, even if strong proof is presented to them - I doubt there is much that anyone can do about it.
There are lots of people who have not formed any opinion on the subject (myself included). They want to take their time, gather as much information as possible etc before making an informed opinion. This podcast would be awesome for them.
As long as the podcast is balanced in it's narrative, conclusions (if any) and opinions, I think it is good for them to handle controversial topics. They are in a unique position with a huge audience - they can do some real good with that kind of reach.
I love it when journalism forces the consideration of both sides by the reader/listener. By the end, opinions will still be had, but they will be defensible.
There was a great episode of Radiolab recently called "The Rhino Hunter" that accomplished this wonderfully.
It's still early, but that seems to be the direction this season is going. At the very least, those on either side will be more informed.
That episode was so amazing. And that's coming from someone who really disagrees with those hunters. Radiolab did a phenomenal job of giving them a chance to show their side of the story, and I think it's a shame that so many people felt that made it "one sided." I came out of it still disagreeing with them, but at least understanding them.
Hard to comment without taking a side, so here goes: I think we should give Mr. Trump a helmet and a gun and send him in to fight. Such a brilliant strategist and brave soldier, he'll be sure to defeat ISIS within at most a week.
There's already been much ballyhoo about his role as a "traitor" and a "coward," and it seems very few on the political right even valued his life enough to trade him for a few prisoners. Is this podcast meant to change their minds? Studies typically show that facts make people more entrenched in their opinions. What, then, should we expect of the subjective opinions of the target of their derision?
EDIT: Quotes around 'traitor', 'coward'.
I think it's a good choice to switch to a more well known story. What comes of it remains to be seen. For all we know, Sarah Koenig will end season 2 firmly convinced that Bergdahl is a traitor and should rot in prison.
There are lots of people who have not formed any opinion on the subject (myself included). They want to take their time, gather as much information as possible etc before making an informed opinion. This podcast would be awesome for them.
As long as the podcast is balanced in it's narrative, conclusions (if any) and opinions, I think it is good for them to handle controversial topics. They are in a unique position with a huge audience - they can do some real good with that kind of reach.
There was a great episode of Radiolab recently called "The Rhino Hunter" that accomplished this wonderfully.
It's still early, but that seems to be the direction this season is going. At the very least, those on either side will be more informed.
Only time will tell what evidence will be presented & considered in his trial.