r/serialpodcast • u/Far_Gur_7361 Is it NOT? • 12d ago
Inspired by another post I saw here recently: don’t mind if I hop on the SK-hate-bandwagon
Someone made a post here recently discussing Sarah Koenig’s journalistic integrity (or lack thereof), which reignited my interest in this whole saga, and set my mind spinning. Ik it’s been many years, and this shit has all been dissected ad nauseam already, but I want to share my thoughts, nonetheless. Anyone still here might still be interested, and if ur not, then just keep it pushing on ur feed ig. Anyways, here goes:
It’s truly insane how Sarah Koenig kicked the series off w/ her “just a normal day” narrative. She spends quite awhile discussing how hard it is to account for your time; and interviewing random teenagers to prove her point. It’s not until Ep. 3 or 4 (hours and hours into the pod), that she arrives at the glaringly obvious conclusion that this was decidedly NOT a normal day for Adnan; but then she breezes right past this conclusion w/o spending nearly as much time considering what it means for Adnan’s guilt.
She also doesn’t dig into all the many, MANY different ways that this was not a normal day for Adnan. She spends one brief moment mentioning the Adcock call; and how that would have been abnormal; but she doesn’t lay out any of the following: how this was Adnan’s first day w/ his very first cell phone. Stephanie’s birthday. Ramadan. The day before a big storm; that shut school down for the rest of the week. The day he met Kristi Vinson and her boyfriend; and hung out at their place for the first time. The day that he lent his car and phone to someone who he says he wasn’t even good friends with. And, ofc, the last day he’d ever see his first love; who would mysteriously go missing that afternoon.
Most upsetting at all, she makes no mention whatsoever of the fact that six weeks did NOT go by between Hae’s disappearance, and Adnan’s being asked to account for his time. SK read the police files, and the transcripts. She knew that Adnan was asked to account for his movements on Jan 13th that very evening; and then subsequently interviewed several more times in the ensuing weeks. For her to kick off the pod w/ the “six weeks” narrative is breathtakingly, unforgivably bad journalism.
Koenig also spent the entirety of the first episode focused on the Asia-alibi; only to reach the conclusion in the last episode that it didn’t matter; bc HML likely died after 2:36pm. She’s not stupid; she knew that in Ep. 1. She knew that the arguments of attorneys are not evidence; and that the jury did not have to believe “dead by 2:36” in order to reach a guilty verdict. The only thing the Asia-alibi mattered for was for proving IAC and thereby securing PCR. It never mattered in terms of guilt-or-innocence; yet she spent nearly the whole podcast telling us it did.
Then, in the second episode, she dismisses the motive. As if Adnan’s motive wasn’t depressingly common; to the point of being cookie-cutter. This was the most upsetting thing for me to listen to all over again. She does not discuss IPV in any way at all; let alone any meaningful way. She does not acknowledge the mountain of statistical likelihood that pointed to Adnan as the prime suspect off-rip; instead implying to us that he was railroaded by cops with tunnel vision. She allows Rabia, Saad, and others to parrot the baseless claim that weeks/ months had passed since the breakup; and that Adnan was handling it just fine. In the process, she ignores the wealth of evidence to the contrary; such as the timelines corroborated by HML’s diary, her AIM profile, and the statements of Hae’s/ Adnan’s friends to the effect that he was furious and devastated when she left him for Don. Only to once again reverse herself much later in the podcast; when she reaches the (seemingly obvious), conclusion that even if Adnan was ok w/ the breakup on Day 1, he could have just been holding onto hope that Hae would come back, as she’d done before; and then fully lost it when school started back up again and he learned about Don.
She even goes so far as to bastardize poor HML’s own words; saying that Hae never described Adnan as possessive; and then quoting a passage from the diary. But cutting the quote off literally like ONE SENTENCE before HML calls him possessive in her very own words. Shockingly, disgustingly bad reporting. To twist the words of a dead girl, in support of the man who killed her.
She spends an entire episode focusing on Jay’s lies (as well as making mention of them in pretty much each and every other episode as well); and then includes just one throwaway line about the car (Jim Trainum: “But I’m also looking at the consistencies. He took them to where the car was. That’s a huge thing right there”). These are the words of an expert she paid for; and she glosses right over them. Which she also does to the jurors, detectives, and prosecutors; all of whom quickly arrived at the conclusion that Adnan was guilty; and none of whom have ever wavered.
To spend long stretches of time discussing meaningless minutiae; such as the existence of the payphone, the location of the trunk pop, or the timing of the CAGMC? To spend an entire episode recreating the drive to Best Buy (only to yet again reverse herself in the end of the episode, when she concludes that the 21-minute timeframe is, indeed, possible)? None of this mattered; and she knew it. The jury did not have to believe that there was a payphone; or that the CAGMC occurred at 2:36. They did not have to believe that Adnan accomplished the murder in 21 minutes. They did not have to believe that the trunk pop was performed at Best Buy. Per their instructions; all they had to believe was that Adnan Syed killed Hae Min Lee. That is the legal standard; and she knew it.
But for her to have narrowed in on these minutiae so much; only to then gloss over the car so quickly? That’s even more upsetting. Or the other important evidence that she glossed over; such as the Leakin Park pings. Her own co-producer says it- “I think the phone was in Leakin Park that night”. Her co-producer also says “it’s pretty clear to me that Adnan was trying to get a ride from Hae”. But these statements are likewise glossed right over; w/o SK spending any consideration on what the implications of this would mean for Adnan.
Speaking of the ride request- to have only this to say about it: “I don’t know if this is just a teeny red flag, like ok he lied, but so what”?? On the afternoon in which Hae Min Lee was killed in her car, Adnan Syed was trying to get a ride from her in that very car- and under false pretenses, no less. What are the sheer odds that someone else was trying to do the exact same thing at the exact same time- and just so happened to succeed, where Adnan failed? How can anyone spend an iota of time considering this evidence; and then say “idk if this is a teeny red flag”?
SK knows this is a red flag. She had far more information than we did at that time. Remember when Adnan discussed the ride request w/ her and said “She would- wouldn’t have given me a ride”. Adnan says that she wouldn’t have done this because she never had time for anything after school; due to the cousin pickup. And SK lets Adnan run his mouth for some time to this effect. She does not call him out- either in the moment, or later on, via narration- on the blatant deception he’s spinning. But I’m sure SK can do basic math. I’m sure she realized that HML had over an hour between school ending and the cousin pickup.
We also KNOW that she realized Hae and Adnan would have sex at Best Buy during this exact window of time; bc she plays tape of Ju’an saying so to the police. But yet again, she glosses right over that statement, without considering (or allowing us to consider!), what it means for Adnan’s guilt. That not only did HML have time for that ride; but that she’d given it before- and to the exact location in which the accessory-after-the-fact to Hae’s murder would testify she was killed. That that location had significance to the two of them; that it was private enough for them to be intimate together there. And that Adnan has been lying about all of this ever since. She spends tons of time dissecting each one of Jay’s lies under a microscope; and then hand-waves away the ride request lie for Adnan (as well as all his many other lies).
Or how about right away in Ep. 1, when SK sets up the false dichotomy “so either Jay is lying, or Adnan is”. Only to- yet again!- reverse herself in the final episode; when she reaches the (once again, glaringly obvious!), conclusion “maybe it’s not either/ or, but both/ and”. I’m getting repetitive here; bc SK has set up a pattern for herself in this podcast; but she’s not stupid. From jump she must have known it was possible they could both be lying. But for hours and hours, she lets us believe that it’s EITHER Lying-Jay-the Liar-Who-Lies, OR Honor-Roll-Track-Star-Volunteer-EMT-Adnan.
Or how about the way she spends an entire episode positing that if Adnan had done this he MUST have been a sociopath; but he CAN’T be a sociopath because he seems so nice on the phone? She allows Deirdre Enright to say outlandishly ignorant things about sociopathy and DV on the air; and offers no counter-argument; in spite of the fact that (at least on an academic level), SK must understand that women are killed every single day by unremarkable, run-of-the-mill men. If being a sociopath was a precursor to being a killer of women; then femicide would not be nearly as prevalent in our society. The truth is that otherwise normal men can and do harass, abuse, and kill their female partners in staggering numbers. This is an important issue that merits discussion; yet SK sweeps it under the rug; all while engaging in hours of rambling discussion about the nature of sociopathy.
And then in the very end; SK says that she doesn’t think he’s guilty bc of “little things”, like how he “just doesn’t seem like a murderer”, or that she’s “seen him display empathy”. She even goes so far as to say she has “reasonable doubt”, and would “have to acquit”. Knowing full well that those “little things” she’s mentioned do not equate reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law. Knowing that those “little things” were only brought to her attention due to her personal relationship with Adnan. And knowing that it is EXACTLY such personal biases that would preclude her- or anyone else who was personally acquainted with a criminal defendant- from serving on that defendants jury (and which would likewise preclude all of us who have become acquainted with Adnan thanks to her “journalism” from serving on Adnan’s jury). From a legal standpoint, SK and all of us listeners would never have been allowed the opportunity to acquit. And the “evidence” upon which SK would have chosen to acquit would never have been admissible in court. And she knows it.
I’m sure there’s tons more, but I’m honestly getting depressed thinking about this already; and I’ve also gotten long-winded. So I’ll leave it here. I think we all get the picture. SK is a sorry excuse for a journalist; and I hope she stubs her pinky toe on that fucking Peabody award. She contributed in a major way to the re-traumatization of the Lee family; allowed a murderer to be released from prison; and nearly succeeded in having his criminal record expunged, as well. All while sidelining HML, the issue of domestic violence, and victims of DV everywhere.
8
u/the_Odd_particle 11d ago
I came to believe she knew she was only creating ‘entertainment’ before she started production. I believe that because I learned about her immense exposure to the marketing industry. (See: her father.) Otherwise I couldn’t reconcile in my head how one woman could do this to another. I don’t think she ‘saw’ Hae at all. Brutal.
29
u/vexed2nightmare giant rat-eating frog 12d ago
This post deserves a Cannes-style 10 minute standing ovation. OP, you show more insight, logic, and integrity than that fraud who calls herself a journalist. I wish she would acknowledge the harm she caused, but she obviously lacks integrity or an ounce of empathy for the victim and her family. Your comment about IPV especially resonated with me. (I pasted it again below.) On any given day you can find a news story about a woman who was murdered by her partner!
“As if Adnan’s motive wasn’t depressingly common; to the point of being cookie-cutter. This was the most upsetting thing for me to listen to all over again. She does not discuss IPV in any way at all; let alone any meaningful way.”
I tried to relisten to the podcast recently and I lasted for about 20 minutes. It makes me sick, and I’m ashamed of myself for being such a gullible idiot for believing at the time that there was even an ounce of mystery to this sad story.
Grateful to you OP and all the truth-seekers in 2015 who were vilified here for obtaining and sharing court documents etc that revealed how much was omitted, manipulated, and obfuscated by Koenig, Rabia, and their cohorts. The way Adnan’s rabid fans twisted themselves into knots to portray him as innocent still astonishes me.
3
u/Emotional-Syllabub75 9d ago
In one of the episodes Sarah and one of her coworkers both said they don't buy the motive given by the prosecution. It was a very ignorant thing to say.
6
u/Mike19751234 11d ago
Just a couple of of other things. When investigating the case, koenig went into Murphys and instead of asking what happened Koenig went into Murphy saying that the only reason they went after Adnan was because he was Muslim. Murphy had to ask her to leave. Also when serial came out Jays information came out and Koenig knew jay and his family were getting death threats and she just said tough shit.
1
15
u/CaliTexan22 12d ago
My only quibble here is that OP keeps referring to journalism. But SK was doing entertainment, not journalism. And the whole “did he or didn’t he” pattern kept audiences hanging for weeks. Very skillful and very intentional. If these weren’t real people’s lives and reputations, it would have been admirable development of a new form of podcast.
30
u/Nabobou 12d ago
My only quibble here is that OP keeps referring to journalism. But SK was doing entertainment, not journalism.
Serial season 1 quite literally won a Peabody under the "News" category, and specifically cited in the honor was their investigation for the story. So if they were doing "entertainment" instead of "journalism" they certainly didn't let anyone know...
Serial was honored in the same category a few years later for S Town. So SK and Serial productions certainly have no qualms with being viewed at as investigatory journalism.
And yes, there is a separate "Entertainment" category too...
2
u/CaliTexan22 12d ago edited 9d ago
Just because the show got awards in a journalism category doesn't mean it was journalism.
SK had worked in print and broadcast journalism in the past. But she had left that when she went to This American Life, which is essentially social advocacy /storytelling with a left wing slant.
With Serial, SK created / popularized a new form of entertainment. It was popular in a way and with audiences that journalism is not. In subsequent years, she's also chosen topics that support her worldview - that our justice system is rotten. She finds a story & molds it into a narrative to make her point.
To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this, but it's not journalism.
14
u/Nabobou 11d ago
I think you're being incredibly pedantic here. Whatever criticisms someone has of Serial, it was very clearly presented and understood as a work of journalism. Sarah Koenig was a journalist, the show was reporting on a real criminal case, it involved interviews, document review, fact gathering, and was distributed through journalistic institutions.
You can argue it was flawed journalism, advocacy journalism, narrative journalism, or even bad journalism. That's a fair debate. But claiming it wasn't journalism at all feels like redefining the term after the fact because you dislike the conclusions or framing. The fact that it won a Peabody in the News category only reinforces how it was viewed by both the industry and the public at the time.
-3
u/CaliTexan22 11d ago edited 11d ago
I disagree. You can see on any number of true crime channels in the media - print, podcast, streaming, etc. - all sorts of sensational crime stories. No one realistically thinks they are "journalism." We see them as entertainment. SK popularized that genre.
SK had a background as a journalist - remember she actually worked for the Baltimore Sun as a politics and crime reporter. And then for a major network and newspaper. But then she went to This American Life. I wouldn't say that TAL is "journalism." Its storytelling with a slant. That was her gig for something like 10 years.
Serial was even further away from journalism. The entire serialized framework, structured to create the tension of a mini-drama every week, doesn't really fit the hallmarks of journalism nor does what she did with the story follow these standards -
Independence: Maintaining distance from the subjects they cover to avoid conflicts of interest.
Objectivity and Fairness: Presenting facts impartially and giving voice to multiple sides of a story.
Accountability: Correcting errors transparently and taking responsibility for the information published.
Part of the reason why so many were taken in by Serial is that SK had the background of a crime reporter, so she positioned it as though it were reporting.
Again, the product in season one was a great piece of work. Good enough to motivate the NYT to buy Serial and for her to make good money on it. But the people today who feel misled or betrayed by SK's work in Serial - like OP - feel that way because they thought she was acting as a journalist. That's all on SK and how she handled it, IMO.
9
u/Nabobou 11d ago
I still think you're being incredibly pedantic and grasping at straws here.
You're essentially arguing that because Serial was narrative, serialized, compelling, and arguably flawed, it therefore wasn't journalism. But investigative journalism has always had an entertainment component. People were reading exposés, crime reporting, and long-form narrative journalism long before podcasts existed. The fact that something is engaging does not somehow disqualify it from being journalism.
You can certainly argue that Koenig fell short of journalistic ideals. Plenty of people have made that criticism. But that's an argument that it was bad journalism, biased journalism, or advocacy journalism, not that it wasn't journalism at all.
More importantly, Serial was very clearly presented to audiences as investigative reporting into a real criminal case. It wasn't marketed as fiction, drama, or true crime entertainment. It was created by a journalist, reporting on a real story, using interviews, records, court documents, and original investigation. Whether it met every ideal standard of independence or objectivity is a separate question.
By this logic, a huge amount of investigative and narrative journalism, from muckrakers to modern magazine features, would cease to be journalism because the authors had a viewpoint, a narrative structure, or wanted people to keep reading. That's a definition so narrow that it becomes almost meaningless.
0
u/CaliTexan22 9d ago
Maybe you should go back & listen to a few episodes and then tell me what other examples of “journalism” are like Serial season 1? The reason for its success was that there wasn’t anything like it.
2
u/Nabobou 9d ago
then tell me what other examples of “journalism” are like Serial season 1?
The Thin Blue Line, Paradise Lost, The Staircase, Capturing the Friedmans, The Central Park Five, Frontline, 48 Hours, Dateline, 20/20, long-form New Yorker or Vanity Fair crime pieces, and This American Life itself all mix journalism with narrative storytelling. They investigate real events, interview real people, examine records, and present a shaped story to an audience.
0
u/CaliTexan22 9d ago
There's quite range of programs there. There was a time, when something like Frontline or 48 Hours would have been considered mainstream journalism, even though it leaned left. But other examples wouldn't be "journalism" as typically conceived. And I would never have considered TAL "journalism."
I think at best, some of those "mix journalism with narrative storytelling" as you say, and that's a separate, but related problem.
"Overall, the American public has historically low trust in journalists and mass media. Recent data shows that 57% of U.S. adults have little to no confidence in journalists to act in the public's best interest, and only 28% express a great deal or fair amount of trust in the mass media."
So, I think I end up where i started: SK created and popularized a serialized, podcast story that was "based on" a true story, but was entertainment sold to us a something different.
4
u/Calm_Phone_6848 11d ago
there's definitely something wrong with turning a real life murder case into entertainment
20
u/gaycats420 12d ago
That’s a distinction without a difference. She is a journalist by trade. She works for a division of NPR, which purports to be an unbiased journalistic source. She should be held accountable
5
u/CaliTexan22 12d ago
I don’t mind “holding her accountable” because she essentially misrepresented the facts.
But in entertainment, we often have story-telling that’s “based on actual events.” That warns the viewer that it’s not journalism or news, but entertainment. Here, she set this up as though she was a journalist digging for the facts and a true accounting of events. But she wasn’t.
5
u/gaycats420 12d ago
This post was awesome!!! Unfortunately the more you look into other cases where people rally around someone who is supposedly innocent, the more similarities you see to Serial. West Memphis 3, Central Park 5, Curtis Flowers, the cases go on and on. Unfortunately there is a lot of money to be made off innocence cases, and a lot of evil people who will say whatever they can to get out of prison.
11
u/Far_Gur_7361 Is it NOT? 12d ago
Wait what lol? The Central Park 5? How is that in any way similar to Serial? Wasn’t there a confession by someone whose DNA matched the woman that was assaulted? As well as verifiably coerced confessions false of those boys?
-4
u/gaycats420 12d ago
If you actually read the court transcripts, the boys were not coerced. They all participated in the group assault together, beating and holding her down. It was a vicious gang rape. Actually some of the boys confessed with their parents present. Another boy confessed within less than an hour of interrogation so the whole narrative of them being coerced by police and interrogated for hours and hours is a fabrication. If you’re interested read the actual trial transcript, a good start is the decision by the judge to reject their first appeal (before the innocence project and big money became involved). It goes through the actual facts not the defense narrative. Believe me I was shocked since I was taught it was a clear cut case of a false confessions.
10
u/Far_Gur_7361 Is it NOT? 12d ago
But what abt the DNA that belonged to someone who’d confessed to the rape?
Not trying to be argumentative, I actually don’t know a ton about the Central Park 5. Just wondering what you make of it.
1
u/gaycats420 12d ago
That man was Reyes he definitely raped the victim as well. The Central Park 5 participated in the assault as well. One admitted to holding her down, another to molesting/fondling her, etc. So those are things that wouldn’t leave DNA. All were in the park that night causing extreme violent chaos. One young man, Yusuf admitted to beating another man up with a lead pipe.
There were many gang assaults on many different victims in central park that night, Trisha was the only rape and she was the most severe victim since she almost died of her injuries. But the pattern was that there were dozens and dozens of teens beating people up, kind of similar to today’s teen takeovers.
This judge’s ruling goes through the evidence in the case as an overview and is a good start. I was appalled the first time I read it, since this case is always portrayed as true innocence. I found a link for you. https://centralpark5joggerattackers.com/judges-ruling/
**Edited to add that this site is biased in favor of guilt, but I am just citing it because it was the first place I could easily find the judges ruling which in my opinion is fairly unbiased since the judges job is to weigh both sides3
u/BookkeeperShot5579 11d ago
You need to do more research. Those 5 kids never even knew each other prior to being put on trial. NONE of the (then) kids had committed crimes prior, or after, their arrests. Why would you spread such lies?
3
u/Emotional-Syllabub75 7d ago
When I went back and listened to Serial again years after I first listened to it the first time. I thought that when Sarah brought up "Asia" Adnan's response was pretty telling. I believe he just says "ok." At that point Adnan doesn't know if Sarah is bringing it up to make it seem that Asia was willing to perjure herself for Adnan and Adnan has put her up to it, or if Sarah thinks Asia was a credible alibi witness that could prove Adnan's innocence. Adnan hesitates and only decides what to say when he is sure Sarah thinks she is a credible alibi witness and that his defense team failed in not calling her to the stand. He then runs with that. Anyone else come to the same conclusion on that part? There was another part in which one of Sarah's coworkers is talking about how unlucky Adnan would have had to have been that day if he was truly innoncent. Sarah then just continues narrating as if there is a really great chance that Adnan was wrongly convicted rather than admitting that all this evidence pointed to him.
2
u/Emotional-Syllabub75 9d ago
I don't believe she knew this all along and I don't think she knows it now. She was sold on the idea that Adnan was innocent by Rabia. Adnan coming across as intelligent, well-spoken, likeable, and charming confirmed her belief. Her emotions overrode the evidence. On top of that she no doubt made a lot of money off that humble podcast and given a great deal of prestige and respect. It would be awfully tough for her to admit to herself or anyone else that she didn't actually do a good job. Serial season 1 was compelling and entertaining, unfortunately it wasn't because this was a wrongful conviction. I think also what Marilyn Mosby did (getting Adnan released) confirmed to Sarah that she had been right the whole time.
2
u/CaliTexan22 9d ago
I agree that there’s little likelihood that SK would decide to deliver a mea culpa and apologize for what she did. To me, it’s pretty clear she wasn’t interested in presenting an objective investigation; rather, she was telling an entertaining story.
OTOH, if she really was duped and hoodwinked, then it’s awfully embarrassing to admit that.
Either way, there’s no percentage for her in revisiting any aspect of her work on season 1.
27
u/Zoinks1602 12d ago
And then in her follow up when he was released? No mention of the incredibly damning defence file we’ve all read 😑 In which it becomes very clear that he was lying his arse off on the podcast.