I have continued to listen to The Dropout which explores the fraud committed by Elizabeth Holmes through her company, Theranos. To recap, over episodes 3-5, there have been major twists and turns exposing the truth behind the scam that Elizabeth Holmes was making money off of. She had “created” a biomedical device that was supposedly able to use just one drop of blood and diagnose disease and run a full blood report for the patient. Previously, there was enough major content per episode that I was able to write my responses to single episode, but through episodes 3 and 4 there was not much new or interesting content. Both those episodes served as what I would call “setup” episodes that helped make episode 5 the next pivotal point in this podcast series. The major reveal prior to episode 5 was that Elizabeth Holmes was in a relationship with her primary investor, Sunny Balwani. With all the money she needed, the fraudulent behavior had begun immediately. The two scammed Walgreens and were able to get “wellness centers” established in Walgreens stores almost all throughout California.
Episode 5 was what I had finally wanted from The Dropout. Throughout the first 4 episodes of this podcast series, I had been waiting to hear from the legend herself, Elizabeth Holmes. The podcast series uses the foundation of interviews with people that wither worked for Elizabeth Holmes or were a major influence in her life to tell the story of why the fraudulent actions may have even occurred in the first place. The majority of the story however has been told from the outsider perspective and we haven’t heard anything from Elizabeth herself. In episode 5 however, the host uses interjections of an interview with Elizabeth in which she’s being interrogated about the actual efficacy of her billion-dollar product. Throughout all the questions Elizabeth is asked she simply responds, “Ummm I’m not sure about the exact numbers regarding your request”. This small narrative element of introducing the perspective of the main character is important since it is the first native opinion that the listener is able to form about Elizabeth Holmes without the influence or words of other individuals. In my personal opinion, it was very incriminating that Elizabeth answered these questions with little confidence and lots of evasion. Not only does the listener form negative opinions about Elizabeth, but this element also adds more credibility to what the several other interviewees have been proposing in the previous episodes of The Dropout.
Another major element that the narrator uses throughout the podcast series is repetition of structure. In my personal opinion, the episodes are starting to become very repetitive and almost indistinguishable unless there is some major plot twist or piece of evidence that is revealed. The narrator starts with a recap of who Elizabeth Holmes is, how she was the youngest female self-made billionaire, and how all of it turned out to be a scam. I don’t believe this to be an effective structure since it makes the listener waste upwards of 5 minutes, hearing the same thing over and over again. Additionally, since all the episodes use interviewees as the main focus of storytelling, it becomes very predictable that every new character brought into the podcast will have some negative comments to share about how Elizabeth was a bully and extremely weird. While I am probably unhappy with The Dropout due to my in-depth analysis, I definitely think the podcast series has widespread popularity because it is an easy listen. Missing some details or zoning out for a little while will not affect the average listener’s comprehension (and may even serve for the better!).
Word Count: 611
Hi Vasan!
I really enjoyed reading your blog post and thought you had a very thoughtful insight and way of looking at the podcast which made for an interesting read. First, I liked how you described episodes 3 and 4 as a “set up” for episode 5 and then episode 5 was like the big “finally” moment. It stood out to me particularly because its a way different set up than the podcast I listen to where every episode in itself is its own story. It’s like 40 minutes then onto the next in the next episode, so I bet the build up can be really suspenseful and also annoying when it stretches over multiple episodes. Your analysis on Elizabeth Holmes finally being featured on the podcast was really good too. You would think that hearing her side of the story would make for some sort of plot twist that might make the listener question which side to believe–like in all the episodes that I’ve listened to of my podcast Ear Hustle, the interviews add the personal touch that makes you see the inmates for who they are–real people who more often than not made a mistake, recognize it, feel remorse from it, and grow from it. This in turn often makes the listener feel compassion for the past “criminal”. Instead, in the case of Elizabeth, hearing her interviews only further incriminated her, which I wouldn’t have expected. It was also interesting to hear your take on the repetition of structure and how ultimately it causes any in-depth listener dissatisfaction but is also the reason for the podcast’s widespread success. I never really thought about listening to podcasts in that way; I always listen to podcasts with the intent to actually listen, but it is true that some people just want an easy listen and something that they can just put on and not have to pay that much attention to but still be able to follow along.
Word Count: 329
Hi Vasan!
First, I wanted to say I really enjoyed reading your analysis on your podcast, The Dropout. My last response was looking at Kenny’s take on your podcast, so I was very intrigued by the idea of recognizing your perspective as well! It’s very interesting to see the parallels between your podcast and my own: Dr. Death – both stories revolve around corruption in the healthcare field. Individuals such as Christopher Duntsch and Elizabeth Holmes skyrocketing through the healthcare industry make for very fascinating podcasts.
The overall structure of your podcasts are built very similarly to my own – in which both establish a strong foundation from interview segments. These interviews surround our integral characters, and provide a sense of realism as we both begin to understand who they were from outside perspectives. Additionally, I recognized a similar dilemma in both of our podcasts: despite these episodes surrounding a titular character, we’re never able to hear their own voice. Fortunately, both our podcasts most recently brought these characters into perspective, as their voices were finally heard. My introduction to Duntsch’s personality was only a few short clips, compared to an actual interview between Holmes and your host. I enjoy the idea of recognizing these characters talk about their own actions, without influence from other individuals incriminating their characters.
Comparing another subject that your podcast utilized, I noticed a significant difference in how you mentioned that your podcast was repetitive. Being someone who’s never listened to a podcast before, I had great difficulty being able to connect my own episodes as a result of my host failing to acknowledge or provide a general recap on previous episodes or characters that were once introduced. On the other hand, it appears as though your host did too much recapping of these characters, to the extent of being unnecessary for the podcast. I’m curious to learn of the various ways that editing can be changed so that it’s neither too much of a summary, or too little.
Overall, I thought your analysis of The Dropout was quite eye-opening, and certainly continues to be a podcast that interests me! I like that you mentioned how easy-to-follow this podcast was, and being someone who often has a hard time just listening with the intent to listen, I believe your podcast would be one I’d love to follow in my free time!
Word Count: 394