In my final podcast blog installment, I listened to the “Boy in Photo” episode from Reply All. Although I have become familiar with the general tone and structure of Reply All, I found that it subtly transitioned from the typical upbeat nature into a more personal question driven by the host, PJ Vogt, and some of the Reply All producers, Tim Howard and Sruthi Pinnamaneni. We are introduced to a seemingly unremarkable photo posted to an ILX message board that is scrutinized over for years. Exactly why? Well, this awkward boy in the picture seems incredibly relatable and as a result, draws people to it. No matter how much internet stalking these people from the message board do on him and his friends, people know nothing of the person they name Wayne. Eventually, the only information they dig out is that his actual name is Tommy Loftus, so Reply All decides to take the investigation into their own hands to discover who this person is and exactly why this picture kept a message board actively interested in him for over a decade. As a result of the more personal and raw feel of this episode, I felt as if it was a refreshing and more engaging format that set itself apart from the other episodes I listened to.
Similar to all of the other episodes I happened listened to, PJ Vogt was the main driver of the story, but unlike other Reply All episodes, the other producers involved in the show felt as if they were more actively involved rather than the previous structures of the other hosts functioning as a person for PJ to simply recount the story to in the studio. Namely, Tim, the executive producer of the show, tags along with PJ in their first trip down to Pennsylvania and in a way, provides a more active version of the listener within the story as he is also able to comment on his own observations rather than simply reacting to PJ’s story. Through this extra voice in the story, Tim functions as the listener that goes along with PJ in real time. On the other hand Sruthi continues to play the role of Alex Goldman in past episodes as more of a friend that learns of the story after the fact. With this slight distinction and combination of these different narrative structures, the podcast balances between the more raw storytelling PJ and Tim bring listeners actively on and the more polished and traditional podcast format when PJ relays the events back to Srithi.
Similarly, this podcast episode includes organic commentary that transports listeners into a more active and real time-involvement within the story rather than simply listening to the hosts reaccount what they have already experienced. A large part of this difference is the fact that the initial person that PJ interviews to get an idea of the entire situation plays a very small role in the podcast. In previous episodes, the first person initially interviewed has always been the protagonist of the story, and as a result, anchors and constantly adds to it. However, in this episode, the first person we meet simply introduces listeners to the boy in the photo and functions as a way for the narrative to give a large information dump. I found this structure very appropriate for this particular story because the very existence of the boy in the picture, Tommy Loftus, remains the largest source of mystery. As a result, this episode was driven more by PJ’s personal account of his struggles figuring out exactly who this person is and whether what he discovers is true or not.
Another feature of this episode was that it includes more raw audio such as the ambiance of the bar or the sounds of the car. Notibally, Tim literally lists out the stores they pass as they drive through a Pennsylvanian suburb where Tommy’s friends are supposed to work. Although listeners don’t get an explicit description, through Tommy simply listing “Sharkey’s Wrangler, Family Wash Day, and Eagle National bank” a sense of the slow suburban life sets in, and I found this a very subtle yet effective way to organically help listeners picture a boring old town in a less direct way. Additionally, the hosts in this episode express more of their emotions, similar to how one might confide in a close friend or diary. Before they enter the Tavern to interview Bill, PJ constantly remarks that he “feel[s] so uncomfortable” and “wants to puke.” As a result, the larger focus on the hosts themselves created a central point in the story that involved many different voices and also created a connection to a relatable personality. Like the first episode I listened to, “The Case of the Missing Hit,” I found this less edited and slightly messy feeling intertwined with a more traditional podcast structure made the story seem like a more personal experience. By getting to see the hosts psych themselves up before meeting and interviewing people in the story, listeners also experience the story vicariously as almost another person on the production team.
Throughout this podcast episode that diverged a bit from previous episodes, I really enjoyed the less polished format of the hosts playing a larger personality by providing raw audio and emotions which effectively transported listeners directly into the story.
Word Count: 877
Not to date myself, but when I looked up the picture on which this episode focuses I remembered seeing it when it was first making the rounds of the Internet. I’ve been enjoying reading your discussion of this podcast and its strange but fascinating investigations of internet culture. We think of cultural objects as having an aura of originality about them: think about how tourists go (in normal times) to pay tribute to the Mona Lisa in Paris, transfixed by the glow of being in the same space as the most famous painting in the world. But as cultural objects get reproduced they lose some of that aura. I think we see that with Sherlock Holmes adaptations, for example: the adaptations have their own interest and energy, but the essence of the “original” Sherlock gets more and more distant in the house of mirrors of replication and adaptation. This problem is compounded on the Internet because interesting cultural objects get reproduced virally and it’s much easier to lose sight of their origins, as with this picture of the loneliest dude in the world. But nevertheless, there is still this innate human desire to track down origins, to understand the fuller meaning of these objects that have an odd fascinating vibe to them, perhaps especially because there’s not necessarily an Internet equivalent of going to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, to find and pinpoint an exact origin. Your blog entry does a lovely, clear job of outlining the narrative strategies Reply All undertakes to investigate this “mystery” and to really make the listener feel invested and like she is right there with the producers. I’m always struck by the way podcasts use the intimacy of sound and the human voice to make you feel like you’re “right there,” and it sounds like this one has some sophisticated techniques for doing so. Thanks for writing this, and I’m downloading the episode to listen to on a walk later! — Matt