The Podcast “Serial” by Sara Koenig and Julie Snyder strives to display real experiences to its audience. In Season 3, Serial relies heavily on a new realm of discussion that focuses on the United States criminal justice system and its shortcomings. In this season, Serial aims to delve deep into critical cases and showcase the inefficiencies of the system – with simplicity, analysis and an unbiased point of view. This is demonstrated exceptionally by the instant hook that the audience experiences with episode four “A Bird In Jail Is Worth Two On the Street,” where an individual is wrongfully accused. Yet, the evidence says otherwise. Throughout the episodes, the podcast has been able to easily capture the attention of the audience. However, in episode four the listener is immediately hooked due to the unique analysis, indirect/direct POVs’ and plot twists.
For example, the story is not started by Koenig, instead, it starts by Ronda Grey, a police officer. In what seems to be an interview, Grey discusses the murder of an infant, the experience she has gone through personally, with the family, and the crime involved. Grey states “It’s time for the people to speak up, innocent children are being killed by this violence…” (Serial, Koenig). Immediately, the listener identifies a call-to-action, leaving them full of curiosity and hunger for the rest of the story. The meaning behind this is to give the justice system a good light, to make them seem proactive, efficient and pro-community – which all seems to be true but is simply a strategy. This development of the podcast hints at an improvement in the justice system and a possible elimination of irrational decisions and intense rulings. To the audience, the justice system simply wants to put an issue to rest, with the help and trust of the public. However, with the help received, old problems start to arise such an irrational decision making, lack of evidence, and hasty decisions. It’s shocking to the listener, because at one point the system seems to be improving, but instantly everything falls apart when its revealed that the proper measures for investigation and deduction of the crime weren’t taken. Koenig proves and builds on this when she interviews the wrongfully convicted Devon Holmes, who served prison time for a year. “They cuffed me up, I asked why I was being arrested and they didn’t tell me” (Serial, Koenig). There are several issues with this, first, Holmes didn’t get to explain himself, nor did he know the reason of his arrest, and when he tried to proclaim innocence – his previous criminal history was used against him to label him as a criminal. Unjust, a 19-year-old arrested on minimal evidence, and a statement of a witness who the police officers had brainwashed by showing repetitive photos to. The government didn’t want to solve this crime, they just wanted it to be shut away from the public eye – no one cared, no consequences were even thought about. The podcast is strategically done, the layout brings back a consistent pattern of strategies that have been used previously to highlight issues with the justice system. For example, previously Koenig has used victim interviews, government officials’ interviews and personal opinions to showcase that, however, in this episode it’s presented reversed (where the government seems to help, but reverts back to its old ways), but hits home with power.
The structure is brilliant, the identity of Serial seems to have changed over the course of the episode. Instead of blaming the system for its inefficiencies, it portrays itself as pro-government. However, that’s simply an allusion. The reason Koenig does this is to stray away from the repetitive nature of previous seasons and episodes, and simply introduce a fresh structure. Podcast simply dives in, and its refreshing. For example, Koenig talks to Charles, the father of an infant killed in street violence (Ava Wakefield). However, the catch is Charles wasn’t present at the time of the incident, he doesn’t have a clue to what happened but claims he knows exactly what occurred. Now, why would Koenig talk to someone who wasn’t directly involved? What purpose would it serve? Well, it helps clarify for the reader who the actual killer was, and how the streets operated. See, many of the witnesses involved in the case weren’t reliable like John (inmate), and a landscaper who had been brainwashed to think that Devon Holmes was the killer (simply due to the fact that he seemed familiar because police officers had shown Holmes’s picture to him so many times) – and they weren’t helpful. Much of the evidence that Devon Holmes was arrested on was insufficient, a reoccurring trend that the government does (arresting based off of little evidence), but one person seems to know best. In the podcast, Charles states that “I know exactly who shot my daughter, everyone knows … I told the police, Tink was innocent,” (Serial, Koenig) but why not let the actual person serve the sentence? Why not serve justice to Ava? There’s no justification. I feel that this is done on purpose, this is where the listener has time to think about the possibilities, the violation of street code, and the consequences of arresting the actual culprit. Koenig does this to include interaction of the audience and keep them engaged – almost like a detective series like Sherlock Holmes, where the reader can solve as they go. Now, Charles does state that he tried many times to inform the police, but they simply wouldn’t arrest the individual. This is concerning – the negligence of the justice system continues to grow, and it’s not just in season three, it’s an on-going trend and seems to be an endless cycle. It creates concern for the general public, what is the United States government thinking? Are citizens actually safe? Are they reliable? So many questions are posed that the audience is left with throughout this story. For example, initially, law enforcement agencies seem to care about the issue, they didn’t care who was in jail. They simply wanted the case “solved” in the public’s eyes. This is unjust, it goes against everything the justice system stands for, and Koenig shows that. No matter how much an individual tries some sort of motive promotes corruption in the system, and no one is willing to take responsibility for it. In Serial, corruption is new, episode four is a prime example. See, negligence has always been of concern, but Serial introduces a plot twist, an issue at the root of the justice system, something that isn’t easily fixable. Showing why the public is scared of the justice system, it shows an issue that is internal and hard to battle – leaving the audience helpless and angry.
Word Count: 1119
Hi Jas!
You first talked about indirect and direct POVs, and this is something that Radiolab definitely does as well, but not in the situation to understand what happened during a crime. Radiolab usually uses direct POVs by having the person talk directly about their expertise or their experience. Sometimes they would talk over them and summarize what they’ve said by decresendo-ing the interviewee’s voice. The reasoning behind this is to give the information in a concise way because there tends to be natural discussion occurring on this podcast, and sometimes a point gets lost in an explanation.
Also, structurally you talked about how sometimes Serial would change the structure of their podcast every now and then to make things interesting, and Radiolab does this as well! They would have guests from other podcasts come on to their own and ‘collaborate’ sort of by having the guest share their stories using Radiolab’s platform. This means in those episodes, structure is changed. One of the hosts actually talked about this when introducing a podcast creator by talking about how sometimes their team comes across a podcast or an episode that they want to share with their audiences. By hosting other podcasts, Radiolab is able to give their listeners variation in their podcast diet.
Something that similar and yet different in your podcast and mine is that Radiolab sometimes ends a podcast on a thought that’s open ended enough to make listeners continue thinking about the questions that they brought up during their episodes, so not as much as an emotional reaction as what your podcast does. I think you’ve touched on this briefly on your comment to my post, and I would have to agree with you – Radiolab tries to get you to continue thinking about the topic by not quite tying up all the loose ends. I think that’s why sometimes they leave endings semi-ambiguous for this purpose. It’s interesting because the podcast that you’re following is still able to stick with people after listening but by creating an emotional response. For Serial’s themes and focus on criminal cases, I think that it suits it better because how we define justice is subjective. When we are forced to consider how the government is not performing to our standards, we have to re-evaluate ourselves as a society and what we believe is just.
Word Count: 390