The second episode of Someone Knows Something begins with a hook much different than that presented in the first. Rather than using sound effects to bring the listener in, Ridgen describes a dream he commonly has. That he is running from a bear in the forest, eventually being cornered in the room of a cabin he has come to know all too well. However, it is at this climax—back to the wall and gun in hand—that Ridgen always wakes up.
He says that this dream has become so common to him that for it to disappear would leave him missing it. The euphoria he experiences when he wakes up to find that he is safe in bed rather than in the room of that cabin leaves him wanting more. Ridgen, having had this experience, says that he slightly understands the similar experience of the McNaughton family when they dream of their Adrien playing in the yard as he once had. However, their experience with these dreams is almost the opposite of his own, as, they wake up to nightmare rather than from it. Morning after morning, their Adrien is taken from them, and the sense of loss is experienced again and again.
The variance in the hooks used is experienced throughout the first few episodes of “Someone Knows Something” season one, although, I must say that the homonymous nature of the dream comparison has made episode two’s hook my favorite so far.
While Ridgen does a good job hooking listeners with his intros, it is the ambiguity in the hooks connection to the rest of the story that really draws me in. These hooks, having absolutely no initial links in which a listener may draw parallels to what they believe to be the continuation of the case of missing Adrien McNaughton causes early questioning by said listener. They require a sort of focus and depth of thinking which something forward or obvious would condemn. This is important because what Ridgen presents as the theme of these short-story style intros is an idea which listeners may reference throughout each episodes segment of the overall case. Keeping whatever question he intends to ask in presenting the story allows for a deeper understanding of what he hopes to accomplish in that episode.
Ridgen moves swiftly from the hook into interviews, allowing for few lines of narration between the two. What does assist in this transition however, is his use of overlapping. Where the last story ended is not exactly where the next episode is started, rather, Ridgen takes a few steps back to make sure that listeners are caught up on all details futile to understanding the next segment of the case.
The rest of each episode is filled with a mix of narration and interviews that leads the listener through each episodes progression of the case.
A tactic that Ridgen uses that I both like and dislike is his editing out of his own questions in interviews. Rather than allowing for his voice to be heard throughout the questioning, he instead narrates over his speaking. A tactic that allows for Ridgen to add additional levels of clarification which may not be clear to listeners of the interview itself. Through this he allows himself to narrate intent in questioning a specific interviewee, often including a question to keep in mind while listening to the interviewee speak. However, not producing the original audio in the podcast—as he almost entirely removes his own voice—begs listeners to question his credibility. While we may believe the questioned to be speaking true to their understanding of the case, the context becomes unclear when the original question is not also presented.
Despite this, I do find his interviews to be rather expertly conducted and edited into the podcast itself. Through the precise use of his narrating voice as well as background music, he conveys a tone consistent with what’s at question. The rise and fall of volume levels as commentary enters and exits dramatizes what may have been an originally bland audio. This, in addition to his use of sound effects as a way of conveying setting changes, draw in interest in there including of the listener as part of the story rather than only an observer.
Before concluding each episode, Ridgen provides a final line of questioning, not to any interviewee but to the listener themselves. Something he does in order to prepare them for the context of the next episode in the series.
Finally, a trait similar to every Someone Knows Something podcast episode is its cliffhanger. Often being the beginning and abrupt cutting off of an interview which begs listeners to begin the next episode if only to complete their broken understanding of what has been said. Ridgen’s use of sound effects and music also aid in calling the listener to the next episode, creating an eerie, mysterious tone which forces one to reminisce on all that has been discovered and what has yet to be.
Through the use of progressional tactics Someone Knows Something season one makes for a captivating series that leaves listeners wanting more at the end of each episode.
Word Count: 857
Hi Dane, I really enjoyed reading your post and learning about the podcast, “Someone knows Something.” I liked what you were saying about the introductions and “hooks” to the podcasts. It seems that in a podcast the “hook” is so important because it is so easy to lose a listeners interest if the introduction is not effective. However, the introduction you described for your podcast was really interesting because it uses a personal story from the host that many people can relate to to draw listeners in. It also seems like it connects to the main story very well, even if the two stories have nothing to do with each other. Another thing I noticed was how you discussed the differences between the introductions in the different episodes. It seems that while some podcasts use fairly consistent introductions, very different techniques can be used to hook listeners and engage their interest. For example, you also discussed a technique used in the interviews where the narrator narrates over his own voice and the interview he conducts. I thought that this was interesting because the podcast I am listening to also uses this technique often, and in the episode I recently listened to, uses it in the introduction. We first hear the sound of a crowd meeting to discuss and prepare to cure ballots for the election, but the sound fades in and out as Host Ira Glass narrates over the top. I thought that this was a very effective technique to use in podcasting as it makes it easier for the listener to understand the important parts of the interviews while also keeping the benefits of incorporating interviews or other in the moment sounds from the people or events involved in the stories. Finally, at the end of your post you discuss how at the conclusion of each episode Ridgen provides a line of questioning to the listener themselves. I thought that this was a really interesting technique, so what do you think the effect of speaking directly to the listener is? Or what is the effect that is intended?
Word Count: 349