
‘Serial’: inside a podcast phenomenon - antr
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/aeb8d37c-7af1-11e4-8646-00144feabdc0.html
======
freshhawk
Who would complain about a new outlet for long form investigative journalism
that's actually massively popular? This podcast is as great as the
commentaries/communities that treat it like Game of Thrones are shallow and
stupid.

Are there actually people who think that good journalism that gets too popular
becomes bad in some way or is this just a way to generate a "hot take" story?

"“I’d rather disappoint many, many people than make some conclusion just
because I’ve got to make . . . a satisfying story,” she told Slate’s Mike
Pesca. “I hope that’s not where I lead all of my listeners but . . . I don’t
know.”

If she doesn’t provide one, argued Pesca in the same interview, “the internet
will rise up in a collective wail” and he pleaded with Koenig to reassure him
that Serial would not “wind up being a contemplation on the nature of truth”."

Here's the better story, hopefully shithead narcissists like Pesca don't ever
try to follow Serial because they would turn it into an exploitative farce.

~~~
dang
> shithead narcissists like Pesca

Please don't practice this kind of invective on HN. It weakens your comment
and degrades the threads.

~~~
freshhawk
That's fair. I would remove that first word in retrospect given the norms of
HN. I believe that just came out while considering someone demanding the
public exploitation of a young persons murder for his amusement.

Please mentally substitute "emotionally crippled" for my colorful language.

