back
25 comments
I haven't done any outside reading on "Serial" but if you haven't checked it out I highly recommend it.

Also, starting with episode 5, the Slate folks put out a companion series, "Serial Spoiler Special." After listening to each episode, Slate writers talk about the episode. Not just going over facts, but analyzing Serial as a storytelling medium for true crime stories.

Also highly recommended.

Serial: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/serial/id917918570?mt=2

Slate's Serial Spoiler Special: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/slates-serial-spoiler-sp...

Kind of fascinating that the Slate podcast about a podcast is now ranked #8 in iTunes Top Podcasts list.
Serial is troubling. It's creepy to have a relatively recent event, with affected people still alive and struggling, used as pop culture entertainment. It's worse than reality TV.
How is it fundamentally different from other "true crime" shows like "Dateline", "20/20", and "48 Hours"?
I am not a fan of those either, but they don't bring the audience quite so deep and prolonged into the case.
Like most evening news then.

Why do I need to hear the details of most all crimes? The names of victims of crime are totally useless to me.

Investigative journalism is now pop culture entertainment?
It's not investigative journalism. It's investigative story telling.

A journalist would most likely not string the most interesting details of their findings out over 3 months.

More importantly, investigative journalism is a call to action for justice, not a call to snuff voyeurism.
In this case it kinda is. The This American Life format and those like it really are part pop culture entertainment, just dressed up in slightly more tasteful clothing.
> The subreddit has become a recommended resource for anyone listening to the podcast. It boasts 5,638 subscribers as of this writing, but its readers are probably far more numerous. A lot of journalists, I can testify, are watching it closely.

The traffic stats for /r/SerialPodcast are public, and yes, the number of readers is many multiples of the subscriber count.

http://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/about/traffic

Amazing that they have 100k+ monthly uniques vs. ~7k registered subscribers. The former number tends to be bigger than the latter for subreddits, but not by a factor of ten!

It was the #2 Google result for serial podcast (now bumped to #3 by the guardian article) which drives a lot of traffic.
> Redditors have also long observed what they call an “anti-doxxing policy”, which roughly means they’re against publishing the identifying details of people who don’t want to be identified.

Reddit admins sometimes don't let you post your own information. There have been a couple of subs with directories of useful users and their contact details who've had to remove those directories.

I belong to such a subreddit. It is forbidden to include any reddit username inposts to try and stop brigading (invading another subreddit en-masse and upsetting people).

We are regularly brigaded ourselves and have waves of mass downvoting. We just collectively find it amusing, karma is really not important and a lot of people use alts anyway.

We are often threatened with being doxxed although I'm not aware of any actual cases.

Our own users are fairly well behaved, as far as we can tell and the sub is the one i feel the greatest sense of actual community.

> karma is really not important

It isn't up to the point discussions are buried because every post is downvoted below the threshold. I don't know if mods can stop that or what, but it is a legitimate effect of negative karma.

I also don't know if enough negative karma can cause someone to be hellbanned, or if that requires more manual intervention.

We have great moderators, and legit posts get enough upvotes to bring them back into viewing territory.
Is it really "viral"? I think there's probably some kind of confirmation bias going on for the journalist, where participating in the subreddit makes it seem more popular than it is.The series has its moments, but has definitely dragged on way too long.
Very popular without a big marketing campaign. It can also only be used to describe things that are still relatively new. That would be my definition of viral (or the way I perceive that word being commonly used today).

That Serial is just that can easily be argued. (I also very much disagree with you about it dragging on for way too long – and I don’t think qualitative statements like that have anything to do whether or not something is viral anyway. That is just so irrelevant. To me the average quality has been higher than This American Life, and that’s quite the achievement.)

> Very popular without a big marketing campaign. [...] That would be my definition of viral (or the way I perceive that word being commonly used today).

Really? From my perception of how the word is commonly used, anything whose popularity is being driven by a marketing campaign is about as unviral as it gets.

I think you both agree- he said 'without' a big marketing campaign.
What makes something "viral" anyway? Is it popularity, or the way it spreads, or something else?

From my perspective the show seems "viral" because I've been telling my friends about it, getting them hooked, and they go on to tell others.

One measure: It's the #1 podcast in iTunes, despite only being around for less than 2 months.
It being new really helps the iTunes rankings.
How exactly are the results troubling? More like, the results have the potential to be troubling. But rather I see people like "Adnan's best friend" doing "ask me" threads on /r/serialpodcast and it doesn't seem harmful at all.
My android reported that this website infected it with a virus. This part of the show?