*First impression of the podcast 'Serial'

So a good friend of mine just turned me on to this podcast called Serial. I had never heard about it until last night and he didn't tell me much other than "I think you'll like it." So I click on the link and take a look. Lo and behold...what... in the world... did I just come in to? As I peruse the pages and get a jist of what the podcast was, I get agitated. My first inclination is to play identity politics. This is the stage:

In 1999 a Korean-American girl is alleged to have been murdered by a Pakistani-American boy in Baltimore. Both of them in high school. Both very smart students. Both from immigrant families, neither of which would have approved dating the other. It begins to start sounding like a 21st century Romeo & Juliet. But instead of taking place in "fair Verona," we have Baltimore. Instead of family enemies, we have ethnic minorities who don't know much about each other. With the story taking place in a Baltimore high school, it would be safe to assume that African-Americans or Black-Americans will invariably come into the picture. In this sense, the stage is set for a Shakespearean tragedy with dubious plots and characters - who can the audience trust? The show already begins to look like an entertaining drama reminiscent of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood.

Now, I used to dislike constructing this kind of picture because it can be very superficial pointing out the colour of a person and noting behaviour. But I've come to draw on this method again because I think it's useful in bringing out systemic issues and the analysis is useful insofar as it brings out that underlying contour. So what is it about this picture? For one, I think the timing of this podcast is worth noting. It's 2014, a time in which the Muslim image is being amended (and rightly so) from the damage it suffered over the past decade since 9/11. This podcast fits this era of political correctness. And indeed it is noble that this white woman has taken it upon herself to dig into this case after receiving a call for help. A white knight in shining armour. So she dives in with the intention of uncovering the truth behind what happened and aims to bring justice to the victim - the potentially framed boy (not really the murdered Korean girl). I think this is exactly what is problematic. By publicizing this case, she is effectively capitalizing on it: at the expense of ethnic America, "moral capital" is given to the white voice who navigates the case history as protagonist and arbiter of morality and justice. This kind of media perpetuates the image of the white saviour with her good intentions and naivete. It also furthers the association that the normative voice for the representation and arbitration of objectivity, truth, and justice continues to be painted in white. This is a systemic concern. When all American voices screaming for justice are drowned out over and over and over again, this other white woman comes along with a podcast and all of a sudden America has ears to listen. In other words, there is a broader issue regarding public credibility, media, and representation with respect to the social issues of justice and morality. 

After listening to the first episode, my thoughts haven't changed. She's still doing what I think she's doing - albeit naively. And there are certainly a few things about how she represents the Korean and Pakistani families (some of which is noted here) using implicit language of creating "otherness" in their very teenage American lives. But putting this to the side, she does raise some interesting questions about discerning a person's character and knowing the 'beliefs' or intentions of another person. She also notes the significance of time and the very real issue of working memory, memory storage and how unreliable memory can be in the absence of a significant event or emotion. I certainly don't remember what I did 6 weeks ago on a Friday. The issue becomes even more pressing when it comes to legal issues and judicial concerns of putting a person away in jail for a very long time. Her investigation addresses issues of inconsistency and how the process of testimonial evidence is treated. Moreover, the narrator raises questions about money and the malpractice of criminal defense attornies. All of these things point to structural and cultural flaws in the justice system and law enforcement. Simultaneously, the podcast itself raises the question about responsibility and quite possibly about the role of the majority in bringing about social change. 

Like I said, this is only my first impression so I'll continue to listen when time permits before planting this impression into the ground. I'm sure other interesting topics will arise as she discusses what happened 15 years ago in a Baltimore high school.