Contemporary textual forms, including multimodal texts, have changed the relationship between composer and responder. How is this true for the podcast Serial?
The accessibility and power of rapidly evolving communication technologies have shifted the relationship in which responders interact with texts. Through the creation of contemporary multimodal texts which offer a multitude of reading pathways, composers put the responders at the forefront as active participants in the creation of meaning. Sarah Koenigs's podcast “Serial” has changed the relationship between composer and responder as it invited the audience to challenge the norm opening new possibilities for the participant to seek social justice, empowering responders to question and
…show more content…
Episode One immediately engages responders in the investigation through Koenigs's opening monologue, subverting the atypical detective's and private investigator's interrogation by asking and using rhetorical questions on the listeners such as “Last Wednesday, for instance... Did you go to any stores that day? If so, what did you buy?” and prompts them with “Are you sure?” This plunges the responder into a confrontation with the composer questioning their memory and therefore subsequently questioning the reliability and accuracy of Adnan Syed’s original verdict knowing he had to recall a day six weeks earlier. Keonig further cultivates this scepticism of Adnan’s case through the skilful use of archival audio from Kevin Urick's testimony, where he claims that Asia Mclean wrote the affidavit "to please [the family] and get them off her back," contradicting the scanned letter and affidavit that Asia Mclean wrote. Koenig enhances the investigation by leveraging contemporary texts as means to communicate more evidence through the use of the serialpodcast.org website housing the statements written by Asia, allowing the audience to take on the role of internet sleuths. This interactive approach empowers responders to critically evaluate Adnan Syed's case, actively participating in the fight against injustices held within the US judicial system. However, while this process can offer an illusion of impartial participation, when Keonig states that to accept Jay's version and stories they would have to accept that “Adnan wasn't just a killer, but a master liar and manipulator.” influencing the responder's perception towards Adnan's innocence, rendering the responders vulnerable to Keonigs own conformational bias and selectively curated information. The blurring of boundaries between
This Reveals Syed Wrong actions as it connects with the timeline of the calls given by the AT&T records and thus proving Adnan Syed being responsible because the whole story is adding up and connecting to wilds story. Likewise, the testimonies of witnesses proves Syed to be guilty as charged, as it adds up to create a story that proves him as a criminal. In the crime scene 4 witnesses are interviewed or info is obtained from them. According to wilds, Pusateri and vinson, “Wilds contacted Pusateri and asked her to pick him up at the Westview Mall… then he told her that Syed killed Lee that afternoon and placed her in the trunk of her car… he returned to Vinson’s house for the rest of the evening... Vinson testified that Syed and Wilds stopped by her apartment around 6 pm” and According to McClain, McClain had written Syed a letter… reminding him that she … had seen him at the Woodlawn Public Library… before 3 p.m. on January 13.
Many people who were brought to trial in defense of Syed were character witnesses; witnesses who would usually say something along the lines of, “The Adnan I knew wouldn’t do such a thing.” Aisha Pittman, Hae Min Lee’s best friend, talked with Koenig for the podcast. Pittman stated that although he ‘generally annoyed’ her, she was not ‘freaked out’ by his behavior during Syed and Lee’s relationship. Throughout the podcast, Koenig paints a picture of Adnan Syed and who he is. She uses character witnesses, including herself, to indicate that Syed is a good person.
Looking at another person’s perspective of the case, Katie Clifford, in her view, “In our files, we have a lot of things, evidence they collected that got sent off and we don’t have reports for everything and we are curious about the results that we don’t have and whether or not those exist and just why they’re not in the files that we have.” Katie Clifford is one of Deirdre Enright’s students, Adnan’s former lawyer. Moreover, since we are considering possible suspects we should talk about how Adnan became the star suspect of this
Imagine being interrogated about a mundane and orthodox day, one month ago, that you have little recollection of; this was the case with Adnan. Unable to provide sufficient evidence, and with the aid of Jay’s claim to being a witness of the murder, Adnan was arrested shortly
At the age of 17, Adnan Syed was charged for the murder of Hae Min Lee, but I don’t believe he did it, and I want to tell you why I think it was Jay who committed the murder. In this case there are days worth of reading for evidence. Just in the transcripts, there’s 288 pages, some of it evidence, some of it conversations, and some of it interviews. There are so many people involved that it's very difficult to say for certain that Adnan did it, but it's also very difficult to point out anyone else that could have done it as well.
Adnan Syed couldn’t have killed his former high school girlfriend, Hae Lee, 20 years ago: “I know it’s physically impossible for people to be in two places at one time.” Syed, the subject of Sarah Koenig’s hit podcast “Serial” and Amy Berg’s HBO docuseries “The Case Against Adnan Syed,” was convicted of killing Lee, his ex-girlfriend, in 1999. But McClain, who was never called to testify during the first trial, said she had a 20-minute conversation with Syed in their high school’s library at the same time prosecutors say Lee was murdered”. Another witness who testified to seeing Adnan was Rabia, She claims to have gone into the library and saw Adnan printing papers, they even managed to chat for a bit, As Koenig comments, “And she told me, that
Sarah Koenig, the host and producer of the popular podcast “Serial” is known for her engaging storytelling style and ability to use rhetorical devices and tools of persuasion to keep listeners interested and invested in the story she is telling. As a journalist and narrative storyteller, Koenig’s goal is to present a well-researched and balanced account of the events she is discussing and to use her skills as a writer and communicator to convey that information in a way that is compelling and engaging to her audience. But what Koenig fails to do is back up her conveyed idea of being a credible authority figure and also fails to provide a large amount of necessary information, while rambling on for unnecessary amounts of time about information that can be easily summed up shorter. Tactics like these show how she receives more listening time, viewership, and money. One technique she employs is the use of rhetorical questions, which allow her to guide the listener's thinking and lead them toward a particular conclusion.
Serial is a true-crime podcast narrated by Sarah Koenig. In this podcast, Koenig goes through the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee, and whether Adnan Syed, Lee’s ex-boyfriend who was convicted of the crime, is guilty of Lee’s murder. As she narrates the podcast, Koenig presents evidence to support both views and offers her opinions as she navigates through the evidence. In the podcast, Koenig’s narration is clearly biased toward Adnan Syed’s innocence. In the podcast, Koenig shows a clear bias towards Adnan Syed’s innocence, as she did not accurately portray Asia McClain’s letters, did not fully evaluate the other potential suspects, did not objectively evaluate Jay Wilds’ witness statement, and had outside influence.
This case has twists and turns with surprises that never allow the reader to catch their breath. In 1999 Hae Lin Min Lee was murdered, on February 25th, 2000, Adnan Syed, her ex boyfriend and fellow classmate, was convicted of her murder. The circumstantial evidence that was presented and ineffective counsel led to an unjust verdict. Racism and stereotypes shaped the outcome of this case tremendously. The justice system has failed many times, and yet again, the conviction and sentencing of Adnan Syed was the wrong verdict.
Serial is a podcast that first premiered in 2014 and quickly became a cultural phenomenon. The podcast, produced by Sarah Koenig, is a spin-off of the radio program This American Life and tells the story of a 1999 murder case in Baltimore, Maryland. The story is told through a series of episodes, each one delving deeper into the case and the investigation. The podcast uses a variety of rhetorical devices to create suspense and engage the audience.
This leads to the data gathered from the experiment/police reports, which gives intel about how many instances this has taken place. The way the topics flowed smoothly to the next while provided deeper meaning helped engage the listener. They also made sure to include light hearted commentary, which made the audio seem more friendly and entertaining rather than a serious research essay. Overall, I found the podcast to be an enjoyable way to inform many people about such an unconventional
The most difficult thing an author can do when telling a story, is attracting an audience, and maintaining the audience’s engagement. In Serial, while telling the story of Adnan Syed, Sarah Koenigs attracts the audience with her purpose which is proving that Adnan Syed was wrongfully convicted and isn't completely guilty. Sarah maintains the attention of her audience by using emotional, and logical appeal, while also establishing credibility. In other words she uses the rhetoric made up of Pathos, Logos, and Ethos.
This paper will provide a rhetorical analysis of Judge Jeanine Pirro's commentary on Murdaugh's testimony in his double murder trial. The analysis will focus on the rhetorical strategies employed by Pirro to persuade her audience, which includes Fox News viewers, to believe in Murdaugh's innocence. The paper will also consider the rhetorical context of Pirro's commentary, including the audience, genre, and purpose. Pirro's commentary on Murdaugh's testimony employs various rhetorical appeals, including logos, ethos, and pathos.
The audience also knows how much time Koenig has spent looking into this case and for her to still be questioning it makes it hard to believe that the court made a decision in such a short amount of time, supporting the theory that bias played a factor. “I see many problems with the state's case. But I also see many problems with Adnan’s story too.” This antithesis explains how there simply were just too many holes in both sides of the case to make an accurate conviction (Koenig 150). These gray areas within the case are the sole reasons why nobody can confidently say who did it, making it very unlikely that the court's decision was made strictly from evidence.
Ultimately, for a society to advance, composers must engage their distinctive voice to create a new society. Through a powerful voice in society, individuals are forced to reevaluate their current assumptions that were once believed. In society, Distinct ideas in society have the ability to change how individuals and societies’ ideas on important ideas and topics in a society which affect others. Through the composer’s voice, the audience is presented with new experiences in which they would not have been exposed to without the composer’s powerful presentation of ideas.