Letter: ?Column’s criticism of “Serial” missed point

TO THE EDITOR:

Journalism is never perfect, and “Serial” is no exception.

But in his column, “‘Serial’ picks a narrow brush,” I believe Seth Rose missed the point.

Rose argued that Sarah Koenig didn’t sufficiently place Adnan Syed’s case in the larger context of a flawed criminal justice system.

I believe in context and analysis. But in this criticism of “Serial,” there lies a hidden demand: “Have an agenda, and use the story of one teenager to prove your point.”

Journalism has become increasingly polarized, with journalists on both sides using individual stories to make sweeping claims about the issues they care about.

When that happens, we convince only the people who agree with us already.

Koenig made the choice to tell a subtle story, one that trusted listeners to ask more questions and think for themselves.

And “Serial” sparked those questions and discussions — in comment sections, in other articles and among friends.

I’ve had conversation with friends about the criminal justice system that simply never would have happened before “Serial.” And that wasn’t because Koenig laid out every single flaw (and there are many).

It’s because she allowed people to think, “That could be me.”

“Serial” is not perfect. But it succeeded where most journalism fails — it made a large, complex issue real and compelling to people who didn’t care before.

Criticize if you must, but I urge you to go beyond that.

Write about those issues you said “Serial” neglected. Continue the conversation Koenig started.

Abby Reimer

Junior

Journalism