“Serial” podcast: Where is the discrimination discourse?

The tides are changing: America is fed up with the U.S. justice system after the courts’ refusal to indict Darren Wilson and Daniel Pantaleo, coupled with authoritative responses to Ferguson protests. This unrest originates from the unreliability and inequality within the legal system, not just the notion of institutional discrimination, as many believe. 

The change is partially because of the recent popularity of a true crime podcast, “Serial,” by the creators of the popular NPR show “This American Life.” “This American Life” is an international, hourlong radio show that airs weekly journalistic nonfiction stories 

In “Serial,” Sarah Koenig dives into the intricacies of a 1999 murder case. In this case, Adnan Syed was sentenced to life in prison for the alleged murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. Both Syed and Lee were only 17 at the time.

Koenig gets to the bottom of the case’s inconsistencies: The entire case sentence relied upon the flimsy and problematic testimony of a single witness, not to mention a lack of forensic or tangible evidence.

Jay Wilds, the case’s key witness, testified multiple times, delivering inconsistencies. Each time, his story differed as he altered crucial elements, such as the time frame.

The success of “Serial” comes as no surprise. It features professional and intriguing storytelling and a nonfiction investigation featuring violent crimes tends to garner mass attention.

However, the sheer extent and rapid rate of this popularity were unprecedented and wholly unexpected.

“Serial” has become the top podcast in the U.S., the U.K. and Canada and hit the top 10 in Germany, South Africa and India. It is also the first podcast to reach 5 million downloads, and Apple regards it as the most popular podcast in the world.

It is entirely probable that the program’s success originates from the preexisting disappointment with the American justice system regarding the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. These shootings occurred between August and December and the podcast aired between October and December. 

Confirmation bias inclines people to accept messages compatible with their preconceived notions of the world. Having frequent examples of cruelty in the justice system could cause a person to cling to a podcast reflecting the same idea.

It’s important to realize, though, that this is not exactly the same issue. The shootings reflect the court’s unwillingness to prosecute those who deserved it. “Serial” examines the court’s readiness to prosecute without proving the killer was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In considering the Ferguson conversation, this shows that although the shooting and related events in Ferguson were clearly entangled with race, the discontent with the justice system does not stop there.

Negative attitudes toward the justice system are no longer solely about racial inequality and the way white Americans are often unjustly found innocent. Citizens are also concerned with the integrity of the institution as a whole.

“Serial” listeners on Reddit repeatedly illustrate that people are far less interested in race when it comes to this case. The discourse boils down to the idea that the justice system is not about justice or truth, but actually just about who can argue and present their case the best.

This principle is entangled with race issues, though, considering that white Americans make considerably more than most racial minorities and, simply put, good lawyers are expensive.

However, despite Syed being a Pakistani Muslim and Lee being Korean, racial and religious discrimination are more or less left out of the argument in “Serial.” Koenig mentions race only to understand the behaviors of individuals involved in the case in an attempt to fully understand the events of the day Lee was killed. But when it comes to the potential of discrimination during Syed’s trial, Koenig offers almost no insight.

Presumably, people consider that the key witness was black and won in court. They assume that must mean no discrimination took place. However, discrimination is evident at multiple points in the podcast, but Koenig fails to mention this.

For example, the jury found countless stereotypically religious motives for Lee’s murder. These are based on honor or shame and would likely have been left out of the discourse if he was, for example, a white Christian. 

If Jay’s testimony eliminates the possibility of discrimination to the judicial system as a whole, it ultimately moves the wider discussion away from race and discrimination. People see that courts may unjustly side with a black witness and bring up ridiculous fears of “reverse racism” or assume that race isn’t actually an issue. 

Obviously, one circumstance is not representative, and a sample size of one is not reflective of an entire population.

The root of the “Serial” debate revolves around whether Syed is innocent or guilty. It shows how disturbing it is that we are only one unreliable testimony away from life imprisonment. An important footnote seems necessary here, though — we’re not all equally likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment, and discrimination is as relevant in this podcast as it is in real life.

Of course, the conversations surrounding “Serial” don’t have to solely consist of race or discrimination ­— it just shouldn’t be overlooked completely. Discrimination needs to be respected as part of the equation, especially because it was left out of the podcast itself.

Adrianne Glenn primarily writes about social and cultural issues for The Pitt News.

Write to Adrianne at adrianneglenn@gmail.com.