In this episode, Adnan tells Koenig that people either want
him to be a victim or a monster. They can’t imagine that he is possibly an
average person—someone who has admittedly done some not so great things like
pocketing a handful of donation money from his mosque, but also a person who
wouldn’t kill his ex-girlfriend out of spite. Averageness isn’t exciting. It’s
not story-worthy. Because Adnan has been dragged through some exceptional
circumstances, we assume that he, himself, is an exceptional person. And there
is a dichotomy to Adnan’s apparent exceptionality: he’s either exceptionally
sadistic or exceptionally unlucky.
What is unfortunate for Adnan is that popular culture is
much more fascinated with the psychopath than the person who was in the wrong
place at the wrong time. So when Koenig throws around the word “psychopath” in
reference to Adnan. Even though she admits that he doesn’t appear to fit enough
criteria for her to diagnose him as being on the psychopathic spectrum, she is
still establishing links between the audience’s perception of Adnan and their
perception of a psychopath. In linking the word to Adnan, however, Koenig
perpetuates the misuse of the label. In the article “Psychopath is a misused word: Psychological
Science in the Public Interest,” Jennifer Skeem, a professor of psychology and
social behavior at the University of California, Irvine notes that “psychopathy
tends to be used as a label for people we do not like, cannot understand, or
construe as evil.” It’s a go-to for the unfamiliar, and because Adnan’s case is
so unclear, it might just be easiest for Koenig to revert to stereotypical,
misunderstood labels. Because at this point, it doesn’t look like Koenig even
knows where she stands with Adnan.
And maybe that’s why Serial
works. It seems like in every new episode, Koenig takes a different
position on Adnan. It’s this “now he’s a monster, now he’s a victim,” type of
oscillation that is so captivating as an audience member, because there is
inherent suspense in the swinging motion of Koenig’s narrative. Koenig has spun
this case in circles. So much so that Adnan finally says that he can’t wait for
the podcast to be over. As an audience member, I found this unsettling. Here is
this guy who could very well be serving life in prison for a crime that he did
not commit whose life has just been cracked open for public examination. Adnan
didn’t ask for Koenig to examine his case. Rabia Choudry did. So it seems
unfair to him that Koenig should be so quick to make assumptions about Adnan
and thus, sway her listeners to view Adnan in different lights. Koenig has a
lot of influence, maybe more than she realizes. It seems like she should be a
little more careful about the labels she tosses around.
Here is the link to the article about the misuse of the word
“psychopath”:
(http://www.stonehearthnewsletters.com/psychopath-is-a-misused-word-psychological-science-in-the-public-interest/mental-health/#sthash.zXbGADPx.dpbs)
You make a lot of great points here. First, your comment about Koenig's oscillatory nature is spot on. And I think her motivation for doing so ties back to the first point that you make. If Koenig merely presented the facts of the case without injecting her own opinionated remarks, it is likely that the show would not have experienced the same popularity that it did. People find content more gripping if it is contradictory in nature. Many listeners don't want to hear a story of an "average" guy, like you say. We want to hear about either the world's most unlucky man or a deranged sociopath. And by framing Adnan as being either of these two opposing personalities, Koenig is catering to our desire for the extreme. Many of Koenig's theories are outlandish, yes. But we must also consider the fact that it is precisely her method of presentation that helped spark so much national interest in the case. If Koenig hadn't been so carefree with her labeling, perhaps none of us would be talking so much about Serial. If she had merely presented the facts of the case and nothing else, maybe Adnan would not granted an appeal.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, we must ask if this has more to do with Koenig herself or our cravings as a culture. Is Koenig doing this to appeal to a mass audience or is this just her own unique manner of investigation? Is Koenig merely a byproduct of our culture's desire for the exceptional or is she helping to promote it? In reality, the answer to the latter question is probably both. As Serial began to make headlines, we must also consider the pressure Koenig likely received from producers and others to keep the show "engaging". Thus, she might've continued to issue these outrageous labels in the hopes of promoting her show at the expense of journalistic ethics. As much as we would like to criticize the moral implications of Koenig's methods, the impact of her podcast is unquestionable.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to "Undisclosed", then new podcast that examines Adnan's case. I'm interested to see if this alternative program approaches this ethical gray area in the same manner as Koenig.