“It’s gotten to the point where I find myself cringing at multiple points throughout the episodes. What I appreciate about true crime podcasts as a criminal defense investigator, is the presentation of cases from content creators who research their cases thoroughly, have a polished presentation style, and stay in their lane. Crime Salad has gone off the rails on those last two points. I appreciate true crime podcasts that center victim’s stories and advocate for better processes to support all the victims of crimes both after the crime has occurred and as “justice” (or some version of it) is pursued, which most true crime podcasts claim they are trying to do.
However, I have grown tired of the constant psychoanalysis of behaviors and event analyses coming from our hosts of Crime Salad. I feel as if they speak with a sense of authority, as if they have specialized knowledge where I don’t believe they hold any. Our hosts have been slowly moving away from simply presenting facts for us to think about in the context of the human condition and how we treat one another and are now often speaking about cases through the lens of their own biases, beliefs, and judgments. For me, it is really dragging down the listening experience.
In this latest episode, Ricky actually asked why we have yet to find a way to humanely kill someone. First, how is that germane to Jennifer’s story?! Second, if you wanted to alienate those followers who don’t believe in state-sponsored murder, well done, Ricky. After describing in detail how a man likely choked to death on his own vomit during a botched and untreated execution method, you decide to follow it up with that disgusting comment. Brilliant.
I started listening to this podcast with the understanding that it wasn’t going to be used to push the creators’ personal politics in our faces. I think it’s jumped the shark.”
CAW8ZA via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
09/21/24