“Listened to most of the first episode and was a bit annoyed with the reporting/storytelling quality. The host first gets us hooked with the compelling idea that he has evidence/information that could get a woman released from prison for a murder that she may have not committed. Loved that bit. Then he said that he needed to go into some detail about the killer’s background. But after 15 minutes I learned nothing about the killer’s actual background. No information about where he grew up, his education, family, possible abuse he suffered growing up, socioeconomic background, weather or not he drank or did drugs, how he supported himself financially... really nothing about the killer that paints a picture and highlights the hallmark characteristics shared by most serial killers. A missed opportunity. Instead the host skips to the killers killing spree, capture, trial and conviction.
Then the host tries to justify him making a financial opportunity out of tragedy by saying that it was his duty as a crime journalist to expose the truth and then he runs the idea past Holly, one of the victims if she thinks it’s a good idea. That’s when he lost me.
Mate, you don’t need to justify making a little dosh from telling a story like this. People are fascinated by serial killers and want to hear more. Make your podcast, make some money, get a lady out of prison to boot. Win, win, win.
But tell the story well, don’t promise background and the not give any background.
And why on earth would you ask a former victim if going forward with it was the thing to do? Is she an ethics major? What authority does she have? What would you do if she said no? Furthermore, you don’t need permission- investigating is obviously the right thing to do. To me, this was thinly veiled attempt at justification. Best of luck.”
The Brazza via Apple Podcasts ·
Great Britain ·
10/12/18