“This is such an interesting topic and the stories of the twins and Jaqui are relevant and important to hear. The story of the last family is so tormenting and awful to hear. What they’ve been through is horrific. What I am struggling to understand is how this podcast was allowed to conflate meditation and cultism? Did editors and lawyers not think about this before getting it over the line? There is zero data in this series (coming from the FT, of all places.) Relying on phrases such as “I’ve spoken to many people” doesn’t quite cut it. The FT knows that. Approximately, from a quick search, 275 million people meditate globally. (Not fact-checked by the way but probably easy to do.) This is a small number anyway, still it provides perfect fodder for any number of script lines. For example, “Meditation is practiced by millions and comes in different forms. Here are some examples… Vipassana is one form of meditation: this one seems to be controversial. Here’s why.” The balance, nuance, context is all missing. Instead, the podcast relies on testimony from women of a certain demographic to tell the story of an ancient Eastern practice that millions of people use to help with everyday anxiety and stress. To date, I’ve never come across a narrative, investigative podcast that hasn’t truly probed the issue and been balanced through thoughtful/self-reflective assessment i.e. the journalist questioning their own agendas and biases etc. Completely baffled. Feels like the journalist had a story land in her inbox and saw an opportunity to make a podcast and did it really quickly. Zero psychological rigour to this either given the nature of some of the conditions discussed and raised.”
PeckNPiss via Apple Podcasts ·
Great Britain ·
02/16/24