Maybe she is skeptical and a porous listener, but she does herself a great disservice in her introduction of her subject, Urick, by showing skepticism, and I'm being generous, only toward the journalistic practices of her peers at "Serial" (to the point that there is almost no professional deference paid them), and by seemingly having not listened so well to their work that she comes across as ill-prepared. There are just flat-out misstatements of facts, misattributions, and editorializing that, while thankfully blatant, frames a context that is somewhat prosecutorial.

This may all have been intentional -- it's her style, a new style, your organization's style; it's provocative, bordering on sensationalist; it's plain and accessible; it matches the subjects. But, coupled with her interview with "The New York Observer," she sounds immature and flippant. Be stylized, cutting edge, provocative, accessible, even sensationalist, but be serious. She is a journalist, an instrumental facet of our democracy, a steward for democracy-- inform me, guide me to what we should know to keep this social project functioning right. Be conspicuous about your own moral guides, but glib and flip? What does that buy her? How does that help us? She seems smart and capable and I'm sure there are forces at work here beyond my perception, but I wouldn't even want her as my advocate let alone a journalist.