The Idaho Massacre

Was mostly impressed by this podcast until the episode with the book author, which felt largely speculative and exploitative. It also began with a major and obvious flub from the host, Armstrong, who opened the show with a line about “the state of Ohio versus Kohberger.” A decent listen but in general, this podcast would’ve benefited from more careful attention to detail throughout, and fewer attempts at sensationalism.

I like this pod and I’m specifically listening to the seasons on the Idaho murders, but my god, the amount of times the host says, “Stephanie and Jeff, again,” is so annoying and unnecessary. Otherwise it’s a compelling and interesting listen.

The episodes play the same clips over and over again. If you don’t have new material, why not just condense it all into a few episodes rather than drag it out over seasons?

I’m really enjoying this show but getting irritated with episode 10. So much better when you don’t try to pass judgement on religion, politics etc. You will insist you’re not judging, but you are. When you’re so sure you have the only correct viewpoint on religion and politics you don’t see your own assumptions and bias.

Previously, I really enjoyed and appreciated the level of in-depth reporting from this team. However, the second season regarding the Idaho case adds nothing to the story. The whole season felt like a desperate effort to fill air time. The most confounding to me was the interview with a pop culture expert on the history of horror. What? And how could you let him mispronounce psychopathy so many times on the record? I’m not even going to discuss the amount of air time given to the women obsessed with Kohberger. I would have much preferred to wait for a second season with actual new information.

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who lost all interest after learning they interviewed Cully Stimson from The Heritage Foundation (who is more than happy to introduce himself with that). I already felt uncomfortable with the previous episode’s interviewee, Howard Blum, who felt compelled to write a novel about a case that hasn’t even been to trial yet. Not only is it ethically dubious for a journalist to treat the accused as though they’ve been convicted, it’s clear he doesn’t see the victims as real people. He then questions why the victim’s family would be upset by this after explaining his book is going to be made into a TV show as well. What’s worse is the interviewer makes no effort to question anyone they interview, they simply nod along in awe at speculative claims and hearsay. I was willing to look past all of this as I enjoyed the majority of this series, but interviewing Stimson made lose all interest and respect. I hope they do better.