Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 156,609

        1. …in reply to @ShortFormErnie
          ShortFormErnie I think this is sort of a complicated question. The case may never have been revisited if it wasn't for the work of Serial. The podcast put more effort into coverage than 99.9999% of media coverage of non famous people court cases & there was likely liability to being definitive
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood -2 🙁
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        ShortFormErnie I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure if you say definitively someone did something wrong in the case and it should have a different outcome, depending on what, they could sue, which is why even most of the more partial case coverage either is long after or also ends on a question
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood -3 🙁
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      ShortFormErnie The big difference is that question at the end is usually played down while Serial played it up specifically for drama, which is--sure--sort of gross, but is really only being transparent about how this usually works.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood -1 🙁
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    ShortFormErnie I suppose they could have covered more recent developments more actively... but it's not really their format? It's sort of like asking "why doesn't Cold Cases TV Show have a breaking news segment on previous episodes' cases?"...
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +2 🙂
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      ShortFormErnie They could! But the biz doesn't work that way and they aren't set up for it. It's an entirely different set of production, time, scheduling and staff investments to basically take on an entire different competitive space.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +2 🙂

Search tweets' text