‘Serial’ should release Bergdahl interviews
Military prosecutors recently subpoenaed uncut interviews Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl gave to a filmmaker that form the basis for the second season of the Serial podcast. Bergdahl could be sentenced to life for allegedly deserting his Afghanistan post.
It’s the start of a high-stakes legal showdown. Fox, NPR and other members of a media “dream team” want a court to rule that reporter’s privilege blocks disclosure of the unused interview material, even though the source (Bergdahl) is no secret. But the special protection the media seek is incompatible with the new breed of true-crime entertainment it would shield.
Producers are discovering that the justice system is the ultimate reality show. As of 2013, there are more than 14,000 killings each year in America. These largely untold tragedies involve proven ratings boosters: violence and loss, heroes and villains, surprise and mystery. And they are all true. Drama does not need to be contrived around a fleeting romance, novice chefs, or who gets voted off an island.
In courtrooms across the country, people are wrongly convicted, let off for heinous crimes, and everything in between. Tune in, pick your side, and root for justice.
The most prominent example of this new phenomenon is the first season of Millions downloaded the 12-episode podcast. The show made reporter Sarah Koenig famous and led to a ruling tossing out the murder conviction of Adnan Syed.
Other shows followed. A judge recently threw out a conviction profiled in the Netflix hit Making a Murderer. California is prosecuting Robert Durst of HBO’s The Jinx in a 16-year-old killing. Popular media’s interest in criminal justice is welcome. But the new strain of reporters who mine for stories should be accountable to the public, just like the prosecutors and courts.
The general legal principle is that “the public ... has a right to every man’s evidence.”
To block disclosure in the Bergdahl case, the media argue that the public is only entitled to the information producers choose to give them. Compelling a journalist to disclose unpublished material “will negatively affect his or her ability to report future news stories, and the public’s corresponding ability to receive information,” the dream team court filing says.
That’s hard to swallow. People talk to reporters for the very purpose of communicating information to the public. If sources are counting on only selective disclosure of what they say, the public may be better off not hearing from them at all.
Nobody tunes in to 12 episodes to learn how the system got it right. These shows generate buzz when the convicted defendant might be innocent, the unprosecuted millionaire guilty. It’s a great mix of journalism and entertainment. But that mix is incompatible with a “reporter’s privilege” that blocks public access to the material that gets left on the cutting room floor.