Analyzing This American Life and Comparing Methodologies to Stuff Mom Never Told You

American economics is not a topic I am particularly fond of in any way. Math and numbers get jumbled into a language that is very hard to follow. In This American Life’s podcast entitled “The Giant Pool of Money”, discusses the economic crisis that occurred in the housing market during the early 2000s. This was the cause of those who could not afford houses still being loaned money they definitely could not pay back. The podcast was divided into three sections, yet the content of the conversation never changes. It’s basically just to give the audience a break.

In comparison to the Stuff Mom Never Told You podcast, This American Life is way more informative. The women discussing fast fashion were just everyday individuals having a conversation and trying to educate themselves on the spot. Whereas the speakers in This American Life are experts in the field and also introduce people with personal experience on the topic. Generally, they appeared to be more credible and professional with their research and organization. However, that does not mean their message was more comprehensible.

In my opinion, I found “The Giant Pool of Money” more difficult to follow than “The Cost of Fast Fashion”. Although the women were a bit disorganized and did not really cite their sources, the conversation was easier to follow and interesting to learn about. This American Life seems to be targeted to an audience who has an interest in economics and finances, leaving people like me very confused and often uninterested. I also found it difficult to know who was speaking and if they were interviewing someone directly or if it was a recording. Luckily there was a transcript but the confusion of voice is not something I found in the Stuff Mom Never Told You podcast.

Analyzing Authorial Misconduct in Zakaria, Lehrer, and Anderson’s Writings

Plagiarism has been ingrained in my brain from an early age as something very unacceptable; going against the honor code was means for major consequences. Taking someone else’s work as your own and not giving proper credit or just flat out pretending it’s your own is unethical and unfair. However, there is always going to be a bit of plagiarism with popular topics or when writing about common knowledge. But when it’s a person’s job to create original content and they fail to comply, what does that do their credibility?

In my opinion, Jonah Lehrer’s case is the most offensive. Not only did he reuse older works and not address them, but he made up quotes from Bob Dylan that did not exist. His material was not authentic and it was very easy for people to uncover his mistakes. This case was also mentioned in the NY Times article about Fareed Zakaria, so it’s apparent that the severity of Leher’s mistakes were prevalent. I do find the idea of self-plagiarizing interesting, however, because why would the original author feel the need to quote themselves? 

On the other hand, the least objectionable offense would be the Chris Anderson controversy. I still believe that the amount of plagiarism that occurred was completely unprofessional but I don’t believe all the blame should be placed on the writer in this scenario. The team behind his book did not follow procedures in the most effective way possible. Waiting till the last minute to add things such as footnotes or a final edit are definitely cause for authorial mistakes. Could these have just been excuses to be lazy and plagiarize? Possibly, but multiple parties still remain at fault in this case.

Analyzing The Mystery Show, “Belt Buckle” Podcast

Starlee Kine, the host of The Mystery Show podcast, searches of the owner of a unique and mysterious belt buckle, hence the title, brought in from someone’s childhood. With little to go from other than an engraving within the buckle, Kine is bound to hit some bumps in the road.

The first dead end came when Kine was interviewing Donna the art teacher. Although Donna was able to describe the physical features of Hans Jordi, as well as his demeanor, she was unsure of his relation to cooking. Her personal bias to cooking did not help either. Kine began searching and eventually came across an article that mentioned a chef Hans Jordi. Donna may not have helped confirm this, but at least she taught Kine how to see a horizon in art.

While continuing with her search, Kine believes she has found Bob Six, whose real name appears to be Bob Bland. She traveled to Phoenix and attended a culinary association meeting to not only find Bob, but Hans Jordi as well. Jordi was unfortunately a no-show, dead-end number two. At least there was Bob Six, or so Kine thought. When she meets him, Bland confirms a connection to Hans Jordi but never went by the nickname Bob Six. Another dead end causes her to feel farther from solving this mystery.

In the end, Chef Rene organizes a dinner at his home for Kine and Jordi to meet. When Jordi is late to arrive, worry settles in. However, the real Hans Jordi arrives and Kine is able to return this unique and sentimental belt buckle to its owner. She even learned about the real Bob Six and Jordi’s story of immigration to the U.S.