So if you want to argue for an alternate interpretation, you have to do the real work. You can’t just drop a quote and say, “I think this means X.” You have to acknowledge, “Many listeners might think this means Y; I think it means X and here’s why.” If you ignore the context in which listeners encountered the moment, you lose your authority (because your readers are gonna be like, Um, did you not hear the rest of the episode?). Arguing for a non-status-quo interpretation is basically the core, central move of critical writing. I love it. You just have to actually do it.

Jaime Green: The Problem With the Problems With Serial 

Jaime Green diagnoses the problem with a lot of online critical writing here, not just writing about Serial. 

(via emilygould)