3 ms·

This is so disappointing. I really enjoyed Caliphate; it was fascinating, and I trusted the NYT to be able to vet its claims. Now I know I enjoyed a piece of ne

This is so disappointing. I really enjoyed Caliphate; it was fascinating, and I trusted the NYT to be able to vet its claims. Now I know I enjoyed a piece of nearly-fiction, and I feel cheated, because I still want to know about the subject matter. I'm not sure retracting a years-old podcast is going to be enough to rebuild trust. I need to hear how the NYT is going to engage some actual experts on this, and I want to hear their perspectives on the story Calpihate presents. The fundamental questions the podcast asked are still very live: What was it like to live under ISIS? How did that organization operate in the areas where it had control? And so on. Editing to add: I'm not sure how to trust further work from Rukmini Callimachi. The fact she's still working at the Times, with no information on how they'll be vetting her work, is concerning.

cheezymoogle 6y ago
I'd recommend the 2019 pseudo-blacklisted documentary Salafistes^1 (released as Jihadists in the US) if you want an unvarnished view of Salafist Islam. --- 1 - https://vimeo.com/ondemand/jihadists https://vimeo.com/ondemand/jihadists
ehsankia 6y ago
Did we listen to the same podcast? It still had a lot of information and value even if you entirely remove Chaudhry's story. And even for his story, it was very clearly presented as not fully certain. I wouldn't call it "nearly-fiction", it's closer to your average True Crime podcast where you are presented with the known information and it's up to you to decide if you believe it or not.
- ivraatiems 6y ago
  It absolutely did have a lot of other information in it. However, the mistake here was so substantial that it's hard for me to feel like I can trust the rest of its reporting. Remember, it was not presented as true crime - it was presented as investigative journalism. I don't hold average true crime podcasts, which are usually non-experts quoting secondary sources in an obviously non-expert context, to the same standard.

cheezymoogle 6y ago

I'd recommend the 2019 pseudo-blacklisted documentary Salafistes^1 (released as Jihadists in the US) if you want an unvarnished view of Salafist Islam. --- 1 - https://vimeo.com/ondemand/jihadists https://vimeo.com/ondemand/jihadists

ehsankia 6y ago

Did we listen to the same podcast? It still had a lot of information and value even if you entirely remove Chaudhry's story. And even for his story, it was very clearly presented as not fully certain. I wouldn't call it "nearly-fiction", it's closer to your average True Crime podcast where you are presented with the known information and it's up to you to decide if you believe it or not.

ivraatiems 6y ago
It absolutely did have a lot of other information in it. However, the mistake here was so substantial that it's hard for me to feel like I can trust the rest of its reporting. Remember, it was not presented as true crime - it was presented as investigative journalism. I don't hold average true crime podcasts, which are usually non-experts quoting secondary sources in an obviously non-expert context, to the same standard.