An enthralling story. I highly recommend the podcast.
I mostly disagree with the author's apparent bias (that the podcast wasn't "worth the pain" it would cause to its subjects). If Reed was doing his journalistic duty in assuring consent of his subjects (which he seems to unfailingly respect, as evidenced from the content of the podcast episodes), then the subjects have consented to being "on the record," and have essentially waived their right to private conversation.
It's trickier with the main subject of the podcast, given the circumstances. He clearly consented to being recorded, but uncovering more of his private life through the testimony of others could be against his wishes. I would argue that the main subject would want this story told in its entirety, given his raw disposition and tendency for taking a microscope to the problems of the world.
Ultimately, I think it was an ethically sound journalistic telling of a captivating story. I highly recommend taking a listen.
I mostly disagree with the author's apparent bias (that the podcast wasn't "worth the pain" it would cause to its subjects). If Reed was doing his journalistic duty in assuring consent of his subjects (which he seems to unfailingly respect, as evidenced from the content of the podcast episodes), then the subjects have consented to being "on the record," and have essentially waived their right to private conversation.
It's trickier with the main subject of the podcast, given the circumstances. He clearly consented to being recorded, but uncovering more of his private life through the testimony of others could be against his wishes. I would argue that the main subject would want this story told in its entirety, given his raw disposition and tendency for taking a microscope to the problems of the world.
Ultimately, I think it was an ethically sound journalistic telling of a captivating story. I highly recommend taking a listen.