Pop Apologists — Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Series

      

Via iHeart

    “Well, well well,” this week, we will be looking at one of my favorite podcasts, Pop Apologists, hosted by sisters Chandler and Lauren, and the ways they effectively (of ineffectively) used communication in their recent series surrounding the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni lawsuit. While this is a podcast I enjoy daily, this particular series of theirs stood out to me because of its specificity. Many of their other episodes include multiple topics, as well as updates about their own lives. This series, however, is entirely focused on this case. Since the release of information was a bit hectic at the beginning, their opinions from the start of the series has shifted. They have tried to go through it chronologically, but there has been contradicting information released by both parties. Despite this, they do a really great job at staying, for the most part, objective about the information. They do include their “two cents,” but it’s not about the people, but the events of the case. For example, in Part 1, they mostly go over the accusations made by Blake Lively, and are reacting to some of the situations and allegations she made. Like, of course you’re going to be uncomfortable if your boss is talking about his alleged porn addiction and showing you his wife’s birth video; commentating on the power dynamics. These kinds of things. I think this adds a humanness and a layer of analysis to the information being presented; especially around this case where everyone was, and arguably is still, on the Blake Lively hate train. While at first it seemed like they were more so on Blake’s side, as the series goes on, they start reaffirming they’re going to wait on the jury for this one. Rightfully so, there is a lot of contradicting evidence and he said-she said at the moment. However, they don’t lose this humor and commentary from the beginning, which I appreciate, especially when the topic can be a little dense. 

    In the first episode, they start off with a “trigger warning,” essentially warning people they’re going to talk about domestic violence, sexual assault, and also preemptively apologize for any misspeaking that might happen during their analysis of the case, as I have mentioned, it is a mountain and there is lot of contradicting information. I did appreciate this warning as it shows an awareness of their influence on people and their fallibility as humans. At the same time, it almost made me want to question anything they said. If they didn’t have confidence in what they were saying, why should I? I might have gone about stating this in a different way by leaving out the apology for something that hasn’t happened yet. You can still mention the contradictory nature of the case, but I should be able to trust you have done enough research on the case to be confident in what you’re broadcasting to your audience about it. Speaking of audience, it is mostly an audience of 18-40 year old women, so in that way, it was good to include the warning about the sensitive topics they were approaching. But, the awareness that what they say shouldn’t always be taken at face value is also a given when we consider this route of communication as an activity strategy; the gathering of information from a third party or an outside source (Griffin et. al., p.111). While this is usually a face-to-face scenario, in a way, a podcast is like listening to someone talk to you in-person, as you aren’t reading the information, but actively engaging with it. This could also be considered extractive strategy, where you look up the information online, but perhaps it is more likely a mix of both (Griffin et. al., p.111). Either way, when you gather information this way, you’re automatically filtering out what you personally do and do not know to be true. If you go into this podcast hating Blake Lively, you probably won’t go into this podcast with the intention of changing your mind about her. For me, I didn’t have a fully formed opinion about her, and I could tell that neither did Chandler or Lauren. But, for someone with the former point of view, they might see this episode as being too sympathetic towards Blake, which they did as evidenced by the comments. 

    What draws me into this podcast is Chandler and Lauren’s innate connection. They are sisters, so it feels almost like I am listening into a FaceTime between them where they are just having sister gossiping time. Yes, some of the things they say could be taken as being “too biased,” but they have never presented themselves as a totally professional, totally objective podcast, they have always had strong opinions. Perhaps this is my own bias speaking as well, since I have been a long time listener and perhaps some of these people only listened to these episodes, but for me, their series was really well done. They were willing to receive new information and change their opinions accordingly. They have an awareness about them that draws you in. They aren’t celebrities, they’re just two people talking about some drama. They talk at a little faster pace and casually, taking turns back and forth in the conversation, and taking tangents when the need arises. Yet, they’re easy to follow. They lay out what they are going to talk about in the beginning, and if they do get off track, they’re remind themselves, while reminding the listener as well, what they were talking about before continuing on. We all know it can be hard to pay attention when someone is talking, especially when we can’t even see them, but their podcast makes it feel like an intimate conversation rather than a lecture. 

Works Cited

• Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2019). A first look at communication theory (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education, Chapter 9: Uncertainty Reduction Theory
• Pop Apologists, Spotify Podcast