The interview of Eng Yang and Kao Kalia Yang was conducted very aggressively. The fact that Yang’s account was dismissed and criticized as purely “hearsay” contradicts their reason to come and talk about the matter as a whole.While the beginning of the podcast was executed well by introducing professionals and giving background information on the matter,  things got ugly once Krulwich began to interview Eng and Kao. Eng Yang felt very strongly about the Yellow Rain that was killing lives left and right, but the lack of interest made it impossible for him to do anything about it. He felt that Radiolab’s coverage was an opportunity to bring the news to more ears. However, his story was discredited and attacked for his lack of evidence. Rather than suggesting alternative possibilities, the host continues to attack his claims by bringing in scientific evidence, much of which could have been introduced in a more professional and respectful manner.

There was a comment that resonated with me in the Poynter article that stated, “Imagine if Krulwich sat down with a holocaust survivor and disputed their story. Obviously, it’s important to get the facts right (whether it was bees is an interesting question), but the Radiolab team didn’t understand the centrality of this story to the people they were interviewing.” I feel that while it is the job of Radiolab to get all the facts straight and rely on professionals, to discredit and dismiss your source is something else. To make an attack on Eng’s recalling of the events as mere “hearsay” was very unprofessional and could easily have been avoided. If they introduced the scientific disputes to Eng Yang from the start and asked what he thought about them, I feel as if they could have avoided the emotional chaos that took over.