Hysterical: What and How

10/1/2025

For this ICRN, please answer the following: after five hours of listening, what is the main argument(s) of this story? What makes you say that? Be as specific as you can. I suggest looking at the transcripts of the program if you are struggling to be specific. Secondly, the print version of this kind of reporting is what I would call feature-length. Features are not breaking news and are usually a personal story that sheds light on a wider cultural concern. I think you can see how this series mirrors that. But this is not print. It won a Pulitzer for sound reporting. So after you've talked about what, talk about the how: what are the elements that distinguish this kind of reporting? And in what ways does it overlap or not with "traditional" print? You can talk about this from a technological, research, or narrative perspective--preferably from all three.

A NOTE: one thing I wanted to do for this week but did not get to is write up a sample ICRN so you can better see what I'm looking for. As is sometimes the case, I notice that when I make something in class and/or make it something you post on a discussion board, students take it a bit less seriously than I hope. Last week folks did not have a ton of time to write so I don't want to make a thing out of it. But consider that as you respond to this prompt. I will try to make sure I have a sample for this week.

7 Comments

Paul Sweeney

10/1/2025 03:26:57 pm

I believe the overall thesis of "Hysterical" is that our perception as human beings is easily skewed, and we need to understand the world as it is rather than how we think it is. I think this thesis is most prominent in the penultimate episode when Dan Taberski more openly discusses his own opinion on the line between a real, physical illness and psychogenic illnesses which are affected by our perception of reality. To a certain extent the feelings of someone like the prosecutor are valid, her experience is very real, but someone like her sits in this reality without considering the truth of the matter. He talks about how in some cases it is an assault charge for accidentally exposing an officer to fentanyl during an arrest despite the fact that that kind of exposure cannot harm you in any way; it is a medical impossibility.

This kind of alternate reality, as he puts it, extends to mass hysteria across history. He discusses the Salem Witch Trials, in which the people of Salem existed in a reality where witches were real and were after their young women, and so these witches needed to be hanged. Even in a case like Leroy, New York, these girls lived in a reality where they came down with some mysterious illness that no doctor could properly explain, and the real explanation was some form of cover up.

This is, however, complicated by the very real history of women especially suffering from very real illnesses like cancer, and when they go into the doctor to be looked at, they are ignored and dismissed as, one might say, hysterical, which often leads to grave medical consequences. The series asks "where is the line between not taking a woman seriously and the problem not being what she believes it is?" It defines how hysteria is simultaneously a real thing and a weapon often used against women, so analyzing how it can warp reality is difficult and touchy.

I.S.

10/1/2025 03:27:46 pm

The main argument is that we, as a society, should reflect more on hysteria and how it impacts people labeled as “hysterical” (e.g., the girls in LeRoy, the boy in LeRoy who was a foster kid, the ex-CIA agent) and those blamed for the source of the hysteria (e.g., the person in LeRoy who has tourettes, people who got imprisoned because cops claimed they were poisoned with fentanyl). Additionally, the stigma around “hysteria” and “hysterical” further complicates the issue. People don’t want to accept that this could apply to them because it makes them feel as though their suffering is being minimized and brushed aside. Sometimes this is the case, particularly with women. However, if they are actually suffering from hysteria, their acceptance of the diagnosis can help them get better. For example, the adult woman in LeRoy went to therapy and her symptoms subsided. Then there’s also the role that the media now plays as the attention often worsens people’s hysteria.

I’m honestly not super familiar with reporting or journalism in general, but there were elements that stuck out to me that made the podcast intriguing. I enjoyed its ability to connect what happened in LeRoy to past and current events, highlighting the differences in people’s perceptions of each situation. Everything was clearly thoroughly researched in order to connect these pieces. The podcast was traditional in its usage of interviews, but it also included past interviews from when the events occurred and news clips. The moments of narration reminded me of the type of writing you’d see in a book because of how descriptive it was. Everything together helped immerse me in the story in a way that might not be typical of traditional print.

Nina

10/1/2025 03:28:33 pm

I would consider the main argument or idea that revolves around the entirety of the podcast would be skepticism. In the case of the podcast, the main speaker, Dan, explores the case of a mysterious illness that impacts mainly high school aged girls from Leroy, however throughout the course of the episodes we hear about other people involved including a woman who is nearly 40 years old and a male student who experienced the same symptoms. Through the initial interviews that Dan conducts, it is clear that the people experiencing these symptoms were not being taken seriously and they were not getting all the answers they needed, hence the skepticism that pushed the investigation far. I think what was really interesting was how Dan also interviewed people for different yet similar cases, such as the government/first responders/lawyers who suffered from unexplainable causes, as well as the mother (I cannot remember her name off the top of my head) who fought to uncover the truth of a sickness that impacted her daughter, and how she would later go on to make this sort of investigative work her entire life. Essentially, there is no moment where what is said is fully accepted, except for the nearly 40-year-old who was okay and came to terms with the initial diagnosis of conversion disorder. In terms of the formatting of the podcast, I would say it is comparable to a series of feature-length stories wrapped into one. Instead of following exclusively the story of one individual, the podcast brings together multiple different stories, all helped to be narrated by Dan, which ultimately creates the podcast. This not only draws in new perspectives towards one main topic or instance, but also provides different insight from those perspectives. Additionally, on a technological point, podcasts are a lot more creative, as getting to hear the individuals speak with mood-setting music or overlapping sounds (of speech or sound like music), helps to add elements of creativity, which make it more interesting to listen to rather than read.

Alexandra O'Brien

10/1/2025 03:33:08 pm

After listening to this podcast, it is hard to pinpoint just on main argument of the podcast. There are several essential subjects it touches on. The story is told through a narrative approach, where the host narrates our experience while interviewing several people about their experiences. I love how he explores every option of what this mysterious illness could be through the experiences of all these people, because it almost replicates the confusion and questioning that the people in this small town went through. Asking themselves, is it even real, is it from toxins, or is this actually a harmful disease going around? So he doesn't just tell us the answer to this case, which I love; it shows just how "hysterical" everyone was over it. However, what was most interesting about this was the social aspect, the total disbelief from people. Everyone had distrust and was very uncertain. They were questioning the young women who were suffering from this, and a lot of language around describing them was things like "Young girls" and "high schoolers", and speaking of groups and if they were faking it because they saw one another posting about it on social media or spasming in class. If this were a different age cohort or group of people, would it have been taken more seriously and addressed quickly? I think the main points of this show were heavily connected to groups, media, and the representation of issues, as well as how they are handled within this social context. In terms of the kind of reporting, I loved how, like I said, he walked through all possibilities of this case - and other examples of mass hysteria with people, and didn't just give us an answer (or the podcast would have been pretty short!). He uses many different sources in his interviews, from family members to students and even medical experts, similar to traditional reporting. But I think that the narration in the podcast really helped me be more interested in the storytelling of it all.

Anna

10/1/2025 03:33:29 pm

Hysterical presents the complex nature of what happened in LeRoy to make what I believe to be its central argument: Hysteria/Mass psychogenic illnesses cannot simply be boiled down to "they're faking it," but the mysteries of the brain and what belief can do to our bodies cannot be dismissed either. I thought that the most important speaker on the podcast, while she did not speak for long at all, was the psychologist from Buenos Aires. She emphasized the importance of listening to people who may be experiencing psychogenic illnesses, because their symptoms are real, and the more we validate or invalidate their experiences, the more we may influence the outcome of their illness. I think that Hysterical was working to show that through listening to people in LeRoy, their doctors, the state doctor sent to work on the case, the CIA operative who faced the same diagnosis with an entirely different expereince, we can learn about the complexity and dangers of what our own mind can do, and what we may have to question about our government and how we handle what we label psychogenic illnesses. The fact that this took the form of a podcast is incredibly important as well, as we hear the emotion in each person's voice. We hear the ticks that the girls in LeRoy were experiencing. We also get the sense that we too are investigating "hysteria" as we follow the host's way of thinking about each of the situations he investigates. I think that hearing the humanity behind each case brings an important insight that reading about them may not, especially because the cases were often dismissed or ridiculed by the public while they were being reported on prior to this podcast. I connected specifically with Jason, who was dismissed even by other girls in LeRoy with the same symptoms he had. I think the podcast was able to not only give him a platform to speak about his experience, but as a listener I found myself reflecting on times I may not have believed someone's experience when I should have just taken some time to listen. What made this experience particularly powerful was that we were all listening to a story about people who couldn't seem to find anyone to listen to them, and that is the biggest differentiating factor from traditional reporting that I noticed.

Ashley Luise

10/1/2025 03:34:25 pm

Hysterical reflects on society’s perception of the causes and existence of hysteria, and how that diagnosis impacts those (especially women who are more likely to experience medical misogyny) who are diagnosed. Specifically, Hysterical does this by exploring the existence of mass psychogenic illness at various points throughout history, with specific reference to the 18 or so girls who developed physical symptoms in LeRoy, New York, as well as the lengths people will go to in order to attribute their symptoms to more concrete or outside causes like the environment. While Taberski sets the scene using the progression of the mass psychogenic illness outbreak in LeRoy, each episode explores various ways that their experience is not unique—specifically referencing instances of “conversion syndrome” and later “Havana syndrome.” The girls in LeRoy were all seen by the same doctor, which concerned many parents too; a main idea throughout the series was that maybe their symptoms were being brushed off as hysteria like women’s medical symptoms historically have been.

While print journalism and podcasting can tell the same exact story, I found Hysteria to be a lot more engaging because of its pull on emotions. The length and storytelling are similar to that of a feature story, especially in regards to the amount of interviews from different sources that were conducted, but Hysteria felt more palatable and accessible because of its episode-based audio format. I feel like if I was consuming this much information as a reader rather than a listener, I would’ve had a lot harder of a time staying focused. For me, the use of interviews was really crucial in pulling my focus and keeping me engaged with the story at hand; we really got to hear the emotion and real people behind these horrific instances and stories, rather than their testimonials being words on a page. Being able to hear the tics the girls experienced was so impactful in immersing myself as the listener in the scene—something print media, especially on a topic like this—cannot do to the same extent, but it was the emotions in the girls’ voices that really got me. Though they were reliving these horrific memories nearly a decade later, there was still a level of sheer desperation as they reflected on how it felt to wonder if they could get better. While written interviews are often transcriptions of verbal interviews, I found the voices to be much more impactful and accessible, in the cases of the professionals discussing the history of conversion syndrome and other instances. While both print and audio journalism can tell the whole story, there is a certain power to the story being told in a podcast format as opposed to being in writing.

Glen Beaulieu

10/1/2025 03:36:50 pm

I think, for me, the main sort of argument of this series is that we, as a society, really struggle to try to understand certain things that have a stigma around them, like mass hysteria, Tourette's syndrome, or mental illness. Mass hysteria especially is one of those things that people look at and kind of laugh at, without considering that it is something *real* that actually affects people. We love to think "that will never happen to me," which, in turn, makes it feel all the more isolating--especially when you have people, who have no idea what you are feeling, are telling you that you are "faking it" or "just being hysterical." For me, this kind of reporting feels much more personal, if that makes sense? The interviews felt more like conversations, and that was much more compelling for me. I've watched so many investigative documentaries that I've come to notice how everything is sort of staged in a way to make the viewer feel a certain way, whereas this kind of reporting felt much more intimate and human as opposed to clinical, you know? They also cannot rely on visuals, which felt much more like an in-between for written reporting and traditional visual reporting. Though, truth be told, this was my first real exposure to this kind of reporting, so maybe I'm just inexperienced.

Hysterical: What and How

Leave a Reply.

Torda and the 489s

Archives

Categories