When True Crime Loses Its Compass

I’ve spent years in the true crime space—as a writer, advocate, and someone who has walked alongside victims’ families and unresolved cases that don’t fit neatly into headlines or narratives. Over time, I began to see something that concerned me deeply: a widening gap between storytelling and responsibility. True crime has become one of the most powerful forms of modern media, yet the ethical guardrails that define traditional journalism are often missing.

That realization led me to step back and do something different. Instead of simply participating in the space, I wanted to study it, define it, and establish a standard that could help protect both victims and the integrity of the work itself. I recently published two SSRN papers that reflect that effort—both grounded in ethics, accountability, and the real-world consequences of how these stories are told.

The first paper, Ethics in True Crime Podcasting: A Standards-Based Framework for Responsible Investigative Storytelling (42 pages, posted March 13, 2026), takes a broad look at the field and outlines what responsible true crime should look like in practice. It examines how the absence of editorial oversight, fact verification, correction protocols, and legal review creates measurable risk—ranging from reputational harm to evidentiary distortion and the retraumatization of victims’ families. This work is not about criticism for its own sake; it is about establishing clear, practical standards that creators, platforms, and audiences can rely on moving forward. Read it here: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6174262

The second paper, When Crime Storytelling Is Weaponized: Bad-Faith Collaboration Risk and Reputational Harm in True Crime Podcasting Distributed on Mass Audio Platforms (13 pages, posted March 13, 2026), focuses on a more specific—and increasingly urgent—problem. It examines how narratives can be shaped or distorted when creators collaborate with sources acting in bad faith, where the goal is not truth but reputational harm. The paper identifies structural vulnerabilities within the true crime ecosystem, including narrative alignment bias, speed pressure, emotional credibility signals, and monetization incentives. It also introduces a red-flag detection model and verification protocols designed to prevent investigative storytelling from being used as a weapon.Read it here: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6174320

Both papers were written independently, without funding or outside influence, and are grounded in my work in true crime writing, investigative reporting, and victim advocacy.

These are not abstract concerns. The consequences are real—for victims, for families, and for anyone whose life becomes part of a public narrative without proper care, verification, or accountability.

My hope is simple: that we begin to take ethics in true crime as seriously as we take the stories themselves. That we raise the standard. That we recognize the responsibility that comes with having a platform—and the lasting impact of how these stories are told.

Because truth matters. But how we handle it determines who it protects—and who it harms.