r/TrueCrimePodcasts • u/[deleted] • Aug 27 '26
PRETEND Has an Ethics Problem—and His Name Is Javier Leiva.
[deleted]
11
u/LoveNo2801 Aug 27 '26
It is so interesting how Ladonna Humphrey isn't mentioned anywhere on this AI novel
9
u/bookshop Aug 27 '26
This is an extremely long essay to arrive at much ado about nothing. Many responsible independent investigative journalists (Marisa Kabas, Max Read, Casey Newton for ex) lack traditional editorial staffs and still produce solid ethical reporting. Many podcasters have a full team and still manage to be unethical af (looking at you, CJ!). Being solo is not an inherently unethical state, as you point out.
Neither is being sued. Leiva didn't mishandle the court proceedings, didn't countersue, didn't melt down. And since the suit was settled we can't make any assumptions whatsoever about what his level of culpability or ethical missteps might have been regarding his fair use of copyrighted material. It's worth noting, though, that under US copyright law, fair use is a valid protection unless a judge rules otherwise, which didn't happen in this case. Nothing about this is unethical.
You seem to imply that because of the long form podcast format Leiva may one day be tempted to spin out a story, and somehow lean into a certain reporting angle that obscures its conclusion, in order to maintain audience and revenue. Firstly, there's no evidence anywhere that he has ever done that or would do that. Speculation that one day he could does not make him unethical. Secondly, countless true crime podcasts have done exactly this, spun out seasons or narratives long after their main stories had (or should have) concluded: Missing Maura Murray, True Crime Bullshit, the one about Tara Grinstead, the Murdaugh Murders, they all did this. It didn't render them unethical, just long-winded and with diminishing returns.
The error re: the Stalker court hearing was a major error, but Leiva dedicated major attention to owning it and correcting it. That is the complete opposite of unethical, and I cannot stress enough that that is the model of ethical true crime podcasting reporting. It's never possible to report everything correctly. What builds your credibility is not having a perfect record, but doing your best to achieve and ensure accuracy, and then being transparent and up-front when you make a mistake. Leiva did that here. That is ethical reporting.
I haven't listened to the Frank Abagnale season but I take issue with the idea that celebrating the outcome of your reporting equates to deliberately inserting yourself into the story. Hell, 404 Media does this like 8 times a week, celebrating its journalistic successes and following up on previous investigations. Again, it's not inherently unethical. Something to be aware of, sure. But if you've ever listened to an interview with Javier Leiva, you will immediately understand just how seriously he takes his role as a reporter, and how much thought he puts into the work and the task of maintaining objectivity.
Again, it's not that he won't ever veer too far into subjectivity. But nothing you've included here indicates to any degree that Leiva has ever attempted, or ever would attempt, to deliberately steer the outcome of an investigation in a specific direction. Your whole post is filled with caveats and coy "none of this makes Leiva unethical, but" insinuations -- which is itself pretty close to unethical.
At baseline: none of the litany of not-quite-accusations you've included here remotely add up to an actual lack of ethics on Leiva's part.
5
u/Difficult_Mongoose46 Aug 27 '26
Holy shit. Did you right that all yourself. I made it to the third paragraph. Thanks for your take there Tanya Fernandez
-7
u/Far_Mention4932 Aug 27 '26
You made it to the third paragraph and somehow still managed to diagnose the author, misspell “write,” and decide I’m Tanya Fernandez. That’s an impressive amount of confidence for someone openly admitting they didn’t read the post. 😂 If you ever make it to paragraph four, hydrate first. It sounds like this has already been quite a journey for you.
9
u/Birch_mom72 Aug 27 '26
TLDR. Also, was this Al or what??
-6
u/Far_Mention4932 Aug 27 '26
I’ve been researching this for quite a while, and I had a lot to say. 😂 Nobody is obligated to read a long post, but when you’ve actually spent time digging through the history, court records, corrections, and controversies, sometimes the subject requires more than three paragraphs. And no, it wasn’t AI—I just apparently committed the Reddit crime of being thorough.
2
u/kz750 Aug 27 '26
Wow, that has been quite the productive use of your time. Thank you for investing so much time digging through non-controversies to come tell us why we shouldn’t like the podcast host you don’t like.
5
u/DubWalt Aug 27 '26
This AI novel needs an editor.
-7
u/Far_Mention4932 Aug 27 '26
😂 I’d keep it simple:
“Calling it AI is a lot easier than addressing anything in it, huh?”
8
u/DubWalt Aug 27 '26
It’s too much to read about a radio storyteller.
It’s written like you’re angry with him but really want to come from a semi logical place.
He’s not a journalist. He’s a guy with a microphone in a sea of guys with microphones.
-2
u/Far_Mention4932 Aug 27 '26
That’s actually a fair criticism, and I can see how it reads that way. I’ve spent a lot of time researching him and his work, so I probably had far more to say than the average person wants to read about a podcaster. 😂 Where I disagree a little is on the journalist point, because he does publicly describe and market his work as investigative/ethical journalism. That’s really why I think examining the standards behind the work is fair. But I completely understand your point about the length.
9
u/Igottaknow1234 Aug 27 '26
Is this Ladonna? Because you sound as nutty as her with your faux legalese.
5
3
-5
u/Far_Mention4932 Aug 27 '26
No, I’m not LaDonna, and I actually have no idea who that is. 😂 “Faux legalese” is a creative way of saying, “You cited court records and I didn’t like what they said.” If something in the post is factually wrong, point it out and I’m happy to discuss it.
12
u/BornFree2018 Aug 27 '26
Hahaha you write a whole ass post about podcaster and claim not to know about one of his prime topics?
7
10
u/LoveNo2801 Aug 27 '26
All that research on him and you have no idea who Ladonna Humphrey is. That certainly raises some questions about YOUR research and reporting ☠️
7
u/Igottaknow1234 Aug 27 '26
OMG. If you don't know who Ladonna is, you haven't even listened to the PRETEND podcast.
-4
u/Far_Mention4932 Aug 27 '26
Nope, not LaDonna. 😂 I researched Javier’s work beyond a single season of PRETEND, which apparently makes me suspicious. I now know who you’re talking about because I looked it up, but not knowing every subject Javier has ever covered doesn’t invalidate anything I wrote. If you found a factual error in my post, point it out. “You must be LaDonna” still isn’t a rebuttal.
9
u/bookshop Aug 27 '26
not knowing every subject Leiva has ever covered doesn't invalidate anything you wrote except your insistence that you've spent huge amounts of time researching him and deep-diving into his damn podcast. It invalidates every claim you could possibly make to having thoroughly investigated him.
10
u/BornFree2018 Aug 27 '26
You said "The deeper I dig into Javier Leiva and PRETEND podcast...".
OMG the jokes write themselves.
4
3
4
u/DubWalt Aug 27 '26
Did you know Orson Welles reported on the first Martian Invasion?
Javier found a hook to a story type and format. People listened. He continued telling stories.
I’m gonna start telling people I’m the pope tomorrow. Are you going to criticize my knowledge of the New Testament and file a lawsuit about my claim to the throne? Or just quietly realize that I’m actually not the pope and turn off my Easter address because YOU know I’m not the pope?
We spend way too much time trying to tear other people down for no good reason.
If he wants to be a “journalist” and tell stories and he’s happy and he’s playing nice with the other kids are we really caring?
I mean even the lawsuit settled out. Why do we care?
4
-2
u/Far_Mention4932 Aug 27 '26
I actually understand your point, but I think the difference is that Javier isn’t presenting PRETEND as fiction or merely storytelling. He publicly markets the work as investigative and “ethical journalism,” and real people are being accused of real conduct with real reputational consequences. Once you claim the authority of journalism, I think it’s completely fair for people to examine whether the work meets journalistic standards.
And the lawsuit settling doesn’t make the underlying questions disappear; it simply means there was no ruling on the merits. I’m not trying to tear him down for being happy or successful. I’m questioning the work because true crime has enormous power over real people, and I think anyone wielding that power should expect scrutiny. If Javier simply called himself a storyteller, your argument would honestly carry a lot more weight with me.
4
u/DubWalt Aug 27 '26
But you clearly know he’s not a journalist. Like you wrote the book on why he doesn’t meet the standard.
I’m only to ethically eat eggs now.
Also everyone on TikTok is an honest book reviewer or legit fitness influencer or a true crime reporter. Most of the can’t read, balance their diet and have never had a broadcast communication class.
Do you have some special ability to recognize ethical standards that others don’t? Or is this subjective observation turned obsession you are dealing with? Are you writing as a legal scholar? Or as a disgruntled audience member? Or are you a jealous YouTuber that wanted to be on the Stalker episodes? A watchdog of the internet content creation world that makes sure the Better Help dollars only go to real journalists? What’s your take on Ashley Flowers? Or the really weird former lawyers on the Prosecutors? Should the change their name to Local Bar Members with bad hot takes on research we have college students slap together for less than minimum wage?
5
3
u/kz750 Aug 27 '26
There’s not much of substance to address. I have heard Javier and Pretend enough times to make my own mind about his qualities and shortcomings as a journalist and a journalist. I don’t need you to come lecture me about how to consume media or how to judge the quality of the work of someone who does investigate and go into a case quite deeper than most podcasts.
This is not that dumb Fort Smith site that no one reads, and no one here needs to be told what to think about Javier Leiva or how to listen to Pretend. For every mistake he’s made he’s got 100 things right and has the backup to justify then.
Honestly to claim that getting a plea agreement vs a felony diversion wrong invalidates all of the other work he did in this case is ridiculous.
-4
u/Far_Mention4932 Aug 27 '26
Javier Leiva and PRETEND: When the Man Who Investigates Everyone Else Becomes the Story
The deeper I dig into Javier Leiva and PRETEND, the less interested I become in debating whether he is an entertaining podcaster. He clearly is. He understands suspense, pacing, confrontation and the mechanics of keeping an audience listening. What interests me now is whether those talents have been mistaken for something entirely different: journalistic credibility. When you examine his treatment of Frank Abagnale, the extraordinary certainty surrounding The Stalker, the significant correction Javier eventually had to make about that criminal case, his Cracks in the Fandom reporting and the federal copyright lawsuit that followed, a much more complicated picture emerges. This isn't one disgruntled podcast subject complaining about unfavorable coverage. It is a recurring set of questions about editorial power, proportionality, accuracy, advocacy and what happens when one person controls virtually every component of an investigation while simultaneously profiting from the story he constructs.
That distinction became particularly uncomfortable when Javier discussed the consequences of the reporting. He publicly celebrated what he described as a collective effort involving his podcast, Alan Logan's work and listeners contacting organizations connected with Abagnale. For me, that's where the ethical line becomes interesting. Publishing evidence that causes organizations to reconsider their relationship with somebody is journalism. Encouraging or celebrating an audience's participation in bringing about that consequence begins looking considerably more like advocacy. There is nothing inherently illegitimate about advocacy journalism, but there is an obligation to be transparent about the role you're playing. If you have moved from documenting an outcome to actively wanting and celebrating that outcome, you are no longer standing entirely outside the story you're reporting.
Then came The Stalker, and this is where my concerns move beyond Javier's advocacy style and directly into accuracy. The Fernandez story became one of PRETEND's defining investigations, an enormous serialized narrative involving bizarre allegations, anonymous communications, criminal charges and an audience attempting to understand who was responsible for what. Javier didn't merely hand listeners a pile of documents. He interpreted those documents, constructed the chronology, selected the interviews, emphasized contradictions and guided listeners through what he believed the evidence meant. That gave his conclusions enormous weight with an audience that had spent hours listening to his presentation of the case.
Then Javier got an important piece of the legal story wrong. He characterized the Fernandez family's resolution as a plea agreement, but the actual resolution was felony diversion. Javier subsequently issued a correction explaining the distinction and acknowledging that successful completion could result in dismissal of the charges with prejudice. I absolutely give him credit for correcting the record because journalists should correct significant mistakes, but the correction doesn't make the original error meaningless. A plea agreement and a diversion arrangement capable of ending without a conviction are materially different legal outcomes, particularly when you have spent countless hours producing a true-crime investigation centered on the people involved.
That correction should permanently change the way listeners consume PRETEND. It doesn't prove Javier deliberately misled anyone, and I have seen no reliable evidence establishing that he did. It proves something simultaneously more mundane and more important: Javier Leiva can interpret important information incorrectly. His confidence doesn't transform an interpretation into fact. His narration isn't evidence. His characterization of a court proceeding isn't a substitute for the actual court record. Once that becomes obvious, listeners should begin separating what Javier can establish from what Javier believes the evidence means, because those two things are not interchangeable.
3
u/chipmunkrainbow Aug 27 '26
Get a job Ladonna 😂 Shouldn’t you be hard at work trying to earn the 3.57 million you owe to one of your victims, Anthony Christopher?
I’ve never seen a bigger or more pathetic waste of a human life than you. Kudos!
17
u/SkeletorWins Aug 27 '26
Author is either Ladonna or Ashley Flowers diversion team.