This relates to the Missing Maura episodes. Now I could just leave 1 star and move on, but I’m compelled to call out biased and unethical content. I could only endure episodes 1 to 11, and it became too problematic to continue.
This podcast displays little to no critical analysts. There’s a fascinating lack of criminology, psychology (except a clinical psychologist who joined after “backlash”), victimology, data, literature, physical or empirical evidence, expert opinion or scientific basis host a podcast that’s full of speculation.
Podcast is about a 21 year old woman, Maura, who went missing in 2004. Below are the issues I have:
1. character assassination of Maura, who is obviously unable to defend herself. Including calling her manipulative, making light about how she appears in a photo taken at a stressful time, loosely implying that she uses her appearance and feminine wiles to her advantage
2. Broadcast, without question, a journalist’s opinion that Maura is a sociopath. A JOURNALIST! Someone without any expertise to make such a claim! They do not challenge the validity of the assertion. They then defend the assertion in a future episode. I have never heard anything so irresponsible and unethical. It’s my opinion that on that basis alone the episode should be pulled and their podcast discredited.
3. They overtly perpetuate speculation, despite claiming they want to seperate fact from fiction. There are a few viable scenarios- that Maura died from exposure/the elements, suicide, that she met foul play after exiting her vehicle OR she chose to disappear. The hosts overtly preference one theory repeatedly with incredible bias. They think that a 21 year old young woman, due to some life stressors not wholly unheard of for a young college aged person, has chosen to stage a scene and disappear. What evidence do I have for thinking this is the least likely scenario? I was a 21 year old female once.
Needless to say, I believe that any of the other three scenarios are highly more probable… That she sadly had suicidal intentions. We know that she suffered from an ED (very sad), that she felt family pressure to ‘succeed’, and was facing consequences for the car accidents and performance at college. On probability, these could absolutely contribute to a mental crisis.
Or she was a victim of accidental death or homicide. Both are unspeakably devastating and tragic outcomes which should not be taken lightly.
On the theory of homicide, the hosts say she would have been “unlucky” to meet an “opportunistic killer” who “happened to find her”.
I challenge the hosts to say that to any loved one of someone who’s been murdered. “Unlucky.” It’s unreal. The misogynistic and victim blaming undertones are just incredible. Women would assert that many instances where they are followed, cat called, harassed, assaulted, are opportunistic (in public places). They are inane and offensive remark.
(Not to mention, if I were these two hosts I’d be very concerned about reputational and legal exposure if it one day becomes appears what happened and the podcast is completely wrong!?)
Now mind you, this is about a young person who is missing, in a country that presumes innocence. Even if she did choose to disappear - it’s not illegal and therefore I don’t think warrants the speculation from these two middle aged men. What would be appropriate is respectful and insightful social discourse on the desperation and maybe helplessness a young woman who’d decide to do that may feel and how it could be done in 2004 with $4k.
4. They read into family dynamics without expert input. In my opinion, behaviour of Maura’s father was not necessarily unreasonable. People grieve differently. I can completely understand why the family would not want her declared dead until they have closure, ie know what happened. Further his open letter (which they say didn’t need to be public?? Err maybe look at the purpose of an open letter) is an impassioned call to action to law enforcement and legislature to find his daughter. My father would do the exact same, including wordy and convoluted verbiage (probably). I can also understand why his position is that he wants to focus on finding Maura - not on the days/weeks prior. Prior movements are for law enforcement to look at - not the father to defend and not for the jury of public opinion. Perhaps he’d worry that people may use her choices or situation against her, like what this podcast and the journalist guest on it, literally do. Likewise, if my child went missing, I don’t think I could be at the forefront of the search, something they criticise Maura’s mother for, but in my opinion is not extremely uncommon. I’d be a wreck. Therefore I think it’s defendable that they haven’t engaged with arm chair detectives! Truly, the podcast lost me the moment they asked a clinical psychologist whether the father’s letter is indicative of psychopathy.
5. Other examples of baseless speculation they perpetuate include:
- Judging Maura for calling her boyfriend after a car accident using her dad’s phone (seems normal to me)
- Implying someone having a cigarette after a stressful situation is suspicious (literally they said this)
- Concluding that Maura had Tylenol PM solely because she couldn’t sleep OR to get a buzz while sober. Wow. No words.
Perhaps it reflects the standards and social values of a decade ago, but in my opinion this podcast is unimaginably unethical.
Episodes 1-11 are full of speculation, conjecture, generalisations, stereotypes, with no critical analysis and, most importantly, no empathy for the subject of the podcast.
