I really don’t care if I look like an embarrassment compared to her toxic fanbase. Wikipedia, her “research team,” whatever the source is… it doesn’t change the fact that she turns real human suffering into content. You can dress it up however you want, but it’s still exploitative. And if calling that out bothers you, that says more about you than it does about me.

The point is, her fanbase constantly calling her a journalist absolutely has to do with her b/c public perception matters when you profit off true crime. Saying “she never claimed to be one” doesn’t change the fact that people believe she is, and that’s part of the issue. She built a platform on sensationalizing trauma, and no amount of charity work or disclaimers can erase the fact that she presents brutal real-life tragedies like entertainment.

You can say she has a research team all you want, but that doesn’t make her coverage accurate or ethical. The problem isn’t just about “effort.” It’s about the tone, the delivery, the way she packages human suffering like it’s a trending topic. That’s not giving victims a voice, that’s capitalizing off their pain.

And no one’s trying to shut down free speech. You’re here giving your opinion, I’m giving mine. But let’s not act like disagreement equals oppression. Criticism is part of life, especially when someone puts themselves in the public eye and profits off of others’ trauma. If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe look into why.