Why narrative audio needs its own review
A podcast can create certainty through pacing, music, editing, repetition, and the authority of the narrator even when the underlying evidence remains incomplete. A standards review looks at both the words and the cumulative impression created by the episode.
That includes the relationship between primary records, interviews, archival reporting, law-enforcement accounts, and the inferences the narrative asks the audience to draw.
Fairness to subjects and to the audience
Fairness requires more than sending a last-minute email. Material allegations should be identified clearly enough for a person or organization to respond meaningfully, and relevant answers should be evaluated rather than treated as a procedural obstacle.
The audience is also owed a fair account of uncertainty, conflicting evidence, source limitations, and what the reporting does not establish. Precision can make a story more credible without making it less compelling.
Support for smaller production teams
Chris’s independent practice includes work with a true-crime podcast company as well as guidance for creators and editorial teams. Engagements can focus on a single difficult episode, a season-wide review process, or practical standards that a team can apply consistently across projects.
The goal is a process that fits the production: clear decision points, reliable escalation, and documentation of the reporting and editorial choices that matter most.
Discuss an engagement
Start with a brief, non-confidential note.
Describe the project or matter, its current stage, any important deadline, and the editorial standards questions on which input would be most useful.
Start a conversation