Let’s get more signatures for this petition

An Audience Is Not Evidence: Javier Leiva Must Answer for His Reporting
By David McClam

If you support Javier Leiva and PRETEND, I am asking you to do something that should be basic to supporting investigative journalism: examine the evidence for yourself. Read the underlying records, consider the responses from the people he covers, and check whether his conclusions are supported by what those records actually say. Before defending his reporting or repeating an accusation about someone else, be willing to explain what you have independently verified.

Building an army of supporters around allegations does not establish that those allegations are true. Neither does presenting a succession of people who dislike the same person. A source’s firsthand account can be evidence, but credibility, corroboration, context, and contradictory information still matter. That standard should apply to every subject PRETEND has covered, regardless of whether the audience finds that person sympathetic.

My assessment of Javier’s approach is blunt: I consider it irresponsible yellow journalism. I believe audiences should demand reporting that gives them a fair opportunity to evaluate the facts, including information that challenges the narrator’s preferred conclusion. Dramatic storytelling, confident delivery, and an enthusiastic following cannot resolve a factual contradiction.

North Carolina law provides an important framework for understanding why these distinctions matter. Defamation generally involves a false, reputation-damaging statement about someone that is communicated to others, with the applicable level of fault. A podcast’s spoken accusations, written descriptions, and promotional content can raise those issues. Calling a production journalism does not place its factual claims beyond legal scrutiny.

The law also distinguishes genuine opinion from factual accusations disguised as opinion. North Carolina courts have expressly recognized that someone cannot simply put “in my opinion” in front of an otherwise defamatory statement and claim immunity. Context matters: expressing dislike for someone is different from asserting that the person committed a particular crime or engaged in specific misconduct. A disclaimer does not automatically settle that distinction.

When the subject qualifies as a public figure for the relevant controversy, the legal burden is higher. The person generally must establish “actual malice” by clear and convincing evidence—meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. That does not simply mean hostility. In its 2020 Desmond v. News & Observer Publishing Co. decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court explained the difference between inadequate investigation and purposeful avoidance of the truth. What a publisher knew, and when the publisher knew it, can be critical.

Accurate reporting of official proceedings also receives protection. North Carolina’s fair-report privilege protects substantially accurate accounts of those proceedings, which makes fidelity to the record essential. Reporting that an allegation appears in a lawsuit is different from telling an audience that the allegation has been proved. Readers and listeners deserve to understand that difference.

Those principles do not establish that Javier has been found liable for defamation. They explain why specific claims deserve examination and why anyone defending his work should engage with the records. If your response to a documented challenge is to attack the person raising it, you have not answered the challenge. If you have never reviewed the relevant evidence, your confidence in the narrator is not independent verification of his story.

This petition calls for concrete accountability: correction of demonstrable factual errors, clear distinctions between allegations and established findings, substantive responses to evidence-based challenges, and platform review of documented policy violations. These are reasonable expectations for someone who asks the public to trust his reporting about real people.

Here is how you can help:

Sign this petition and share it. Ask others to read its concerns and examine the supporting material before deciding where they stand.

If you have listened to PRETEND, leave the honest review you believe it deserves. Give your own assessment, identify specific reporting concerns, and explain the basis for your rating. Review the work you actually heard.

Bring evidence to the conversation. When challenging a statement, include the episode, timestamp, exact language, and the record supporting your correction. Give people something they can check.

Help stop irresponsible reporting by insisting on evidence, accuracy, and meaningful accountability. Every person covered in true crime deserves fair treatment, and every audience deserves enough information to reach an informed judgment. Javier Leiva should be expected to meet the same standards of scrutiny he applies to everyone else.