The Truth Is More Interesting, Part 3: What Ethical Reporting Looks Like

This is Part 3 of a three-part series. After hearing Dr Christine Marie’s keynote at the Decult conference, I wrote about how one news article reframed my defamation trial against David McKay (Part 1), and what the trial was actually about (Part 2). Here, I turn to what responsible reporting on cult survivors looks like.

This isn’t an argument for silence or for press releases. It’s an argument for doing the work instead of falling back on lazy clickbait tricks.

The media guide created by SOCCHG Shock/Value: A Media Guide for Ethical Engagement with Cult Survivors sets out principles that would have changed how my story was told. The Trust Me hosts did much of this instinctively.

Here is what each principle looks like in practice.

• Prioritise accuracy over entertainment. Tropes about “cults” draw interest but obscure how group-based coercive control works. As the guide puts it, “Shock without insight misinforms the public.” In my case, the details that drew the eye were the “witchy” ones. The issues the trial turned on, freedom of religion and interference in family communication, were less eye-catching and far more important.

  
  

• Ask real questions and be clear about the angle. The guide asks journalists to tell survivors what a story is aiming for, so nobody is blindsided. A brief call with no clarifying questions about the testimony at the centre of the story isn’t that.

  
  

• Read the whole judgement, not just the quotable parts. A judgement records what was argued, not only what the court accepted. In my case, the “witchy” evidence appears in the judgement so that the judge could reject it. The story led with it anyway.

  
  

• Ask who benefits from the angle. The judge in my case observed that sensational material tends to win the competition for views, shares and likes, and cult leaders know it. A leader who understands that can hand a newsroom exactly what it wants. Ask who gains if you run the most dramatic quote.

  
  

• Avoid both-siderism. Journalists have an obligation to report factually, but the guide warns that cults can use right of reply to silence, invalidate or ridicule survivors, and can keep abusing them after they leave. I know how far that reaches: I spent five days being cross-examined by McKay himself.

  
  

• Do no further harm. Ethical engagement avoids sensationalism and upholds dignity. Survivor stories are not public property, and amplifying a controlling leader’s framing, even unintentionally, adds to the harm.

  
  

• Make space for accountability and correction. Storytelling doesn’t end at publication, and survivors deserve a say in how their stories are edited, titled and followed up. Years later, I’m still answering questions shaped by one article, which is why I’m writing this.

  
  

• Think about the headline. The guide asks three questions that I wish every editor would ask. Does it reinforce stereotypes or create value? Does it centre the group or the survivor? Does it imply that harm is over, or that it is enduring? Held up against the headline on my own story, they’re worth sitting with.

  
  

The guide also offers “avoid and try” headline examples, such as replacing “Dark secrets behind crazy cult leader’s grip” with “Exposing the methods used to dominate and isolate.” In that spirit, a headline about my trial could have been something like: “What a defamation trial revealed about religious freedom and coercive control.” It’s less catchy, but it’s accurate, and it points the reader towards the right questions.

A call to journalists for ethical reporting of cults

To journalists and editors: you hold a megaphone, and Christine’s keynote reminded me that justice sometimes needs one. Please be present for proceedings, or at least read more than the judgement. Ask survivors real questions and give them space to explain. Remember that when a survivor’s testimony or family relationships are the centrepiece of a story, those are exactly the places where coercive control hides. And above all hold standards of ethical reporting above clickbait and sensationalism.

To my fellow survivors and advocates: we have the right to have our stories told accurately, and the right to ask for corrections. Let’s keep naming what helps and what harms.

Truth is more interesting than sensationalism. It just takes a little more time to tell.

Thank you to Dr Christine Marie, The Trust Me Podcast Crew, and the Decult organisers for making space for these conversations.

The Truth Is More Interesting, Part 1: Why Cult Survivors Deserve Better Than Sensationalism

The Truth Is More Interesting, Part 2: Freedom of Religion, Not a Witch Trial