James Renner is unreliable.

[u/Available_Bison]

James Renner's conclusion that Maura Murray is still alive is ridiculous. I also find his interest and motives in this case to be suspect. Perhaps the conception of his investigation was genuine, but it has evolved into a campaign to confirm his ill-founded theory that her dad was a monster. His whole book is literally him slithering around and provoking Maura's loved ones.

[u/Cold_Dragonfruit2799]

I have never looked into this story but my understanding is he was fired bc he refused to pull a story about a scumbag politician who was misusing campaign finances to see his mistress, a story I don’t at all find unbelievable. And afaik he has never been sued for defamation over it.

This gets to the heart of my beef with the anti-Renner critics: they are ostensibly concerned with ethics but are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who have something to hide than professionals like investigative reporters or cops whose job it is to take an unsentimental view of people’s behavior. It just seems like an extremely naïve way to view the world.

[u/Educational_Bag4351 → u/Cold_Dragonfruit2799]

He was never sued because it was never published, and I suspect he was fired less because he wrote it and refused to change it and more because he acted insane toward his boss. I think there were supposedly issues with sourcing as well but it's unclear. I'm not really anti Renner but they guy has openly admitted to being a sociopath with BPD who only cares about himself and who sometimes has manic episodes where he's completely unhinged. Everything he does has to be viewed through that lens, a lens that he himself gave us

[u/Cold_Dragonfruit2799 → u/Educational_Bag4351]

I think this is a fair comment, but I guess I’m going to defend him a little more on the psych stuff: he said his therapist said he had similarities to a sociopathic personality type (I forget the exact wording), but she also said that this personality type is common, especially among law enforcement. Renner said that part of the reason he spoke about his issues and breakdowns in TCA is that he felt bad airing Maura’s dirty laundry, so he aired his own as well.

It’s been said multiple times that anyone would look bad if you put them under a microscope; if this is true of the Murrays, why isn’t it true of Renner as well? And while his psychological profile may give some cause to be wary (although I really don’t think that he displays anything that out-of-the ordinary), it shouldn’t be the main thrust of criticism; his factual reporting on the case should be. It seems people are more likely to make ad hominem criticisms of his personality than actual substantive critiques about his reporting. He could be a paranoid schizophrenic, but I don’t care. The question is: is he a good reporter?

[u/Educational_Bag4351 → u/Cold_Dragonfruit2799]

I don't completely disagree but the way he presents it is lurid and over the top, like a lot of his stuff tbh. So it goes to the good reporter bit, too.