In Conversation: How We Review True-Crime Podcasts

Marcus Leong Wei Hong edits this desk. The exchange below explains how we review true-crime podcasts as journalism about cases — not as audio-engineering manuals.

Questions are practical. Answers stay inside what we publish on PodcastMotion.

Why no score out of ten?

Because a number hides the reasoning. A Chin Swee Road episode might be essential for one listener and unbearable for another. Sentences explain why.

Do you fact-check the podcast?

We compare narration to public record where we can — court filings, CNA, Straits Times, Wikipedia for dates. We do not have subpoena power. When the show and documents disagree, we say so.

Why name real cases?

Because reviewing SG Crime Story without naming Chin Swee Road or the McDonald's boys would be reviewing nothing. These cases are already public. We do not add unverified allegations about living people not charged.

What do you refuse to write?

Fan fiction about unsolved cases, contact details for families, gore for shock, and "rankings" of other podcasts.

How do episode reviews relate to the main review?

The main review judges the series; episode reviews judge individual instalments. Read both if you plan to subscribe.

Do you listen at 1.5× speed?

First listen at normal speed. Speeding up misses pauses that sometimes carry meaning in interview clips.

Why six separate review pages?

So each case gets its own URL, headline, and argument. Combined into one page, the reviews would blur together — the problem we see on other sites.

Are you affiliated with SG Crime Story?

No. We link to Spotify because that is where it is published. The makers did not commission these reviews.

This is an editorial review written after listening to the programme. It carries no score and is not a ranking. Episode lists and publishing details are maintained by the programme on Spotify. We discuss public cases and outcomes as reported; if we err, write to [email protected] and we will correct the page with a dated note.