The podcast Sword and Scale has garnered a significant following within the true crime podcast genre, known for its graphic storytelling and exploration of criminal psychology. However, despite its popularity, there are several compelling reasons why some listeners may choose to avoid this podcast. You have all been asking me to write something about this and today I’m going to do just that. So join me today as I explore this true crime podcast, thoroughly examining the ethical implications, content quality, and the broader impact of true crime media.
Sword and Scale is notorious for its graphic portrayals of violent crimes, often detailing horrific acts in explicit detail. For many listeners, this level of graphic content can be distressing or triggering, particularly for those who have experienced trauma or have sensitivities to discussions surrounding violence and abuse. If you enjoy this, that's fantastic—everyone has the right to their preferences. True crime investigates the shadowy recesses of human existence, the dark side of humanity by illuminating the unsettling truths that often provoke both curiosity and fear. It encapsulates the darker facets of our world and it examines things most don’t want to. While many choose to avert their gaze, Mike Boudet confronts these complexities with an unflinching resolve. This makes him stand out. I personally appreciate graphic content in the true crime genre, but it can become repetitive when the same information is endlessly circulated by other commentators, podcasters, and influencers.
Engaging with such intense subject matter can have adverse effects on mental well-being. Listeners seeking a more uplifting or balanced media experience may find the relentless focus on brutality and crime to be detrimental to their mental health. I can confidently say that listening to Sword and Scale isn't the best choice for your mental health if you are one who cannot handle content of a graphic nature. I want to also elaborate that this concern extends beyond just this podcast to many others of a similar nature.
Mike Boudet, the host of Sword and Scale, has been a contentious yet polarizing figure within the true crime community. His opinions and commentary on various topics have sparked controversy and significant debate, leading some listeners to feel uncomfortable with his perspectives. This contentious nature may deter individuals who prefer a more balanced and sensitive approach to true crime storytelling. Like Boudet, I support—Donald J Trump, but I believe politics have no place in true crime discussions especially when talking about dark things. Donald Trump cannot be held accountable for a woman's decision to murder her husband over an affair. Unless the case directly implicates the President, referencing him appears unwarranted and illogical. True crime delves into the darker aspects of society and political opinions shouldn't influence conversations about crime cases. The two topics are so incredibly distinct. If you want to discuss politics, consider starting a political podcast and keep them separate from one another.
Listeners may perceive the host's commentary as biased or sensationalized, which can undermine the credibility of the narratives presented. For those who value impartiality and nuanced discussions, this aspect of the podcast may be a significant drawback. Mike Boudet often presents a one-sided bias in his podcast, which is his prerogative. However, if you prefer in-depth analyses of crime cases without bias, you will not enjoy Sword and Scale. He also tends to sensationalize true crime topics and at times, his discussions of certain cases come off as if they’re a chore to discuss as if he’s disinterested in what he’s talking about. I want to make one thing clear: everyone is entitled to produce a podcast, including those in the true crime genre. While some creators exhibit a profound passion for this subject matter, others may not engage with it as fervently. Boudet, for instance, shows a notable enthusiasm for certain topics, while his interest in others seems comparatively muted.
While many episodes are well-produced, I have noticed inconsistencies in the quality of storytelling and production. This variability can lead to a less engaging experience for those who seek polished and cohesive narratives in their podcast consumption. A podcast doesn't have to be perfectly produced for you to enjoy it, but Boudet's storytelling might not resonate with you and you may find the production quality lacking. In my opinion, his production quality is quite commendable, particularly for an independent podcaster. If I’m being honest, he performs well in this regard.
Inconsistent quality can detract from the overall enjoyment of the podcast, making it difficult for listeners to remain engaged. Although Boudet's production is generally good, it does exhibit some inconsistency in timing. I won't criticize him for this, as many podcasts face similar challenges. Not everyone can consistently release multiple episodes within a week or adhere to a specific schedule. For those who prioritize high production values, this inconsistency may lead them to seek alternative true crime content. Podcasts like Rotten Mango are known for their consistency. If you're looking for a reliable podcast, consider trying Rotten Mango or Unsolved Mysteries.
Critics argue that Sword and Scale sometimes leans into sensationalism, prioritizing shock value over thoughtful analysis. Quite a few podcasters, particularly in the true crime genre, often sensationalize certain crimes. This tendency may stem from a passion for the case, the case's popularity in general, or the pursuit of profit. However, Boudet appears to engage in this practice more than most in the true crime podcasting community. This approach may alienate listeners who prefer a more nuanced exploration of true crime subject matter, including the psychological and societal implications of criminal behavior. I think sensationalism is the primary mode of expression for Boudet based on listening to quite a few episodes.
Mike Boudet is often viewed as a grifter in the true crime community, charging above-average prices for content that's readily available online. He has monetized his voice, leading to significant wealth, but he hasn't been transparent about some of his methods, aside from making average content costly. While I believe he has the right to earn a legitimate income this way, he lacks transparency, as he charges audiences extra for content that's already available on the internet. While many label Mike Boudet a grifter, I prefer not to disparage him, as I don't believe he is as problematic as many online perceive him to be. If I’m being honest, he is simply seeking to monetize his platform and he is entitled to do so.
The sensationalist approach can contribute to a culture that glorifies violence and criminality, raising ethical concerns about the impact of such narratives on public perception and understanding of crime. Listeners who are mindful of the societal implications of media consumption may find this aspect troubling. Boudet has cultivated his following through this approach, embodying the essence of a sensationalist. His sensationalism transcends mere entertainment and shock value more so than fact. Some may argue that this approach stands out.
The true crime genre often grapples with ethical questions about the portrayal of victims and the potential glorification of criminals. Some listeners may feel uncomfortable with how Sword and Scale handles these issues, preferring content that approaches true crime with more sensitivity, empathy, and respect for those affected by crime. In some episodes, Mike Boudet has lauded the perpetrator as a kind of messiah or savior while unjustly belittling the victim. Although he attempts to provide justification for this perspective, his reasoning often lacks lucidity.
The way victims are represented can influence public perception and understanding of crime, potentially leading to victim-blaming or desensitization to violence. This concern may prompt listeners to seek out podcasts that prioritize ethical storytelling. I’ve seen numerous instances of how wrong Mike Boudet is, extending beyond his views on the Morgan Ingram case and Adnan Syed, an innocent man wrongfully convicted for the murder of his ex girlfriend. He often falls into a repetitive ad hominem loop, recycling the same arguments to justify his stance on crime cases while labeling those who disagree with him as unhinged or unstable.
Sword and Scale primarily presents narratives from a specific viewpoint, which may lead to a lack of diversity in perspectives. Listeners seeking a broader understanding of crime, including insights from various cultural, social, or psychological angles, may find the podcast lacking in this regard. He frequently presents his opinions as facts, regardless of their accuracy. While Mike Boudet is entitled to his views, so are others. If his opinions are clearly incorrect, the audience has the right to express that and explain why. I believe dialogue is valuable, but when it becomes redundant and filled with fluff, it loses its purpose.
The absence of diverse voices in true crime storytelling can perpetuate stereotypes and narrow the understanding of complex issues. Listeners who value inclusivity and varied perspectives may prefer a podcast that offers a more comprehensive exploration of crime and its societal implications. Mike Boudet primarily shares his own opinions in most of his content. While he is often biased and frequently incorrect, he relentlessly attacks anyone who offers a different perspective on a crime case, including attorney Rabia Chaudry. Believing her client is guilty, he presents his bias as factual and targets those who constructively critique the inconsistencies in his narrative and the discrepancies in his views. Sometimes he resorts to threatening individuals with frivolous litigation and accuses them of slander for no reason at all. Justin Drown, the host of the true crime podcast Obscura, reported that Boudet initiated a lawsuit against him in response to Drown's assertion that Boudet was employing bots to manipulate downvotes on his podcast.
As with many true crime podcasts, there is a risk of presenting misleading or incomplete information. Listeners who prioritize factual accuracy and thorough research may be wary of content that lacks proper sourcing or context, which can lead to misconceptions about criminal cases. Mike Boudet has personally libeled me in episodes 11 and 12 of Sword and Scale by portraying me as an unhinged, mentally unstable woman who ruins lives simply for having a differing opinion from him and the infamous Websleuths administrator Tricia Griffith (not to be mistaken as the successful CEO of Progressive—which she is not) regarding the Morgan Ingram case. Because I believe Morgan was stalked and murdered, I’ve been vilified and misrepresented in these podcast episodes. While everyone is entitled to their opinions—so am I. The difference is that he has incited violence against me and Morgan’s mother—Toni Ingram, while glorifying a grifting armchair detective (Griffith), a “zero not a hero” internet troll (Martinez), and an angry, ego-driven internet stalker—with a criminal record in the state of Oregon (Odegard), as heroes, victims, and even saviors.
The responsibility of accurately portraying true crime narratives is paramount, as misinformation can shape public perception and understanding of criminal justice issues. This concern may lead discerning listeners to avoid Sword and Scale in favor of more rigorously researched alternatives. Mike Boudet has lied about me, Toni Ingram, Ryan Ingram, my ex boyfriend Joe Valo, and many others to make his friends appear as victims and saviors.
Boudet has fostered a narrative that paints me as unhinged, irrational, and prone to harassing anyone who disagrees with my perspective on the case of Morgan Ingram in efforts to portray his armchair bully friend as a true crime savior and victim when everyone knows how sick the true crime forum administrator actually is. My vocal stance on these issues has led to libel and defamation at the hands of self-proclaimed armchair detectives—the same sofa sleuths who relentlessly attack dissenting views and muddy the waters in crime cases to fit their narratives. They are basically spreading lies about me, accusing me of what they, themselves are doing.
Tricia and Mayra not only misrepresented the truth about me, but have also engaged in impersonation of myself and I have substantial evidence and proof of this. This goes beyond this podcast. Everything I have ever said regarding this case is here on my blog. These armchair bullies have used my identity to contact friends and family which I have screenshots of. Moreover, they even resorted to enlisting an internet stalker to lend credence to their lies as if they were factual. I addressed all of this in detail here on this blog years ago which you can read. They are adept at disseminating falsehoods and I assert my right to counter their fabrications and defend myself from their lies, which I have here on this blog.
The Sword and Scale host supports them and gave them a platform to spread their propaganda. If he’s allowing others to spread lies about me, he’s likely doing it to others as well. Who is the real monster here? It’s clearly the explosive host and his associates he supports. However, if you find this type of content entertaining due to a deep dissatisfaction with your life, it might be wise to reconnect with reality and wake up rather than spending your time fixating on a disillusioned podcaster who projects his own self-loathing into a vast majority of his work.
The community surrounding Sword and Scale can be divisive, with some listeners expressing strong opinions that may lead to contentious discussions. For individuals seeking a more inclusive and supportive environment, this dynamic may be off-putting. Boudet tends to prioritize his opinions over factual analysis. When someone publicly supports Rabia Chaudry or any individual he seeks to vilify, he encourages his audience to launch attacks against them, often resorting to trivial ad hominem attacks and at times—doxxing. I find this behavior unacceptable. While he is entitled to his perspective and methods as an American citizen, his remarks can often be quite off-putting and polarizing. He is also noted for his propensity to shift topics, indicating that a significant portion of his podcast may be pre-scripted or he may simply enjoy deliberately shocking people for the sake of garnering attention. I don’t have evidence of this. This is just my assumption.
The nature of community interactions can significantly influence the overall experience of engaging with a podcast. A toxic or polarized community may detract from the enjoyment of the content, prompting listeners to seek out more positive and constructive spaces. A substantial segment of his audience consists of women, many of whom possess political viewpoints that starkly contrast with his own. Boudet frequently reiterates the same monotonous arguments while introducing topics that are either peripheral or irrelevant to the discourse surrounding murder cases. It’s so weird simply because a vast majority of his content appears to be scripted. It becomes increasingly perplexing and unsettling when he invokes individuals he harbors animosity toward, politicizing the discourse even when it bears no relation to the subject matter.
Some listeners may find that Sword and Scale revisits similar themes and topics across episodes, leading to a sense of repetitiveness. Those who prefer variety in their podcast content may seek alternatives that explore a wider range of true crime stories and angles. Sword and Scale is not the only true crime podcast that does this. I want to make this clear. To be honest, this is a phenomenon prevalent across numerous podcasts in the genre. If you're not a fan of true crime, it's evident that Sword and Scale isn't the podcast for you though. However, even if you're looking for a consistent true crime podcast that avoids political opinions and discourse in relation to gruesome murders, you may still find it unappealing. Rotten Mango and Crime Junkie are merely two among many true crime podcasts that consciously avoid integrating political discourse into their commentary.
The desire for fresh and diverse narratives is a common trait among podcast listeners. A lack of variety can lead to disengagement, prompting individuals to explore other true crime podcasts that offer innovative storytelling and unique perspectives. The repetitive opinions on the same cases become tiresome and monotonous. If you're looking to steer clear of this, you probably won’t find this podcast appealing. Rotten Mango and Unsolved Mysteries are highly innovative true crime podcasts, as are Dr. Death and Serial are fantastic true crime podcast series. All of these podcasts are far superior to this one.
Ultimately, individual values and preferences play a significant role in media consumption. Listeners who prioritize ethical storytelling, sensitivity to victims, and a focus on societal implications may choose to avoid Sword and Scale in favor of podcasts that align more closely with their values. As a conservative, I support conservative values, but I never discuss my political views when addressing true crime cases. The two genres are very distinct and there is no reason to conflate them to support my opinions or positions on crime cases. Mike Boudet is known for this behavior and while he is entitled to express himself freely and give his opinions on anything he wants, his former audience also has the right to criticize this and voice their objections.
For many, the goal of consuming media is to engage with content that resonates with their beliefs and fosters understanding. If Sword and Scale does not align with these aspirations, listeners may opt for alternatives that provide a more meaningful and enriching experience. If you are a true crime enthusiast in pursuit of a podcast that exemplifies excellence, this podcast is unlikely to meet your standards. To be candid, Sword and Scale is—at best, an average podcast and at worst, mediocre. It’s far from amazing and is not terrible. While some episodes exhibit intrigue, it ultimately lacks the distinguishing qualities that define a truly exceptional podcast. I would argue that many sincere reviews you see on Apple of this series reflect my assessment; however, there are people who enjoy this podcast. Although it is not devoid of merit or terrible, it certainly does not attain the status of excellence.
While Sword and Scale has undoubtedly made a mark in the true crime podcast landscape, there are numerous reasons why some listeners may not align with it. Every single one of these factors contribute to a complex landscape of opinions surrounding the podcast including my own. I want to make one thing clear—I hold no animosity nor hatred towards Mike Boudet or his podcast; rather, this is a reasoned review of my personal opinion of it. I wish to emphasize that this is a straightforward review—nothing more, nothing less.
Is this podcast the worst? Absolutely not, but there are way better out there. Ultimately, listeners must navigate their media consumption choices based on their values, interests, and the type of content they wish to support because in the end that’s all that really matters most. And while this podcast may be considered trash by some, it could be viewed as a treasure by others.
This review is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 9 of the Idaho Constitution, and Senate Bill 1001.
Comments