April 9, 2025 • 12 mins
Election ads are everywhere. On TV, social media, newspapers and in your letterboxes at home. So, does that mean all ads you’re seeing are true? Are they legally required to be true? Well, that’s what we’re going to answer in today’s podcast, unpacking how political communication occurs during an election, what politicians can say during this time, and whether or not they’re allowed to lie.
Hosts: Zara Seidler and Billi FitzSimons
Producer: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already, and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,
now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Good morning, and welcome to the Daily ODS. It's Thursday,
the tenth of April. I'm Zara Seidler.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
I'm Billy fitz Simon's.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Election ads are absolutely everywhere on TV, social media, newspapers,
and in your letterboxes at home. So does that mean
that all the ads that you're seeing are true? Are
they legally required.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
To be true?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Well that's what we're going to answer in today's podcast,
unpacking how political communication occurs during an election, what politicians
can say during this time, and whether or not they're
allowed to lie.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Zara, I'm so excited for this podcast because political advertising
is obviously something that affects all of us or we
all see, and I have known for a long time
that you don't necessarily need to be truthful in those ads.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Well that's the whole podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I just ruined the podcast.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
I have never really looked into it, and so I
am excited, even though I did just spoil it for
you to explain it to us in more detail, because
it's so interesting what the rules are. I won't do
a double spoiler, so let's just pretend I didn't say that,
But do you want to start with what rules there
are currently in place for political advertising?
Speaker 1 (01:31):
If I didn't just ruin.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
It, I would like to talk about that.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
So the first rule I'm basically the only rule the
govern's political advertising is something called authorization.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Now you will have heard this message before, authorized by
the Australian government. Camera.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
I think I hear that in my dreams.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
I hear it so much, it's just penetrated, truly every
part of my psyche. And you know, as long as
you've watched TV and seen ads, you've absolutely heard that
message before. Now that disclaimed is called an authorization and
it's basically a legal requirement for electoral materials. So it's
clarifying who created the content and it's also informing voters
(02:11):
that it may influence their vote.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Quick question. I also have heard that though when we're
not in an election campaign. So is it also required
just on any government material?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Yes, it is, but specifically right now we're talking about
any political content that is authorized by a political party
or a politician. That's when you're hearing those sorts of authorizations.
So the AEC, the Electoral Commission, says that the authorization
process exists so that political ads are transparent, accountable, and traceable.
(02:43):
In other words, ads are authorized so that we know
who made them. Now, just before we go on here,
there has been quite a lot of chatter about authorization
when it comes to influencer content, and I just wanted
to touch on that really quickly. So the TLDR is that
authorization is needed for any content when payment is made
(03:04):
by a political party to.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
An influencer for that content.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
So hypothetically, if you have an influencer and the coalition
pays that influencer for them to make a piece of
political content, that needs to be authorized.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Have we seen any examples of that happening?
Speaker 2 (03:20):
A few here and there, but it's not widespread at all.
And the reason that the AAC came out with updated
information about who needs to authorize content where is because
Abby Chatfield, who is a well known podcaster, she sat
down with both Adam Bandt and Anthony Albinizi and there
was an investigation into whether that content needed to have
(03:41):
an authorization message at the end. Ultimately, the AAEC found
that no, that didn't have to happen because she wasn't
paid and she wasn't doing that content on behalf of
a party.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Okay, so we know that all political ads need to
have that authorization, but then what are the rules about
the content of the material?
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I mean, very little is the short answer to that.
There are some very basic rules. Basically, you just can't
lie about the voting process itself, so how you go
to actually vote. You can't have misinformation when it comes
to that process. Aside from that, though, there are no
(04:21):
rules about fact checking and about misinformation and disinformation when
it comes to political advertising. And according to the AEC,
elections are a contest of ideas and it's the role
of each voter to take the time to consider if
the information is reliable.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
So any party could say the sky is orange and
that's obviously a lie, but that is still within the
rules of political advertising in Australia.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Correct as long as it's authorized at the end, as
long as there's not authorization message.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Basically, in Australia, election laws don't regulate truth.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
They, as we said, regulate that authorization message, but nothing
actually about the content itself. So political advertising is not
actually covered by the same false advertising rules that apply
to commercial ads. For example, so companies can be penalized
for misleading customers, whether that's a telco or a health company,
whatever it is. They can't lie in commercial ads that
(05:15):
we see on TV. They would be slapped with a
fine if they did that. The same is not true
for political parties and their content. And a specific example
that we saw blow up on TikTok this week was
a creator whose name is wholly unmuted. She said that
the Liberal Party had manipulated one of her posts, taking
her original message out of context. Basically, she claimed spreading
(05:38):
misinformation without her permission.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
This is a complete misrepresentation of myself. I don't even
know if it's legal. I truly don't even understand how
this could postly be legal.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
So then Holly and everyone who I was reading in
her comment section learned over the weekend that the Liberal
Party didn't in fact break any electoral rules in doing that,
because there is no requirement for the truth to be
in these political ads.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
That's so interesting. Have there been any efforts to change it?
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Well, I'll just quickly add that we're talking at a
federal level here. There are some state by state rules
when it comes to truth in political advertising. So in
South Australia and the Act, there are rules, but we're
talking about the federal election and there are no rules there.
But yes, to answer your question, there have been a
couple of efforts to change this in Australia. So we
(06:26):
had a parliamentary committee back in twenty twenty three recommend
giving power to the AEC to enforce truth standards in
political ads, and then towards the end of last year,
the Albaneze government actually introduced truth in advertising laws into parliament,
but those laws were actually pulled due to a lack
(06:46):
of support. But I'll just quickly run through what would
have happened if those laws would have been passed. So
under that proposal, Labor would have introduced civil penalties for
electoral matters that were quote inaccurate and misleading to a
material extent. And that bill also would have introduced penalties
for the use of deep fakes. Now you and I
have spoken before on this podcast about deep fakes. That's
(07:08):
you know, when realistic content is created by AI and
it's showing someone doing or saying something that they never
actually said or did. And so this law would have
really gone after videos that we're using deep fakes, and
also we're using inaccurate or misleading language. But as I said,
that legislation was dropped and so for this election, there
(07:28):
is nothing that has changed between this and previous elections.
I will say though, that independents on the cross bench
have been particularly vocal on this issue and have said
that it will be one of the big ticket items
for them if there's a hung parliament, so if they
have to negotiate with whoever wins government, they are saying
(07:48):
this will be one of the things they say has
to happen in order for them to give support to
whoever wins.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
One thing that I think is interesting to talk about
here is we often talk about this decline in trust
of politicians. And when you have laws like this, when
there is literally no requirement for politicians to tell the
truth in their political ads, which are a big thing
that voters base their decisions on, then it's kind of
no surprise that there is this decline in trust for politicians.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
I saw it put really well by the Australia Institute.
They're a think tank.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
You speak often to one of their economists, and I
was reading a piece that they had on this topic
and I thought i'd share a bit of it. They said,
pharmaceutical companies cannot claim to have the cure for cancer.
Food companies cannot claim that sugary foods are good for kids.
Lawyers cannot claim that they will win every case. But
under the Electoral Act, politicians can lie about their opponent's
policies or about their own.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
So interesting, think that just summarized.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
You know, I was looking at a piece of political
advertising that I received in my letterbox, and obviously I
am paying close attention to the political process, and I
looked at it and I was like, my god, this
is all fake. Every single claim here is wrong, but
there's nothing it can be done about it. And unless
you have the understanding and you're paying close attention, it's
(09:05):
very difficult to be able to discern fact from fiction.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
I want to end by asking about who's paying for
these ads, because they are obviously everywhere. How are political
ads financed?
Speaker 3 (09:16):
I'll throw it back to you, really, what do you think?
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Well, I know that political parties get a lot of
their donations, whether it be from individuals or it can
be from companies. So I'm going to say individuals or
companies a very broad answer.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Okay, so political parties are the ones that are funding
these ads. That's correct, and I think that's the part
that most people would think is the case.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
But what I know, I'm changing my answer. Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
They get money from taxpayers from the AEC.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Correct, And it's.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Dependent on how big the party is.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Only the second time you've runed this, but yeah, it's
smart on so what people might not know about and
what you just said, Billy is exactly right. So after
the election, the AEC reimburses a candidate or party for
some of the money that they spent on the campaign
if they get at least four percent of votes, And
(10:09):
the more votes you get, the more tax payer money
you get paid back. Which is fascinating because you know,
when we talked at the top about the fact that
we're all seeing all of this political advertising everywhere, we
are also if you actually think about it paying for
a lot of this political advertising that we're seeing everywhere,
and so when you think about the fact that some
of it is being reimbursed back to political parties and
(10:31):
that we are seeing misinformation being spread, it does make
you wonder.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Yeah, a lot to think about.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
It, certainly is to keep an eye yes.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
On this fine Thursday morning.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
I will be thinking all.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Week about this now, Zara, thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I believe you wanted to add one thing to our
idea Darling listeners before we go.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
I did so on Sunday if you listened to our
podcast on the end of Daylight Saving, we talked about
whether or not healthcare workers would get paid for the
extra but also there are so many jobs where you
could be working overnight, and we ask the listeners whether
or not they do get paid, and the answer has
come back that they don't. A lot of them don't.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Get to dms of people saying you're told that you'll
make up that extra hour on the flip side.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
In October, yeah, when we all lose an hour.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Yep, but apparently lots of people aren't working there exactly.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
That's what they said, that there's no guarantee that you'll
be working in October, but then you're just expected to
do the extra hour in April and you don't get
paid for it.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
I saw a TikTok of someone filming the clock on
the shift and so it was like two fifty nine am,
two am, Oh my god, and they.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Were like, oh my god, another hour of work.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
So shout out as always to our healthcare workers shift workers.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Sorry you had to work an extra Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Well, thank you so much for listening to this episode
of The Daily Oz. We'll be back this afternoon with
your evening headlines, but until then, have a great day.
My name is Madden and I'm a proud Arunda Bunjelung
Kalkadin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges that
this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl
(12:09):
people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest Rate
island and nations. We pay our respects to the first
peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Already, and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,
now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Good morning, and welcome to the Daily ODS. It's Thursday,
the tenth of April. I'm Zara Seidler.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
I'm Billy fitz Simon's.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Election ads are absolutely everywhere on TV, social media, newspapers,
and in your letterboxes at home. So does that mean
that all the ads that you're seeing are true? Are
they legally required.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
To be true?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Well that's what we're going to answer in today's podcast,
unpacking how political communication occurs during an election, what politicians
can say during this time, and whether or not they're
allowed to lie.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Zara, I'm so excited for this podcast because political advertising
is obviously something that affects all of us or we
all see, and I have known for a long time
that you don't necessarily need to be truthful in those ads.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Well that's the whole podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I just ruined the podcast.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
I have never really looked into it, and so I
am excited, even though I did just spoil it for
you to explain it to us in more detail, because
it's so interesting what the rules are. I won't do
a double spoiler, so let's just pretend I didn't say that,
But do you want to start with what rules there
are currently in place for political advertising?
Speaker 1 (01:31):
If I didn't just ruin.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
It, I would like to talk about that.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
So the first rule I'm basically the only rule the
govern's political advertising is something called authorization.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Now you will have heard this message before, authorized by
the Australian government. Camera.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
I think I hear that in my dreams.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
I hear it so much, it's just penetrated, truly every
part of my psyche. And you know, as long as
you've watched TV and seen ads, you've absolutely heard that
message before. Now that disclaimed is called an authorization and
it's basically a legal requirement for electoral materials. So it's
clarifying who created the content and it's also informing voters
(02:11):
that it may influence their vote.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Quick question. I also have heard that though when we're
not in an election campaign. So is it also required
just on any government material?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Yes, it is, but specifically right now we're talking about
any political content that is authorized by a political party
or a politician. That's when you're hearing those sorts of authorizations.
So the AEC, the Electoral Commission, says that the authorization
process exists so that political ads are transparent, accountable, and traceable.
(02:43):
In other words, ads are authorized so that we know
who made them. Now, just before we go on here,
there has been quite a lot of chatter about authorization
when it comes to influencer content, and I just wanted
to touch on that really quickly. So the TLDR is that
authorization is needed for any content when payment is made
(03:04):
by a political party to.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
An influencer for that content.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
So hypothetically, if you have an influencer and the coalition
pays that influencer for them to make a piece of
political content, that needs to be authorized.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Have we seen any examples of that happening?
Speaker 2 (03:20):
A few here and there, but it's not widespread at all.
And the reason that the AAC came out with updated
information about who needs to authorize content where is because
Abby Chatfield, who is a well known podcaster, she sat
down with both Adam Bandt and Anthony Albinizi and there
was an investigation into whether that content needed to have
(03:41):
an authorization message at the end. Ultimately, the AAEC found
that no, that didn't have to happen because she wasn't
paid and she wasn't doing that content on behalf of
a party.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Okay, so we know that all political ads need to
have that authorization, but then what are the rules about
the content of the material?
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I mean, very little is the short answer to that.
There are some very basic rules. Basically, you just can't
lie about the voting process itself, so how you go
to actually vote. You can't have misinformation when it comes
to that process. Aside from that, though, there are no
(04:21):
rules about fact checking and about misinformation and disinformation when
it comes to political advertising. And according to the AEC,
elections are a contest of ideas and it's the role
of each voter to take the time to consider if
the information is reliable.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
So any party could say the sky is orange and
that's obviously a lie, but that is still within the
rules of political advertising in Australia.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Correct as long as it's authorized at the end, as
long as there's not authorization message.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Basically, in Australia, election laws don't regulate truth.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
They, as we said, regulate that authorization message, but nothing
actually about the content itself. So political advertising is not
actually covered by the same false advertising rules that apply
to commercial ads. For example, so companies can be penalized
for misleading customers, whether that's a telco or a health company,
whatever it is. They can't lie in commercial ads that
(05:15):
we see on TV. They would be slapped with a
fine if they did that. The same is not true
for political parties and their content. And a specific example
that we saw blow up on TikTok this week was
a creator whose name is wholly unmuted. She said that
the Liberal Party had manipulated one of her posts, taking
her original message out of context. Basically, she claimed spreading
(05:38):
misinformation without her permission.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
This is a complete misrepresentation of myself. I don't even
know if it's legal. I truly don't even understand how
this could postly be legal.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
So then Holly and everyone who I was reading in
her comment section learned over the weekend that the Liberal
Party didn't in fact break any electoral rules in doing that,
because there is no requirement for the truth to be
in these political ads.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
That's so interesting. Have there been any efforts to change it?
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Well, I'll just quickly add that we're talking at a
federal level here. There are some state by state rules
when it comes to truth in political advertising. So in
South Australia and the Act, there are rules, but we're
talking about the federal election and there are no rules there.
But yes, to answer your question, there have been a
couple of efforts to change this in Australia. So we
(06:26):
had a parliamentary committee back in twenty twenty three recommend
giving power to the AEC to enforce truth standards in
political ads, and then towards the end of last year,
the Albaneze government actually introduced truth in advertising laws into parliament,
but those laws were actually pulled due to a lack
(06:46):
of support. But I'll just quickly run through what would
have happened if those laws would have been passed. So
under that proposal, Labor would have introduced civil penalties for
electoral matters that were quote inaccurate and misleading to a
material extent. And that bill also would have introduced penalties
for the use of deep fakes. Now you and I
have spoken before on this podcast about deep fakes. That's
(07:08):
you know, when realistic content is created by AI and
it's showing someone doing or saying something that they never
actually said or did. And so this law would have
really gone after videos that we're using deep fakes, and
also we're using inaccurate or misleading language. But as I said,
that legislation was dropped and so for this election, there
(07:28):
is nothing that has changed between this and previous elections.
I will say though, that independents on the cross bench
have been particularly vocal on this issue and have said
that it will be one of the big ticket items
for them if there's a hung parliament, so if they
have to negotiate with whoever wins government, they are saying
(07:48):
this will be one of the things they say has
to happen in order for them to give support to
whoever wins.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
One thing that I think is interesting to talk about
here is we often talk about this decline in trust
of politicians. And when you have laws like this, when
there is literally no requirement for politicians to tell the
truth in their political ads, which are a big thing
that voters base their decisions on, then it's kind of
no surprise that there is this decline in trust for politicians.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
I saw it put really well by the Australia Institute.
They're a think tank.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
You speak often to one of their economists, and I
was reading a piece that they had on this topic
and I thought i'd share a bit of it. They said,
pharmaceutical companies cannot claim to have the cure for cancer.
Food companies cannot claim that sugary foods are good for kids.
Lawyers cannot claim that they will win every case. But
under the Electoral Act, politicians can lie about their opponent's
policies or about their own.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
So interesting, think that just summarized.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
You know, I was looking at a piece of political
advertising that I received in my letterbox, and obviously I
am paying close attention to the political process, and I
looked at it and I was like, my god, this
is all fake. Every single claim here is wrong, but
there's nothing it can be done about it. And unless
you have the understanding and you're paying close attention, it's
(09:05):
very difficult to be able to discern fact from fiction.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
I want to end by asking about who's paying for
these ads, because they are obviously everywhere. How are political
ads financed?
Speaker 3 (09:16):
I'll throw it back to you, really, what do you think?
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Well, I know that political parties get a lot of
their donations, whether it be from individuals or it can
be from companies. So I'm going to say individuals or
companies a very broad answer.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Okay, so political parties are the ones that are funding
these ads. That's correct, and I think that's the part
that most people would think is the case.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
But what I know, I'm changing my answer. Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
They get money from taxpayers from the AEC.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Correct, And it's.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Dependent on how big the party is.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Only the second time you've runed this, but yeah, it's
smart on so what people might not know about and
what you just said, Billy is exactly right. So after
the election, the AEC reimburses a candidate or party for
some of the money that they spent on the campaign
if they get at least four percent of votes, And
(10:09):
the more votes you get, the more tax payer money
you get paid back. Which is fascinating because you know,
when we talked at the top about the fact that
we're all seeing all of this political advertising everywhere, we
are also if you actually think about it paying for
a lot of this political advertising that we're seeing everywhere,
and so when you think about the fact that some
of it is being reimbursed back to political parties and
(10:31):
that we are seeing misinformation being spread, it does make
you wonder.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Yeah, a lot to think about.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
It, certainly is to keep an eye yes.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
On this fine Thursday morning.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
I will be thinking all.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Week about this now, Zara, thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I believe you wanted to add one thing to our
idea Darling listeners before we go.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
I did so on Sunday if you listened to our
podcast on the end of Daylight Saving, we talked about
whether or not healthcare workers would get paid for the
extra but also there are so many jobs where you
could be working overnight, and we ask the listeners whether
or not they do get paid, and the answer has
come back that they don't. A lot of them don't.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Get to dms of people saying you're told that you'll
make up that extra hour on the flip side.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
In October, yeah, when we all lose an hour.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Yep, but apparently lots of people aren't working there exactly.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
That's what they said, that there's no guarantee that you'll
be working in October, but then you're just expected to
do the extra hour in April and you don't get
paid for it.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
I saw a TikTok of someone filming the clock on
the shift and so it was like two fifty nine am,
two am, Oh my god, and they.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Were like, oh my god, another hour of work.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
So shout out as always to our healthcare workers shift workers.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Sorry you had to work an extra Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Well, thank you so much for listening to this episode
of The Daily Oz. We'll be back this afternoon with
your evening headlines, but until then, have a great day.
My name is Madden and I'm a proud Arunda Bunjelung
Kalkadin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges that
this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl
(12:09):
people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest Rate
island and nations. We pay our respects to the first
peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.