Shitty Media Men (SMM) began as an anonymous crowd-sourced list in late 2017, compiling allegations of sexual misconduct within the U.S. media industry. It functions as a public archive rather than a legal or employment adjudication mechanism, intended to supplement journalism and institutional review. This profile explains the list’s structure, verification practices, known updates, and limitations, emphasizing context, corroboration, and appropriate use. It is designed as an evergreen reference for understanding what the list contains, how it has evolved, and how readers and organizations can responsibly interpret and apply its entries.
Origins and Purpose of Shitty Media Men
The list emerged during heightened public attention on sexual harassment and assault, compiled by two journalists using a Google Doc to collect crowd-sourced submissions. Its stated goal was to create a centralized, accessible record of credible allegations to inform editors, publishers, and researchers. The list covers writers, editors, reporters, and executives across outlets, with entries describing specific incidents, dates, locations, and patterns where available. From the outset, contributors emphasized anonymity, moderation, and caution about unverified or incomplete claims, acknowledging the challenges of fact-checking sensitive allegations without formal investigative resources.
How the List Is Structured and Managed
Submission and Moderation Process
Entries are submitted through an open form, then reviewed by moderators who seek consistency in detail, potential corroboration, and patterns across submissions for the same individual. Each entry typically includes:
- Alleged perpetrator and victim identifiers
- Narrative description of the incident
- Date, location, and context
- Evidence indicators such as witnesses or documentation mentions
- Source categorization (e.g., direct account, witness, secondary report)
Moderators weigh corroboration strength, consistency, and plausibility, though the process remains opaque in many specifics. Contributors may also note outcomes where known, such as termination, suspension, or no action, when public information is available.
Data Fields and Taxonomy
To enable aggregation and analysis, entries follow a loose schema that can support comparison across cases. The following table summarizes core attributes, verification status, and source context used within the list.
| Attribute | Verified Detail | Source Type |
|---|---|---|
| Accused Individual | Name and role where publicly known | Submission, public records |
| Incident Description | Narrative summary, varying detail | Reporter or witness account |
| Date or Period | Approximate or specific dates when provided | Memory, records, contemporaneous notes |
| Location/Outlet | Organization and context at time | Reporter knowledge, public info |
| Outcome Status | Known consequences, if any, publicly documented | Public announcements, corroboration |
| Corroboration Level | Single or multiple sources, evidence indicators | Moderator assessment |
Known Updates and Public Changes
The list has been periodically updated with new entries, removals, and status changes, often driven by resignations, terminations, or court outcomes. Some names appear with notes indicating settled legal cases, dropped charges, or public clarifications. When broader investigations or lawsuits conclude, details may be revised or entries annotated to reflect updated information. Because the underlying doc has not been fully published in its raw form, independent analysts rely on screenshots, mirrors, and secondary reporting to track changes over time.
Limitations and Risks of Use
The list is not a substitute for due process, legal evidence, or professional HR procedures. Its anonymous, crowd-sourced nature creates risks of incomplete context, mistaken identity, outdated entries, and potential misuse for harassment or targeting. Entries may lack contemporaneous evidence, memory may fade, and submissions can reflect allegations that are later disproven or unsubstantiated. For these reasons, the list is best treated as a tip sheet or starting point for further inquiry rather than a definitive record.
Responsible Interpretation and Application
For Media Outlets and Editors
Newsrooms can use the list to inform background checks, staffing decisions, and training, but should corroborate allegations before making personnel or editorial changes. Clear policies about due process, confidentiality, and remediation help ensure fairness and reduce legal exposure. Cross-referencing the list with employment records, complaint logs, and third-party verification strengthens decision-making and reduces the risk of acting on incomplete information.
For Researchers and Analysts
Researchers treating the list as a dataset should document source uncertainty, account for selection bias, and avoid presenting entries as verified facts without triangulation. Quantitative summaries should include confidence indicators and note gaps, while qualitative analysis should center patterns, institutional context, and systemic factors rather than isolated anecdotes.
For the Public and Survivors
Members of the public should avoid vigilantism or public shaming based solely on list entries and instead rely on established legal and journalistic channels. Survivors seeking support can consult advocacy organizations, legal services, and confidential reporting mechanisms that offer structured, trauma-informed assistance beyond an anonymous database.
Broader Implications for Media Accountability
By aggregating allegations in one place, the list highlights how frequently harassment and abuse occur within media workplaces and the costs of opaque handling by employers. It underscores the need for transparent processes, independent oversight, standardized training, and survivor-centered responses across newsrooms. Long-term cultural change depends on institutional commitment, not only on curated lists, but on enforceable policies, whistleblower protections, and ongoing evaluation of outcomes.
How to Cite and Reference the List Responsibly
When referencing the list, describe its nature clearly (crowd-sourced allegations, not adjudicated findings), link to credible secondary coverage where available, and avoid reproducing identifying details without considering harm and consent. Note limitations of verification, date entries to reflect updates, and acknowledge missing context or competing accounts. Responsible citation protects both subjects and the integrity of public discourse.