Podcaster Amanda Hirsch has apologised for an advertising post on Polymarket that appeared to capitalise on the tragic Lindsay Clancy case, calling her actions “completely insensitive” and “a terrible judgment call”. The backlash followed a mistrial declared in the Massachusetts trial where Clancy, accused of murdering her three children, faced charges linked to postpartum psychosis.
Public Backlash and Apology
Hirsch, known for her podcasts Not Skinny But Not Fat and Get Real, shared the controversial post on Friday, days after the trial ended inconclusively. Her message read: “On Polymarket it was predicted the verdict would be Not Guilty. Are you surprised? #Polymarketpartner.” The post was swiftly deleted, followed by a public apology on Sunday.
“I should have known better, and I feel sick that I didn’t see that in the moment,” Hirsch wrote. She added, “As a mom, this case has really affected me. I’ve been following it so closely, talking about it constantly, and feeling heartbroken by every aspect of it.”
The apology continued: “I became so consumed by the trial that I completely lost perspective and didn’t stop to think about how grossly inappropriate it was to discuss something this tragic in that context.” Hirsch concluded, “I made a terrible judgment call and I feel so f***ing awful about that. I know deleting it doesn’t erase it. Believe me, I’m horrified by the choice I made.”
The Controversial Ad Context
The post came amid intense scrutiny of the Clancy case, which has captivated global audiences since the deaths of five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan were reported. Prosecutors argued Clancy intentionally killed her children, while her defence team maintained she acted under the influence of postpartum psychosis—a rare condition affecting roughly 1-2 in 1,000 new mothers.
Polymarket, a cryptocurrency-based prediction platform, allows users to bet on real-world events, including legal outcomes. Critics argued Hirsch’s ad exploited a deeply personal tragedy for commercial gain, with many questioning the ethics of profiting from a child’s death. “Donating the money to a mother’s mental health org would (and should) be the first step,” one follower wrote on Instagram, reflecting widespread disapproval.
Clancy Case Background
The trial, which concluded without a verdict after jurors deadlocked, highlighted the complexities of mental health in criminal justice. Clancy has consistently denied intentionally harming her children, instead asserting she was in a psychotic state. Medical experts have testified about the challenges of diagnosing postpartum psychosis, adding urgency to discussions about maternal mental health services.
The case has since spawned conspiracy theories and media frenzies, with some outlets criticising the portrayal of mental illness in popular culture. Hirsch’s involvement in this narrative has reignited debates about the responsibilities of public figures when engaging with sensitive topics.
Social Media Reaction
Hirsch’s apology drew mixed reactions online. While some praised her candidness, others deemed it insufficient. “I know you need to support your family. But I guess there are other opportunities and sometimes it is ok to have a moment to think about a post you get paid for and say: no,” wrote one follower. Another commented, “This one was (for me) the last straw,” underscoring the emotional toll the case has taken on observers.
Critics also highlighted the broader implications of monetising tragedy. “It’s not just about the money,” one user noted. “It’s about respect for those affected.” Advocates for mental health awareness have called for greater sensitivity in discussing such cases, urging media and influencers to prioritise empathy over engagement.
Why it Matters
The controversy underscores the delicate balance between commercial partnerships and ethical storytelling, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals. Hirsch’s misstep serves as a stark reminder of the power of influence and the consequences of exploiting tragedy for profit. As public discourse around mental health and maternal wellbeing continues to evolve, this incident highlights the urgent need for empathy, accountability, and a reevaluation of what constitutes responsible journalism and content creation.
