While acknowledging this kind of impactful reporting, what brought me here is the observation that all too often articles about the Epstein case, even in the most esteemed news publications, read more like a tabloid.

A recent New York Times article states:

Even apart from his ties to the toxic Mr. Epstein...there have long been concerns about Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor’s behavior

Toxic??

Back in 2015, when Epstein was already a documented, convicted sex offender, a Miami Herald headline announced:

Salacious new chapter in Florida billionaire’s sex scandal.

Are we just talking about gossip here?

Earlier articles such as this one certainly set a tone for much of what followed, despite the groundbreaking 2018 investigative series by Julie K. Brown.

As a social scientist, I’ve been attuned to the language applied to describe Jeffrey Epstein. I’d like to share my lens as a psychologist, researcher, and woman.

Subtleties in media framing reveal deeper truths about how our culture regards the subjects of ostensibly objective reporting. Labels attached to people aren’t just words; they are powerful vehicles for shaping perceptions. Here I present my case for the cultural complicity in sanitizing the crimes of Epstein.

We Love His Wealth

Back in 2019 when the public was still learning about him, the New York Times ran an article, “Who is Jeffrey Epstein? An Opulent Life, Celebrity Friends, and Lurid Accusations.” The piece was accompanied by a video with the title card “Who was Jeffrey Epstein? The Financier Embroiled in a Sex Scandal.” Only in fine print, a video caption notes he is a “registered sex offender known for his lavish lifestyle.” Without a closer reading, you might assume Epstein was a rich man who was caught having an affair rather than a sexual predator.

If the public didn’t on some level admire what Epstein stood for, why else would reports continue to put primacy on all that was glamorous about him, foregrounding the facade over the reality of his depravity? Why else would the press feel so compelled to remind us that the Jeffrey Epstein they are talking about is the “disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein”?

We are perpetually reminded of his apparent fall from grace, and what his onetime pedestal looked like. Even his bad taste and the downright disturbing decor in his homes can’t shake language that continues to elevate him. We must still be in awe of him, mythologizing him in the way we can’t seem to help celebrating billionaires. Just as prominent people in society continued to associate with him after his 2008 conviction as a sex offender, the gilded version of Epstein counts more than his reputation as a pedophile, rapist, and sex trafficker in the eyes of the media.

We Grant Him an Air of Respectability

The absurd “disgraced financier” epithet is what really gets me.

“Financier” is a professional title as vague and obscure as the actual means through which Epstein accumulated his wealth. Despite increased knowledge about the fixing and blackmail that characterized his criminal enterprise, this descriptor remains a stubbornly popular default. Not only is it often repeated, it seems to be what comes first. A recent article in the Economist describes Epstein with labels in this order: “Epstein, a financier, fixer, rapist, and paedophile…” “Financier” maintains a position of primacy, but I guess we are supposed to be satisfied by the presence of “rapist” and “paedophile”.

To make sure I wasn’t blowing this apparent fondness for “financier” out of proportion, I analyzed a dataset of global English-language news articles published over a recent 30-day window (Feb 19–Mar 21, 2026). By tracking the exact, word-for-word descriptors journalists appended to Epstein’s name, we can see exactly how the press continues to sanitize his legacy.

30-Day Article Count for Exact Descriptors Appended to “Jeffrey Epstein”

The data reveal a stark dissonance. While articles most frequently referred to Epstein as “sex offender Jeffrey Epstein” or “convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein”, “financier Jeffrey Epstein” and “disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein” appeared with stunning frequency for such a short and recent time period when we know so much more about his crimes. “Financier Jeffrey Epstein” and “disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein” were four times more likely to appear (138 articles combined) than “sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein” (which appeared in 34 articles).

Jeffrey Epstein was a fraud and a predator throughout his professional life. “Financier” insists on the idea that he primarily made his millions (or appeared to make his money) through legitimate, respectable means. It suggests that this occupation was central to his onetime public identity or his crimes. His formal career was varied, and for much of his later life, unclear; we shouldn’t describe him as we would Bernie Madoff.

Financial dealings and favor-trading certainly fueled Epstein’s operation, but framing this as primarily a “business scandal,” as Heather Cox Richardson did in a recent podcast, only tells half the story. Richardson is correct about the systemic, multinational web of corruption by elite actors. However, the case isn't just about how money moved; it’s about how gendered power dynamics allowed that money to flow as it did. Without the subjugation of women, Epstein’s business model would have collapsed.

We Center the Rich Man

As pointed out in this excellent take by Celeste Davis, patriarchy underlies all of this.

Any label has a way of creating distance from the person and reducing them to a one-dimensional caricature. “Disgraced financier” does more than reduce, it excuses. We should just say his name. What people need to understand is that he was a living, breathing man. Jeffrey Epstein walked amongst us and his accomplices and associates were not just a few bad apples. He was at the center of something that is still very real and something that is unlikely to change as long as we skirt around the realities of patriarchy.

It bears repeating that just as Gisele Pelicot’s husband easily found men in their small French town willing to rape her while she was unconscious, Epstein found countless rich and powerful men across geographic and political divides to rape the girls and women he trafficked. This is a story about the systematic dehumanization and commodification of women, and men who both willingly participate in the rape of women and put the protection of other men above doing what is ethical.

This is a story about men putting their own status, power, and pleasure ahead of the humanity of girls and women. Epstein’s operation was a massive, violent criminal enterprise that reached that magnitude because we live in a patriarchal system that was ripe for it.

We Place a Burden of Moral Purity on his Victims

As we are lured to gawk at Epstein’s opulent homes and plane, the victims face a burden of moral purity. We are led to question whether they are “true victims.”

Explicit accounts of suffering and the insidious mechanics of his grooming are less prevalent than abstract, transactional references: hired as masseuses, working as assistants. Emphasis on these descriptions without greater context actively paints the victims into a morally neutral grey area of prostitution, stripping them of their humanity while protecting the public’s comfort. The media is forcing trauma victims to carry the burden of moral purity.

Erasure of these victims happens because the public laments a man’s loss of status more than it empathizes for a woman’s trauma at the hands of a male perpetrator. This happens because the trafficking and rape of women is treated as a substantially lesser crime than other acts of violence. This happens because when a crime is orchestrated by a man of wealth and power, the criminal becomes more interesting than his victims, and we frame his crime as an exciting scandal.

Public Complicity

We shouldn’t approach the Epstein case as some sort of extended reality TV show. We need to treat this as a moment of reckoning and an opportunity for change. Accountability and progress won’t happen as long as this remains a “sex scandal” or even “business scandal” centered on our once esteemed protagonist positioned as a “financier.”

If journalists and writers want to be catalysts for change in the world, there is plenty to explore and explain. There is a lot to learn from the files to show how patriarchy works and what abuse looks and feels like. Grooming by sexual predators is a subtle business, sex trafficking comes in forms that are more intricate and less obvious than popular perceptions assume. The public can create pressure to hold perpetrators truly, criminally accountable. We owe it to Epstein’s victims to amplify their voices, and validate and protect them.

Yet, it is outrageous to me that the only person serving prison time right now is a woman. Ghislaine Maxwell certainly deserves to be where she is, but there are many men who deserve more than being cancelled in the court of public opinion. Patriarchy maintains a wall of protection around these men, and Epstein’s criminal enterprise was a perfect, scaled production of this system.

Resetting the Moral Compass

We need men to examine male culture.

As pointed out by Kate Manne, men have learned to silence their emotions and suspend their moral compass in the presence of other men.

And we need to stop allowing extreme wealth to preserve codes of silence.

It feels very American to assume that wealth merits respect and admiration, and that leaders have the backbone to act with integrity. Instead of wowing us with their intellect and visions to change the world, the files expose billionaires as preoccupied with preserving their wealth and status, willingly suspending ethics to maintain their network. We need to recognize these people for who they really are.

We have only to look to the White House to see that the structures and people revealed in the Epstein case are quite literally ruling our country with impunity. As long as we legitimize and sanitize Epstein’s reputation, we do more than fail to protect girls and women—we actively perpetuate their abuse.