When a Scammer Exploits the Press: How Kurt Stephenson Duped the French Publication Le Progrès

Not long ago, Vocal published an article titled Villechenève’s Most Notorious Scammer. It laid out in detail how Kurt Stephenson deceived people through fraud, intimidation, and calculated manipulation. That reporting helped establish an important record: Stephenson was not the victim he sometimes claimed to be, but a perpetrator of repeated scams.

Since then, however, a troubling development has cast new light on how Stephenson continues to evade accountability. One of France’s most widely read regional newspapers, Le Progrès, published a story presenting him as a man targeted by blackmail. The piece did not identify or verify the alleged perpetrators, withheld Stephenson’s full image, and effectively framed him as someone deserving sympathy.

The implications go beyond a single article. By granting Stephenson that narrative, Le Progrès handed him a tool he could brandish against critics and victims alike — a mainstream news clipping that appeared to validate his story.

A Familiar Strategy

Stephenson has refined a system for years:

• Fabricate harassment evidence. He creates fake social media accounts in the names of his victims, uses them to send himself threatening messages, and then brandishes these as “proof” that he’s being targeted.
• Flip the script. When his victims try to warn others or report him, he waves this “evidence” as if their efforts are just part of a campaign to harass and extort him.
• Silence critics. By filing false complaints on social platforms, he has posts exposing his scams taken down. Victims’ warnings disappear while Stephenson maintains his facade.

For those who have followed Stephenson’s pattern of behavior, this was no surprise. This strategy has allowed him to escape accountability for years. With that material in hand, he approaches authorities, insisting that he is being persecuted rather than confronted. However, the article in Le Progrès was the first time he was able to convince the press that he was being targeted.

Once the sympathetic story appeared in print, Stephenson leveraged it powerfully. Victims who speak out now find themselves dismissed as aggressors, while Stephenson points back to the article as proof of his supposed innocence.

Why Le Progrès Matters

In this case, the issue is not necessarily that Le Progrès knowingly set out to protect him. The problem is one of journalistic rigor. The article bore no byline. It presented Stephenson’s claims without apparent independent verification. The photographs used were cropped to obscure his face — an unusual choice that conveniently shields him from recognition.

For a man already identified in previous reporting as a serial scammer, this lack of transparency is not a neutral oversight. It is an opportunity he has seized with both hands. Since publication, Stephenson has reportedly cited the Le Progrès article as evidence of his good standing, even offering to help others obtain favorable coverage for a fee.

Question of Responsibility

None of this excuses Stephenson’s actions. But it does highlight how fragile the line can be between investigative reporting and unintentional enabling. When a major newspaper grants credibility to someone with a long record of deceit, the consequences ripple outward: victims are silenced, scams continue unchecked, and public trust in journalism suffers.

It is worth noting that this Vocal platform had already published an article exposing Stephenson’s methods, long before Le Progrès ran its sympathetic piece. The evidence was not hidden; it was accessible. That makes the newspaper’s failure to dig deeper all the more concerning.

Leverage for Sale

Since the Le Progrès article ran, Stephenson has taken things a step further, reportedly telling others he can secure similar media coverage — for a fee. That’s not journalism; that’s reputation laundering for hire.

And Le Progrès handed him the credibility to pull it off. Even if the newspaper was simply careless, not complicit, its lack of rigor created a powerful tool for deception.

Why This Matters

This is not just about Kurt Stephenson. It is about the duty of media outlets to verify, contextualize, and resist being used as shields for bad actors. Stephenson may have exploited Le Progrès to extend his deception, but the case is a reminder that all journalists face similar risks when covering figures who are skilled at playing the victim.

For readers and for the public, the lesson is clear: a printed article does not always equal truth. Independent platforms, whistleblowers, and survivor accounts often provide the counterbalance needed to see the full picture.

Vocal’s earlier reporting offered a warning. Le Progrès offered a platform. One protected potential victims; the other, intentionally or not, armed a scammer with new legitimacy. The contrast should matter to anyone concerned with integrity in the press.

- Max Goldstein

I'm currently studying journalism at the University of Miami and appreciate you taking the time to read this work