In What Happened to Nina?, Dervla McTiernan critiques how the internet’s true-crime culture transforms personal tragedy into consumable entertainment, allowing perpetrators to manipulate public opinion through sophisticated public relations campaigns. This digital warfare inflicts further trauma on victims’ families, who become targets of conspiracy theories and harassment. The novel grapples with the idea that, in a digital age, the battle for justice is fought as much online as it is in the courts, positioning public opinion as a key factor in swaying outcomes, regardless of the truth. Through the Frasers’ experience, McTiernan illustrates how quickly public sympathy can be manipulated and used against victims, turning their grief into a spectacle for mass consumption and judgment.

After the Frasers’ press conference turns public attention toward Simon, the Jordan family uses a media campaign, orchestrated by a specialized PR firm, to control the narrative surrounding Nina’s death. Rather than waiting for the police investigation to unfold, Rory preemptively goes on the offensive. He hires a firm which specializes in “reputation management” to portray Simon as the picture of innocence and spread rumors disparaging the Nina’s parents. As Rory tells Jamie, “These guys said that you can't stop this kind of thing when it starts. It's like playing Whac-A-Mole. They said the only real option is to flood the field with moles of our own” (151). The PR firm creates a YouTube channel that floods the internet with content designed to sow confusion and paint Nina’s mother, Leanne, as suspicious. Using edited clips from the family’s press conference, the videos feature captions like, “Why does Leanne Fraser sound like a robot when she talks about loving her daughter?” (152), and, “WHAT IS HER MOTHER HIDING?” (249). The firm uses bots to amplify this content, ensuring it spreads rapidly. This calculated strategy moves the focus away from Simon’s actions, exploiting public voyeurism and suspicion.

The PR campaign successfully turns public opinion against the Fraser family, subjecting them to a vicious online harassment campaign with real-world consequences. After the press conference, online comments quickly devolve into attacks on Leanne’s appearance and character, calling her “Robotic. Like someone had told her what to say” (251). As the campaign continues, Leanne details the increasingly absurd assertions made about her online: “According to the internet, I was a slut who charged for her services, I'd had two children with two different men […] I hated my girls and I abused them, or I loved them too much and desperately tried to keep them safe from dangers that didn’t exist […] Another poster said it was well known around Waitsfield that I was into devil worship” (302-03). The vitriol soon escalates into conspiracy theories that threaten the Frasers’ livelihoods and personal safety. False rumors circulate that Andy is a pedophile, which begins to destroy his landscaping business as clients cancel their contracts. A stranger confronts Andy at Grace’s school, insisting, “‘I know what you are,’ he said. ‘You're a pervert’” (296), demonstrating how online slander can incite real-world aggression. Grace receives hateful messages from classmates, and her presence at school becomes untenable. In the midst of overwhelming grief, the family is besieged by a slanderous public turned against them by a manufactured narrative, leaving them isolated and under attack.

Rory’s calculated and disingenuous press conference further demonstrates the subtle tactics used to undermine the Frasers’ credibility and boost his own version of the narrative. Assuming a sincere posture, he makes his own statement to press who have gathered outside his house and appeals to the public to stop spreading rumors about the Frasers, noting, “It’s harassment. The truth is that almost no one has led the kind of completely blameless life that will stand up to internet scrutiny” (274). Later, McTiernan uses Jamie’s internal reflections to make Rory’s strategy explicit: “He’d denied the story to feed the story […] Of course people wouldn’t stop talking about the Frasers and debating and wondering, just because Rory went on TV and asked them to. They'd talk more” (274-75). By appearing to defend Leanne and Andy, he simultaneously amplifies the very rumors he’s ostensibly denouncing.