The mid-2010\u2019s marked the beginning of the boom in the true crime genre. Programs that centered around crime storytelling excelled on media platforms like television, radio, and podcasts. Around the world people gasped and shuddered at the morbid details of these stories. All the while, the writers and creators of these shows reaped the financial reward. True crime stories are framed to give the audience a feeling of righteousness but their presence in the media does more harm than good. No matter how the stories are spun, true crime journalism can never be ethical because the pain of real people is sacrificed for entertainment purposes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ethical dilemma of true crime reporting is not a new one. Crime reporting blossomed in the newspapers of the 1800\u2019s. In 1897, a group of journalists called the \u201cMurder Squad\u201d formed to assist police in investigations. The line between journalism and the law was blurred as the group impeded criminal investigations rather than helping (Bolin). Crime reporting in the 21st century faces a similar issue in crossing boundaries as the genre continues to gain more viewers and listeners. Now, programs like Netflix\u2019s Making a Murderer<\/em> and the podcast Serial<\/em> attract the attention of millions of eager fans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recent rise of popularity in the true crime genre is largely credited to the power the audience feels. Americans are feeling the increasing weight of injustices like corporate greed, police brutality, and government corruption. True crime pieces ask the audience to take back some control and participate in correcting social injustices. Consuming a case and \u201cdiscovering who is to blame, serves as both an escape and a means of feeling in control, giving us an arena where justice is possible\u201d (Bolin). The audience is challenged to think critically about the justice system and the individuals in positions of authority. Putting power back into the hands of the people is not the only positive outcome of crime reporting. The podcast Crime Junkie <\/em>exemplifies how writers can use true crime to assist in investigations. Hosts Ashley Flowers and Brittany Prawat bring cold homicide investigations and missing persons cases back into the public eye. Crime Junkie <\/em>advocates for forgotten victims in hopes of bringing new tips to the police. In addition, Flowers and Prawat promote crime stopping organizations and encourage personal safety under their slogan: Be Weird. Be Rude. Stay Alive. Bringing attention to cold cases, advocating for personal safety, and encouraging citizens to think critically about the system are benefits of the growth of the true crime genre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, the creators of true crime programs harm vulnerable people to make financial gains. Stories are framed to make the audience feel good about themselves so they will keep watching, listening, and subscribing. The more these stories sell, the more money the writers receive. Thus, writers promote the idea that audience members are doing an honorable duty by participating in the true crime community. Tanya Horeck of The Conversation<\/em> explains, \u201cThe ultimate aim of many true crime docu-series is to capture viewer attention and to keep audiences hooked through the use of cliffhangers and other devices.\u201d This kind of viewer manipulation comes at a cost — the privacy of the individuals involved in the crime. Journalists often research legal documents, police files, and court footage to build their stories. All of these sources are open to the public. In other words, true crime reporters do not have to (and rarely do) ask those involved for permission to publicize information about the case. Victims, suspects, and law enforcement officers are often reduced to stock characters in stories drenched with dramatic and salacious themes. As a result, viewers can get their entertainment fix and distance themselves from the pain of the families and friends involved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mindy Pendleton was still mourning the loss of her stepson, the victim of a 2015 homicide, when Netflix approached her on making a docu-series featuring the case. Pendleton, along with the victim\u2019s other family and friends, refused to cooperate and urged Netflix to stop the project. Through a series of passionate emails, Pendleton pleaded with the producers, \u201cAs a parent, a fellow human being, I beg you not to do this\u201d (Chan). To the family’s dismay, Netflix premiered I Am A Killer<\/em> to over 60 million US subscribers. The series has since been renewed for a third season, despite Pendleton\u2019s argument that \u201cit was inhumane to sell a documentary at the emotional expense of a grieving family\u201d (Chan). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Upon examining true crime journalism, the possibility for writers to publicize crime in an ethical way is in question. Whether a writer\u2019s intention is to educate or entertain, the impact of a piece relies on how the story is told. With a person\u2019s innocence on the line, the reader should determine for themselves whether or not a suspect is guilty based on the facts of the case. However, it is impossible for a writer to tell a story without injecting some kind of bias. Furthermore, an objective true crime piece lacks the drama to attract a substantial audience. Even though true crime media promotes education on injustices in the legal system and personal safety, the ethical scale tips to protect the privacy of victims and their loved ones. Unless writers can present a case objectively, then true crime journalism will continue to reopen the wounds of traumatized family and friends every time someone clicks play<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bolin, Alice. \u201cThe Ethical Dilemma of Highbrow True Crime.\u201d The Vulture, <\/em>1 Aug 2018, https:\/\/www.vulture.com\/2018\/08\/true-crime-ethics.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Chan, Melissa. \u201c’Real People Keep Getting Re-traumatized.’ The Human Cost of Binge-Watching True Crime Series.\u201d Time<\/em>, 24 Aug 2020. https:\/\/time.com\/5825475\/true-crime-victim-families\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nIn Defense of True Crime<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Case Against True Crime<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Verdict<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Sources<\/h4>\n\n\n\n