Certain forms of media today blur the lines between news and entertainment now more than ever. Late-night shows and reality television provide viewers with information, but the information is presented as a way to entertain viewers, not necessarily provide them with accurate information like news programs. True crime documentaries and podcasts are a recent addition to these types of media that blur the lines. They aim to provide information about crimes, often murders or kidnappings, for the purpose of entertaining their audiences.
True crime documentaries and podcasts have blown up in popularity in recent years. Millions tune in weekly to hear podcast hosts recount grisly murders and unwind on Friday nights with Netflix documentaries about serial killers. I have been a fan of true crime since I first listened to Serial in 2014. Since then, thousands of podcasts and documentaries have been created that explore the details of grisly murders and their legal cases. Along with Serial, Netflix's Making A Murderer enthralled the general public in the mid-2010s and sparked a recent obsession with true crime that has turned it into a genre that blends entertainment with informational storytelling.
One of the ethical issues with true crime media is the selection of the information included in the story told to the general public. Because this genre falls more under entertainment than news, writers do not necessarily have to follow the same ethical guidelines as journalists in presenting factual information. True crime writers can handpick facts that support the perspective of the story they are trying to tell and ignore others for the sake of entertainment value. A journalist has to tell all aspects of a particular story in order to avoid misleading their audience while a true crime writer can include only the aspects of the story that fit the narrative they are trying to portray. This cherrypicking of facts can also apply to the cases true crime media chooses to cover. Cases involving particularly gruesome murders or serial killers are often covered for their shock value and appeal from an entertainment perspective but can lead to the misrepresentation of a particular area and the people who live there. When true crime writers actively choose to cover only the most gruesome cases that they know will get a large audience or cherry-pick the facts they present to support their narrative, they are actively going against Kant's Categorical Imperative and treating the cases and the people involved as a means to an end. True crime writers need to be aware of the content they put out into the world and remember that these horrible things actually occurred and affected real individuals, they aren't just made up stories meant to entertain an audience. One of the main critiques of the genre is the lack of respect for victims and their families that some true crime media displays, but keeping Kant's Categorical Imperative in mind might help these writers be a bit more ethical and remember the humanity of those they are telling stories about.
With true crime's climb to the top of the charts in the past few years, there has been increased interest in the cases covered by podcasts and in documentaries. Because of this increased interest, some cases have actually been reopened or reexamined. For example, Adnan Syed, whose case was covered in the first season of Serial, was given the opportunity for a new trial by two Maryland courts before the decisions were reversed by the Court of Appeals in 2019. The interest generated in these cases has shown to have real-world effects, which adds a new layer of ethical dilemmas to true crime. Journalists know that their stories will affect people since they are covering real-world events happening now. True crime writers are not necessarily covering current events, but the events they do cover still affect people to this day. However, true crime is an entertainment genre, not a news beat. This raises questions about how true crime writers choose cases to cover. Should the ability to make an impact on the real-world case play a role in the decision to cover a particular true crime case? John Stuart Mill and the principle of utilitarianism would answer yes, as this philosophy emphasizes an act's contribution to a desirable outcome in determining whether it is ethical. If a case was handled poorly due to a defendant's race or gender and may have led to a wrongful conviction, covering that case would generate interest and may influence those in power to reevaluate the evidence and possibly change the outcome.
True crime occupies a unique space between a source of information and a source of entertainment. True crime media recounts factual information about crimes as a way to entertain audiences and make them feel like "citizen detectives." Because it blurs the lines between news and entertainment, ethical standards for true crime media are not well defined and producers can get away with being unethical by journalistic standards for the sake of entertainment. While I personally am a fan of true crime, I recognize the harm it can inflict on those affected by these cases and the communities where these horrible crimes took place. Even though true crime is a form of entertainment at its core, I think that ethical standards for true crime media should be developed and put in place because of the genre's effect on the real world. Going forward, I think that figuring out a way to keep this genre entertaining while minimizing the harm to victims and their families is the best approach for true crime would hold true crime writers and producers to ethical standards that prevent them from exploiting terrible tragedies for the sake of entertainment and profit.
コメント