With the widespread news of Gypsy Rose Blanchard’s release from prison last month and her sudden rise to influencer stardom, questions and concerns are brought to light regarding the duality of the newfound popularity True Crime exposure has seen in more recent years.
What is True Crime?
True crime is considered a genre of any kind of entertainment (literature, film, etc.) that recounts the analysis and examination of real crimes. The public eye had seen its first introduction to the true crime genre in the late 1960s with the release of Thomas Capote’s, In Cold Blood. The non-fiction novel centers around the research and retelling of the Clutter family murder case of 1959 – literacy critics deemed this the very first taste of modern true crime in the American entertainment industry. Fast forward to the 21st century, True crime content can be found covering any and every spine-chilling historical crime case in the history of forever.
Additionally, now more than ever, true crime content is available in almost every form of entertainment, ranging from TV shows, movies, books, podcasts, and YouTube videos. The range in format availability makes the consumption demographic of this genre rapidly growing, and widespread which leads us to our next area of concern…
How has True Crime Saturated the ENTERTAINMENT Field?
According to Parrot Analytics, an entertainment and media-based statistics site, the true crime fan base has grown exponentially in the last five years accounting for the 73% of all Americans crowning true crime as their favorite genre.
Of this 73%, it was averaged that 3.8 hours every week had been credited to true crime consumption in the last two years alone, with platforms like TikTok (~20%) and YouTube (~60%) being the most popular sources for such. These statistics hold up pretty well when we consider just how much true crime exposure has been at the top of every streaming chart on popular platforms.
One of the biggest concerns with the mass production of true crime media is the concept of its glorification and idolization of criminals by both creators and fans. I mean seriously, I can’t even remember how many off-colored, ‘joke’ thirst traps and edits I’ve come across online depicting some of history’s most notorious offenders. This kind of misuse and misrepresentation of media sheds light on the unethical side of true crime enjoyment.
Is this kind of consumption really ‘okay’? And realistically, how many adaptions do we need of people like the ‘Zodiac Killer’ or Ted Bundy?
Victims response to true crime media
With the abundance and embellishment of true crime seen in media, there’s no question that this form of entertainment holds a controversial title when it comes to the vulnerability of real-life victims, survivors, and everyone else involved.
While earlier adaptations of true crime may have covered cases long expired, it’s seemingly more common now that true crime content has expanded to cover more recent cases in history. This not only allows for wider, faster consumption of true crime media but also runs the risk of putting current-day victims and survivors in an unwanted trauma-glamorized spotlight against their will.
A notorious (and relatively recent) example of this was seen in response to the 2022 Netflix release of “Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story”. The series, spanning over one season, featured an adaptation of the horrific origin story of the cannibalistic serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer. While the release of the series gained widespread popularity amongst true-crime enthusiasts and consumers alike, it received an equal amount of criticism for the tone-deaf approach in lack of respect and privacy for the victims’ families.
That chapter of my life was closed, and they reopened it, basically.”
Taken from a family member of Dhamer victim Eric Perry in response to the Netflix series.
This is just one account from a grieving family member belonging to one case amongst the millions of others covered by true crime media. Our consumption of this genre has blown up so disproportionately, that it seems we fail time and time again to consider the actual people who are still affected by the stories being relayed for our entertainment.
Most recently, we’ve seen this problem evolve to a bigger degree when dealing with the rehabilitation of current–day victims. Following not too long after her prison release last December, Gypsy Rose Blanchard has been the most prominent example of this, giving us a modern-day look at how exactly one is to navigate back into society after being a buzzword in the true crime world for so long.
The future of true crime
For now, it seems that the pop culture adoption of true crime isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. With how receptive the genre’s target audience is, it could be anticipated that the future of true crime entertainment will only continue to grow with every new horror-crime-esque news story that hits headlines first.
With this being said, I think it’s safe to say that the consumption of true crime needs to be taken for what it is; a storytelling of real horrors committed by real people. This form of entertainment shouldn’t be used as a means to glorify those responsible, and definitely shouldn’t be used as a cash-grab attempt at profiting off grieving families and survivors.
Instead, true crime depiction should continue with the purpose of properly educating viewers and emphasizing the importance of awareness for the cases being retold. As far as the average true crime fan goes, I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t indulged in an “Unsolved” podcast now and then. The consumption of true crime content as a whole isn’t a crime within itself, so long as we remember to be respectful of victims’ privacy and mental healing.