From terrifying podcasts narrating grisly details about stabbings to Netflix series debuting ruthless serial killers almost every month, the public’s growing obsession with true crime is undeniable. Unsolved murder cases are often treated by social media like they are works of fiction, with amateur “internet sleuths” pointing fingers at innocent people in an attempt to “solve” the case. While it is important for the public to stay aware of dangerous killers and be informed of crime cases, true crime content often prioritizes profit through sensationalizing their cases, leading to a desensitization towards violence.

People love true crime content; true crime podcasts experienced a 66 percent growth in listeners from 2019 to 2022 according to InsiderRadio. YouTube’s analytics show that true crime content has been viewed over two billion times in 2019, a 30 percent growth from the year before. The desire for consuming true crime content seems innocent; after all, curiosity is perfectly natural, especially when it comes to distressing or disturbing situations. It’s very logical that one might want to know more. However, true crime content often focuses on sensationalizing a case, as the gruesome nature of certain crimes is turned into something marketable for views. For example, in true crime podcasts such as “Killer Queens,” “True Crime and Cocktails,” and “My Favorite Murder,” the discussion of disturbing details becomes coupled with cocktail drinking, makeup sessions, cracking disturbing murder puns, and snacking. The rising popularity of true crime content results in social media algorithms pushing similar content to more viewers, further incentivizing true crime content creators to continue releasing content that can generate clicks. This vicious cycle results in an emotional detachment from crime cases that desensitizes consumers, as they tend to forget that a real person has suffered through every violent detail mentioned in the video or podcast.

True crime content is often created under the guise of educating and cautioning consumers; however, there is a fine line between being informative and being exploitative. In 2022, Netflix’s biographical thriller titled “Dahmer — Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” aired and quickly became a sensation. While millions of viewers watched Evan Peter’s portrayal of Jefferey Dahmer on the big screen, a fanbase began to romanticize the character and eventually Dahmer himself, creating fan edits and even sympathy posts for the murderer. With fans’ glorification of the show’s depicted psychopathic behavior, the series served less as an informational film and more as an exploitative spectacle romanticizing Dahmer’s life, with none of its revenue going towards helping the distressed victims’ families. Many of these families have also deemed the film as “retraumatizing”; for example, Rita Isbell, the sister of Errol Lindsay, one of Dahmer's victims, has said that she wasn’t even contacted by Netflix for consent prior to the series’ creation, even though it featured a direct portrayal of her as one of the characters.

This exploitative behavior has also been evident in other shows and streaming services. Hulu released the true crime series “The Act” in 2019, based upon the controversial and nuanced case of Gypsy Rose Blanchard, a victim of Munchausen syndrome by proxy (a mental health condition in which the caregiver makes up or causes an illness or injury for the person under their care) from her mother. In desire to escape her mother’s abuse, Blanchard ultimately murdered her mother, later sentenced to ten years of jail time. It was only two years after her conviction that Hulu began production for “The Act.” Blanchard claimed in an interview that the retelling of her story was dramatized and inaccurate, with certain details being altered without her consent and compensation. Her public statements condemning the show were ignored by Hulu, and Blanchard claimed the show’s producers would refuse to pick up her phone calls. Exploitative true crime content is uniquely harmful, as it often rewrites victim’s stories and puts them on blast in front of a wide, global audience. Especially in regard to large studio productions, victims and primary sources are often disregarded and silenced. Cases like Blanchard and Dahmer show the blatant disregard many studios hold for ethical media production, and make it clear that their intentions are to profit instead of spreading awareness.

In all forms of true-to-life content in the media, it is important to remember that there are real people behind these stories, and in the case of true crime content, real victims who suffer tremendous physical and psychological trauma as a result. PHS students are constantly exposed to content surrounding real-life tragedies every day, and without this awareness, it’s easy to become desensitized to tragedies and dehumanize its victims. Before consuming any sort of content that contains a degree of real-life violence, it’s important to reflect on if your intentions are to entertain or to inform yourself.