**TL;DR The increasing popularity of true crime series and documentaries does nothing but romanticise inhumane acts.** The latest obsession of binging crime documentaries is one of my favourite ways to pass time and me and my housemates find ourselves doing it far too often, however I can’t help but feel somewhat uneasy whilst watching them, especially when considering some of the strange reactions online. For instance, in 2019, Netflix were reported to have put millions towards securing the rights to the new Ted Bundy movie starring Zac Efron, however, rightly so, criticism arose around the supposed sexualising of the killer. Similar films and programmes fail to recognise the potential emotional impact this would cause victims and their relatives, instead focussing primarily on profit margins and obsessive media coverage. Additionally, Susanne Moore (2019) states that the romanticising of Bundy undermines what it means to be a victim, suggesting further that both the film and subsequent episodes portray and risk evoking “Hybristophilia,”, which she identifies as the ‘sexual arousal that comes from a partner who has committed a crime [and] the fantasy that you are special enough to give the love that would stop such a man doing the things he does’. For this reason, it becomes difficult to ignore the potential risks of publicly displaying both similar crimes and criminals. https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/41-romanticizing-serial-killers-case-study.pdf

**TL;DR- True crime documentaries are viewed as a form of entertainment. But they have never sat comfortably with me, as it doesn't seem right to make entertainment out of some of the tragic, real-life stories that are explored in crime documentaries.** It can be argued that crime documentaries and crime dramas are one of the same; they both rely on drama and shock value, and the thrill of solving the 'juicy murder'. However, with crime dramas, everything that's happening is fictional, so it's easier to enjoy the drama, knowing that it's only acting. Yet with true crime documentaries, it doesn't feel right to be sitting there indulging in the drama, because these are real people, and real cases that actually impacted real lives. Many people say ' I *love* a good true crime documentary' and get excited over them to the point where it just seems a little insensitive. A popular example would be when Netflix gave us *The Disappearance of Madeline McCann* in 2019. I understand why many are captivated by this, wondering who was responsible and what happened. This captivation is only natural, and there's nothing wrong with it- as humans we are inherently curious, wanting to think of theories and find answers to unsolved mysteries. Since ancient times humans have wanted an explanation for everything. Yet it just seems wrong for Netflix to make entertainment out of a real child's disappearance, and it feels even more unethical for the company to make profit from of it.

**TL; DR - I think that it is more complex than this. On the one hand, true crime documentaries are unethical because they may mitigate the crime when seen as entertainment, but on the other they are more informative and affective as to how we perceive crime and social justice in these cases**. True crime as spectacle has existed since the time of public executions and subsequent representations of such influences in Victorian fiction, but it is also a spectacle today, which may make people lose perspective of the horror the crimes should evoke. As Alice Bolin says, '[p]eople love true stories about murder and other brands of brutality and grift, and they have gorged on them particularly since the beginning of modern journalism'. In the context of being streamed by media like Netflix, true crime documentaries are for many a strange mix of entertainment and horror, which may shift attention from awareness. On the other hand, these documentaries may raise awareness as to the context of these crimes, as well as illuminate aspects that may change the way we view what has happened and the social justice response to the crimes. For example, Tanya Horeck argues that shows like 'the Netflix long-form series Making a Murderer and The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' actually 'position listeners and viewers as citizen-detectives and profess to involve us in the civic minded processes of social justice', although this, as Horeck says, should be indulged in cautiously. Indeed, true crime documentaries may open spaces for exploring new levels of empathy and awareness. These are two sides of the same coin, and watching true crime documentaries should be with reference to the dangers of watching crime as entertainment. Works Cited Bolin, Alice, 'The Ethical Dilemma of Highbrow True Crime' (2018) <https://www.vulture.com/2018/08/true-crime-ethics.html> [accessed 25 February 2021]. Horeck, Tanya, 'True crime: it’s time to start questioning the ethics of tuning in' (2019) <https://theconversation.com/true-crime-its-time-to-start-questioning-the-ethics-of-tuning-in-125324> [accessed 25 February 2021].

**TLDR - It depends on the purpose/production of the documentary. If it is for entertainment then it is unethical. If it is informative or shining a light on an injustice then it can be seen as ethical** I think the perfect example of this is Netflix's *Making a Murderer* documentary series, as I believe it's second series completely undermined the first series. In the first season, the documentary makers highlighted the case of Steven Avery, who is in prison for murder. Throughout the 8 episodes, it documented his tale from before his arrest, all the way through his trial and eventual conviction. It aimed to highlight how the trial was a complete shambles, and the clear abuse of authority of both the police force and the prosecutors. It was a shocking watch, and I think it showed us some of the corruption that can happen at all levels of the law. The second season however, boosted by the success of the first, turned the documentary into a big-budget entertainment series. Whilst it still claimed to be a documentary, it was clear that the producers were trying to make it as entertaining as possible. It felt less like it was trying to lay out the facts, and more like it was trying to keep the viewer on the edge of their seat. In the end, I think this undermined its integrity, and the ethics of what it was doing. So I think it ultimately depends on the documentary. A lot of families of victims want to take part as a way of spreading the word about what happened to their relative. But of course this is not always the case, and often the victim is taken advantage of for entertainment value, and this is when it becomes unethical.

**TL;DR – Since the popularity of True Crime documentaries have increased, there have been some serious issues regarding how morality's demands relate to the production of art – with some people even referring to it as voyeurism disguised as journalism. Well, while there's no doubt that there is an aspect of the unethical, I do not believe that True Crime documentaries in general are unethical.** While calling into question the ethical nature of this genre (some cases being more unique than others), it's important for us to remember that sharing these documentaries this way offers a powerful global platform for journalists (and even us upon reflection) to investigate and draw attention to unresolved crimes. Jana G. Pruden (2019), a Globe and Mail feature writer provides evidence of this when she informs us that the genre of True Crime documentaries and its revival is not a sign of societal breakdown and decay – since it’s been around for about as long as humans have. Furthermore, she goes on to say that in her 20-year experience as a reporter true crime and its reputation for “unethicalness” does in fact, in part, stem from the misguided perception and belief that people more often than not find enjoyment from other people’s misery and pain, particularly, on this type of platform. More specifically, that this genre is being exploited for marketing purposes. Pruden provides further evidence of this in an interview that was conducted with director Joe Berlinger – who has been making true crime documentaries for close to 30 years. Apparently, in the interview he was quoted as saying, “That phrase ‘true crime’ somehow conjures up an image of wallowing in other people’s misery for the sake of the entertainment of others, and I’m very sensitive to that criticism. There are certainly works in this category that fulfill that. My answer to how to honour the victims is to tell a responsible story.” Here, Pruden very astutely points out and clarifies that while Berlinger acknowledges there is an unethical element to this genre, and that there is a fine line between ethical and entertaining, it's not all true crime that is created equal. Also, it's important to remember that the ethical line is one which all journalists, filmmakers, writers, podcasters, or anyone involved in true crime needs to consider on their own terms, in relation to their own projects. Moreover, any interest in True Crime documentaries or stories is a chance for us to do better. Because as long as it is done in a proper and respectful manner it will show the power of these stories, helping us to move past this genre's *unethical* stigma. True crime is popular. But is it ethical?https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-true-crime-is-popular-but-is-it-ethical/ [accessed March 4, 2021].

I'm a producing student. If it's based on a true story of say, a murder, the creator of the film has to purchase the victim's "life rights," which means that they pay the victim's family to make it, and they are welcome to decline. If it's based around the killer, however, there are laws preventing criminals from profiting off of their crimes, including journalism and documentaries that would otherwise be paid for.