What Is The Point Of So Many True Crime Podcasts?

The burgeoning number of true crime podcasts does suggest there is an interest if not a fascination with true crime. Some of the true crime podcasts are very well researched and have good storytellers.

However, as it is with all things – there should be a limit, especially if the podcaster is using the tragedy of other people’s lives to exalt themselves, and put themselves front and centre of every news grabbing story.

It can be the epitome of narcissism, when someone plasters their pretty face in the middle of every gruesome crime, and retells the same gory details that have been exposed through shows like Dateline, 48 Hours, Fifth Estate, true crime writers and so on.

In the case of true crime writers, those who write books about certain crimes, they actually do multiple interviews with family members, witnesses, and police. They also attend the trial, and make observations during the trial, taking copious notes.

They do not simply watch the Dateline version, dig up whatever is made available to the public about the crime, and then retell the same story, with their own face replacing Keith Morrison or Ann Rule. Most of the true crime writers put the time and effort into creating the relationships that provide insight into the crime, and how it developed. 

It is not to suggest amateur sleuths and podcasters are not helpful in some cases. I believe the benefit in posting amateur true crime podcasts, is when there is an unsolved crime. They have to be careful not to accuse anyone directly, but they can show pictures, social media posts, or information, to help the investigation.

In cases of unsolved crime, it seems most often the family wants to keep the story alive until the crime is solved. Or in the case of a missing person, until they are found, so they can get some peace, and mourn the death, instead of wondering every day if they might be alive somewhere. Naturally the family wants to find out what happened to their loved one. 

I can think of several cases where an unsolved case was kept alive for many years, often with family putting up billboards, and staying in touch with media, and other writers. They do so with the hope it will bring out clues, or that someone with knowledge will come forward. Sometimes the intimate partner of the perpetrator knows something, but does not come forward until years later, when the relationship dissolves.

In many cases, the podcasters and amateur sleuths do dig up information to contribute valuable information, and tips when it comes to solving a crime. People have dashboard cameras, Go Pro cameras, doorbell cameras, security cameras, etc. that capture critical information, such as in the Gabby Petito case.

If not for the couple who happened to pass by on the remote dirt road where she was being buried, it might have taken years to find her, if at all. If not for the coincidence of those who happened to drive past the van, as well as the inclination to document their own journey, the case may never have been solved.

In the case of Chris Watts, his neighbour immediately brought forth critical evidence captured by his own home security system. In fact, his neighbour, and those closest to the Watts family, were the first to know who did it, long before the investigation was complete.

I think the Idaho student murders also had contributions from many community members, who saw and identified his car, which ultimately led to the identification of the murderer. So in all these ways, the involvement of a wider community, social media, and the many cameras, do help solve crimes. Not only that, but the cameras provide much better evidence than eye witness testimony can. 

But when the podcaster is retelling and rehashing the grisly details of crimes that have already been solved and told many times, just to try and use a newsworthy tragedy and loss, in order to put themselves in the spotlight, it crosses the boundaries into exploitation, in my opinion.

Not long ago I skimmed over a three part series that a woman did on a grisly family murder. It has been covered numerous times already, and happened years ago. This same woman has her photoshopped beauty standing out in every single story she does, placing herself in front of the crime victims. In the case of the three part crime story she retold, in excruciating boring minute detail, it was about a son who killed his parents, and then burned their bodies. The crime was horrific, the murder was solved long ago, and the professionals did tell the stories, complete with interviews and outcomes.

How does it benefit anyone to retell such a story in every gory gruesome detail? Some of these people are still rehashing the Jodi Arias crime, which was also solved, brought to trial, and covered by all the news outlets. The crime happened fifteen years ago. Retelling the story does not do anyone any good. In fact, it is horrible for those close to the victim, because it never gets put to rest.

All it does is magnify the criminal, and the notoriety they often seek, to serve their own ghastly claim to fame. Some of them, like Jody Arias revel in the spotlight. Why enable and promote such warped self gratification?

I can certainly understand the conversations about human psychology, and behaviour that helps people understand, or come to terms with violent crime. I can also understand why people have an interest in such stories, and finding out some of the dark intrigue surrounding what makes people tick. It is especially so if the perpetrator seemed to be, or came across as being a normal person. People marvel at how they could be sitting next to someone who harboured such a degree of deception, violence and rage.

If the podcasters put themselves in the background where they belong, it is more appropriate, as opposed to plastering their own image onto every grisly crime that ever happened. I do not see the benefit of the attention grabbing YouTubers who attach themselves to such atrocities, to satisfy their own attempts to be famous, or show how attractive and brilliant they are. 

In the case of Jodi Arias, her father died under mysterious circumstances, with some reports saying it was suicide, because he could not reconcile what kind of person his daughter had become. This should serve as a reminder that these perpetrators leave behind victims within their own families and communities, who may never be able to come to terms with what the person did, or the guilt they might feel as a parent or family member of such a person. 

The dead do not know who is talking about them. But the living do know, and the podcasters should be sensitive to the fact it can reopen the wounds, over and over again. Then the family is subjected to comments, hate mail, and a notoriety they did not invite into their lives. 

Justice for the victims is very important, and opinions are always a part of widely publicized crimes. But who needs to make themselves into a wannabe celebrity over those crimes? What is the point?

In many cases, the parent or family member of a crime victim will have a massive heart attack before, or right after the trial. The trial itself puts incredible emotional and psychological pressure on family members. One would hope that once the verdict is in, the process of healing can begin.

You can tell when a person is using tragic and high profile cases to exalt themselves, because they put their own picture front and centre, and plaster it all over YouTube, to show off how glamorous and beautiful they are. They make sure they outshine the victims, and sugar coat it with nauseating feigned empathy.

What they are actually doing is keeping old wounds open. They are not interviewing family members or the perpetrator, as they do in the more professional shows, to help lend insight into the motives.

They are not collaborating with anyone. Nor are they adding any new information that is the least bit relevant. They are taking those Dateline stories, and news articles, and simply retelling the story in order to put their own face and stamp of “content creation” on a YouTube channel.

They might earn a couple hundred dollars a month doing sponsorship ads. So when you combine that with the fact they plaster their own image on hundreds of crime stories, and then retell the same story based on someone else’s content that they manage to dredge up – isn’t that exploitation?

In my opinion, if the crime has been solved, and the case has already been broadcasted, there is no justification for retelling the story over and over. In fact I believe it does more harm than good.

If a family member of the victim decides to tell the story from their own perspective, that is fine. It could help contribute to a broader understanding, or provide insight for other family victims. But for random people to piggy back some notion of personal fame, and use those crimes to build a following and fame for themselves on YouTube does seem to cross a line. Furthermore, it does not meet the criteria for original content.

There are people who strive to build channels on YouTube with all sorts of topics, from politics, to religion, to travel, to wellness, to camping and living off the grid. In those cases, they are sharing ideas, experiences, personal beliefs, research, and imagery that places the focus on the concept they are promoting.

One would think, and hope that when a person retells grisly crime stories over and over, with their own face plastered front and centre, they don’t have enough ideas of their own to keep a channel alive.

Copyright Valerie J. Hayes and Quiet West (2023). Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author/owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Valerie J. Hayes and Quiet West with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.