I vividly recall the first true crime case that caught my interest. When browsing YouTube one night, I stumbled across a video about the case of Kris Kremers and Lisanne Froon, who disappeared after hiking in Panama. I was instantly bewitched by the mystery surrounding their disappearance, which included a camera roll of photos taken at night with blood and lights, bleached bones and a timeline of events that was anything but straightforward. Combining the intellectual stimulation of a brain teaser with the content of a horror movie creates an addictive storm.
This addiction culminates in the success of the true crime industry, where unsolved crimes act as entertainment for millions of consumers. Although true crime spans internet forums, documentaries and more, its presence is especially noticeable on YouTube. True crime personalities on YouTube deliver detailed, thoroughly researched accounts of numerous cases, with storytelling comparable to that of a commercial documentary. Popular true crime YouTubers such as Kendall Rae, Bella Fiori, and Bailey Sarian each boast millions of subscribers, testifying to the genre’s popularity.
Eager to continue the high I felt from a 20-minute YouTube video, I searched for videos that covered different cases and consequently the corresponding Reddit forums that provided a space for fellow true crime junkies to argue the merits of various theories. As much as I recognized the heinous nature of the crimes I was consuming, I could not help but enjoy such YouTube videos and the debate about different theories online. The stark reality was that I was treating others’ suffering as entertainment. However, the high level of research and respect for the victims that many popular true crime YouTubers put into the cases they cover helped to assuage my fears. Can true crime function as a form of principled reporting, or do the commercial and entertainment gains its consumers and producers receive from victims make ethical true crime impossible?
I have only been able to consider true crime as a form of ethical reporting when it satisfies three main conditions:" The content cannot pose any harm to the victim or the victim’s family, somewhat benefit the victim or communities involving the victim and never glorify the perpetrator. True crime poses a unique risk to those closest to victims through its obsessive fandom. For many true crime consumers, their engagement with true crime media is not simply passive. Many flock to online communities or, worse, to the families of victims to express their opinion on cases. For example, the Reddit community dedicated to the unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey circulates theories from various internet detectives who share and debate theories on JonBenet’s real killer, often implicating family members. Most of the time, such speculations stay on forums; however, sometimes true crime fans go so far as to directly harass those they deem responsible. For example, NBC reported that the parents of Madeline McCann, who went missing in 2007, received numerous death threats despite being cleared as suspects.
Amid the controversy over true crime’s harm to victims, there is a way for true crime content to have the opposite effect. Bringing and keeping unsolved cases in the public eye can help solve such cases. For example, the podcast Your Own Backyard by Chris Lambert maintained public interest in and discovered new witnesses for the 1996 murder of Kristin Smart, which culminated in the conviction of Smart’s murderer in 2023. True crime personalities also have the potential to serve victims through their profits. For example, true crime YouTuber Kendall Rae created the Higher Hope Foundation, which aims to support crime victims and their families.
Finally, one of the longest-held critiques of media coverage of crime is the tendency to focus on the perpetrator. This criticism is especially evident in the coverage of school shootings, where most people end up knowing more about the shooter rather than the victims. Besides the inherent consequences of not giving victims the recognition they deserve, the trope of the perpetrator as the main story can have the devastating consequence of inspiring others to become perpetrators themselves in the hope of attaining similar recognition. For example, the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech shooting praised the Columbine shooters in his manifesto. However, true crime YouTubers such as Rae, steer far clear from such glorification, instead emphasizing the humanity of the victims. For example, in Rae’s video, “College Student Abducted After Leaving Work… The Murder of Reagan Tokes”, she takes the time to detail Toke’s backstory before getting into the details of the case.
The true crime genre cannot escape the reality that its consumers derive some satisfaction and produce monetary profit from heinous crimes. However, at its core, true crime reports crimes to the public just as any other news source reports stories. The fact that some derive enjoyment from or make money from such stories does not automatically make the reporting of such stories unethical. However, given the horrific nature of the crimes covered, true crime consumers and producers have unique responsibilities. The moment true crime media promotes harm to victims, encourages future criminals or ceases to serve any benefit to those impacted, is the moment true crime becomes the immoral vice it is so often claimed to be.
Caroline Kelly is a member of the Class of 2028 in the College of Arts and Sciences. She is a contributor for the Arts & Culture department and can be reached at ckelly@cornellsun.com.
