Since I’ll be focusing my final project on the remediation of true crime stories into podcasts and onto streaming services, I’m going to use this blog post to collect at least some of my thoughts.
I think it’s safe to say the true crime genre has existed for as long as crime has. Likely, it started orally, as rhetoric in general did, as one person passed along to another the horrible details of startling crime. In printed form, there is evidence of true crime pamphlets and newspapers distributed in Europe as early as the 16th century (Tinker), though mainly for those who were literate and could afford to pay for the “thrill.”. According to Rebecca Frost, “The first evidence of a published crime narrative is a 1674 execution sermon that would have been preached to the community in which a condemned criminal lived, directly prior to his being hanged” (Brewin 136). And Tinker cites Benjamin Franklin as the first author of a true crime article published in the United States: “The Murder of a Daughter”. Regardless of whose publication was “first” there certainly has been no “last,” and the genre has only gained momentum through the centuries. And now we find ourselves in a binge-culture wherein one only has to browse titles to find an array of true crime stories so expansive you find yourself wondering how there is anyone left who hasn’t been murdered.
While theories abound as to why there is such an audience for true crime, I’m interested in what the remediated genre does–or what it is prompting its audience to do, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Let me also stress that the sliver of the true crime genre on which I’m focusing does not include the marathons of hour-long selections found on the Identification Discovery network, or podcast episodes that finish the story of a murder in a 45-60 minute timeframe. For the most part, those formats simply seek to shock or titillate through lurid details and sensationalized crimes, often, at least as I see it, at the expense of a victim who becomes a prop or a means to and end; her (because it usually is) life is only worth discussing because it ended with blood and screams and terror. The focus of my investigation is on the multi-episodic podcasts or streamed docuseries’ that are more comprehensive in scope (though they may emphasize a specific element: victim, perpetrator,justice system); consider as examples, Netlix’ “When They See Us,” “The Making of a Murderer,” and “The Ted Bundy Tapes”, and This American Life’s podcast “Serial.”
Remediating these stories–from the actual crimes to print in various forms–to digital platforms, has effected change in the true-crime the audience. Viewers and listeners have become not just consumers, but participants in extending the effects of these crimes, reflecting, at least conceptually, the active roles of readers engaging with Barthes’ “writerly text.” In some cases, this participation has led to unseemly or undesirable consequences. Take, for example, Netflix having to scold the Twitterverse women who were crushing on “hot” Ted Bundy, and reminding these starry-eyed fans that Bundy was a cold-blooded murderer. Or the residents of Manitowoc County in Minnesota whose town has been reduced to the site of a crime often toured by looky-loos who don’t seem to care that actual people are just trying to live their lives there. Then, there’s the more remarkable effect of crowdsourced justice. The response to “When They See Us,” Ava Duvernay’s retelling of the story of the Central Park Five, prompted such outcry that the prosecutors involved in the case experienced serious professional repercussions. The “Serial” podcast turned Syed’s case into “a national conversation” and “led to new court proceedings” for convicted murderer Adnan Syed. (Zraick). In the last two cases, it’s almost as if true crime became an ARG without the “A.”
While the reasons for these intense and at times far-reaching audience reactions likely have roots in psychology and sociology, there are layers of explanation to be found in theories of digital rhetoric, with specific focuses on remediation and the logic of hypermedia, and in the role of “reader” as intriguee, as defined by Punday.
Frost, Rebecca. “IDENTITY AND RITUAL: THE AMERICAN CONSUMPTION OF TRUE CRIME.” Open Access Dissertation, Michigan Technological University, 2015.
https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etdr/17
Tinker, Rachel. “Guilty Pleasure: A Case Study of True Crime’s Resurgence in a Binge Consumption Era.” Elon University
https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/communications/journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/153/2018/05/09_Tinker.pdf
Zraick, Karen. “‘Serial’ Podcast Case Is Declined by Supreme Court.” The New York Times, 25 Nov. 2019
So interesting, thanks! I am actually finishing up Serial with my class of 11th graders now and they are so much invested in his story than if we had simply done traditional about his case. I have really been struggling with what to do for a final project for this class, and I think you have inspired me!
That’s great to hear! Thanks for telling me– Serial really got some squeaky criminal justice wheels turning again. Syed’s fate isn’t changed thus far, but after others followed suit, lives have been changed.
I am very interested to see what you do with your final project! I think Punday and intrigue would definitely be a fascinating tie-in. Although we haven’t assigned any affect theory in the class per se, I could also see some interesting work being done with that and the true crime community as an audience. There is emotional connection (which gets very strange in the case of attachments) but there is also the detective work done by viewers vicariously, which is quite ARG-like.
I have some other thoughts about the Central Park 5 case–I will post these in BB for privacy concerns.
Hi Allison, I’m really excited to see how your final project turns out! I, like many others, watched Tiger King during this period of self isolation. I don’t normally watch true crime, but god did that suck me in. Your argument that “viewers and listeners have become not just consumers, but participants in extending the effects of these crimes, reflecting, at least conceptually, the active roles of readers engaging with Barthes’ ‘writerly text'” is incredibly compelling. One only needs to look at the Carole Baskin killed her husband memes–which, frankly, are everywhere–to see how the audience is participating in the consequences of the crime, even long after the crime has been committed. The case that looks into her husband’s murder has been reopened, proving that both the audience and the docuseries affect change. Your blog on true crime this week really helped me tie my thoughts on remediation together, so thank you!
I listened to the Tiger King podcast a few months ago just because it was “next.” As you now know, it was just utterly bizarre–as a result I haven’t been able to bring myself to watch the series. Joe Exotic just grossed me out too much I think! But–I didn’t know they had reopened the case into Baskin’s husband’s murder–you’ve given me more fodder for my project so thanks! I wonder if we will ever learn the truth. And I wonder if she regrets her participation in the podcast/series.