The Paradox of Reporting on a Serial Killer
When Netflix released the documentary “Don’t F**k with Cats,” people went crazy. Nearly every entertainment magazine and website released an article talking about what went wrong with the production and the way the documentary was presented to the audience.
Now, there have been a lot of films made on serial killers like ‘The Zodiac’, ‘Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile’ and ‘Dahmer’. All of these films focus on not just the crimes but the kind of attention these crimes bring. Like Luka Magnotta in ‘Don’t F**k with Cats’, most of these people commit these acts for notoriety and the scariest thing is, we do exactly that. If people are talking about you, it doesn’t matter whether they are praising or insulting you.
Now, two questions arise, why do serial killers go after notoriety? And if they want notoriety, how do we report on them?
While there is no clear answer for the first one, reading multiple sources only revealed that serial killers enjoy just that. They enjoy the fact that people are giving them the attention they think they deserve. The innate need to prove to people that they have outsmarted their pursuers manifests in them. The cat and mouse chase thrill eventually dies out and so to get more attention they commit more murders. The idea of finally getting caught and be known for their crimes adds to their high. Many of these serial killers choose their monikers for themselves. Some of them even called up law enforcement to inform them about it, while others spend time and effort to leave an artistic piece for law enforcement when they arrive at the crime scene. What is interesting is that so many of these killers use a variety of names or symbols associated with the evilly inclined; the pentagram being one of them.
Now, I’m sure some of you are intrigued about these killers, wondering who these people are, what happened to them and in some odd way, you’re curious about their methods and their charm. Charm and appeal come easy to those who don’t conform because they become the centre of attention; again, it doesn’t have to be good. Maybe their non-conformity draws us towards their narrative. This is where it gets tricky. Our interest in these cases fuels their fire. The press needs to report and inform the public, but at what cost?
One of these killers declared to their victim that they were the ones the newspapers and magazines are reporting about. Another specifically asked the newspapers to print the clue they left behind for everyone to decipher. We, as media practitioners, become part of the problem. What other choice do we have? It is out of the question to not report on these but it is also important to issue a disclaimer saying, “Please do not glorify these killers, you are giving them exactly what they want.” It’s so funny because after a disclaimer is issued, people become more interested in reading and knowing what’s happening. Technically, me writing this article is like blasting a loudspeaker in your ear and saying, “Please google what happened to these people, guys!” But was it important for you to know? Sure, this paradox is something we have to tackle at some point.
With OTT platforms making original content and openly supporting the creation of this kind of narrative, where do we draw the line? Do we sensationalize it for everyone to read and make money off of because these stories sell? Or do we stick to the ethical constraints and share the information as methodical as possible? I think that’s for us to decide, as consumers and as avid media practitioners.
(I have tried my best not to mention any names to avoid said sensationalism that will drive you to scour the internet.)
