The Ethics of "Couch Reporters"

Who gives you the fucking right, and who doesn't?

First, I have to extend an apology to Sam Rose, for I realize it’s poor social etiquette to respond to a comment with an essay. There’s just no simple way to answer this question. I’ll even go so far as to say, before even beginning to write this - we won’t have an answer by the end. So let’s waste some time pondering the ethics of True Crime media, specifically social media, even more specifically user made/independent/individual media. “Couch reporters.”

We have to first establish a general understanding of the history of True Crime, and how this genre grew. True Crime, as a genre, has its roots in humanity's fascination with frankly, the sensationalization of crime… and, I guess justice, too. This dates back centuries.

Early Beginnings

• 16th-17th Centuries: The earliest forms of true crime appeared in pamphlets and broadsides in Europe, detailing murders, executions, and trials. These cheap and widely circulated publications often combined moral lessons with violent warnings (propaganda, tbh).

• 18th Century: As literacy rates rose, newspapers began featuring crime reports more prominently. Publications like The Newgate Calendar (also referred to as the “Bloody Register”) in England chronicled the lives and crimes of notorious criminals.

19th Century

• Victorian Sensation: True crime grew in popularity with books and serialized accounts of famous cases like Jack the Ripper. These stories captured public imagination and often reflected societal fears about urbanization and crime. Keep this in mind, we will return here in a moment.

• Dime Novels: In the U.S., crime stories were popularized through cheap paperback novels, blending fact and fiction to dramatize criminal cases.

20th Century

• Radio and Magazines: Radio brought true crime into homes with dramatized accounts, scripted shows — while pulp magazines like True Detective (1924) started to come on the scene. If you’re wondering, yes, this was the inspiration for the later HBO series, True Detective, and the magazine was also played on the radio in transcribed form.

• Nonfiction Books: In the 1960s, Truman Capote's In Cold Blood (1966) revolutionized the genre by blending literary narrative techniques with real events. It set a standard for modern true crime writing. “Capote’s work, published in 1966, advanced what was described by fellow author Tom Wolfe as the New Journalism, combining elements of fiction writing and fact together.”¹

• Television: The 1980s and 1990s saw a boom in true crime TV shows like Unsolved Mysteries and America’s Most Wanted, which combined crime reporting with reenactments to draw in audiences.

21st Century

• Podcasts and Streaming: True crime truly exploded with the rise of podcasts (e.g., Serial) and streaming documentaries (e.g., Making a Murderer). These formats allowed for in-depth storytelling and fostered community discussions. With the coinciding rise of Social Media, this allowed community discussions to sudden be taking place on a global level. Combine that with the rise of “influencers”, you have the birth of “couch reporting.”

---

That brings us up to speed of where we are today, but I’m not ready to start questioning the ethics of today’s True Crime, I think it’s import important we not only lay out the how we got here, but let’s ask ourselves, why? Going all the way back to our earliest examples of True Crime media, which we saw through pamphlets, these I pointed out (cheekily), can be (and I believe should be) interpreted as propaganda. They weren't just about recounting events; they served specific social and political purposes, often reinforcing the dominant power structures of the time. If we break it down:

“Moral Lessons” as Social Control

• The "moral lessons" were often warnings meant to enforce compliance with societal norms. For example:

  • Highlighting the downfall of criminals as a cautionary tale of what could happen to you, if you don’t stay in line.

  • Promoting the idea that justice (as defined by those in power) was swift and inescapable, thus legitimizing harsh punishments like public executions.

Fear-Mongering

• These pamphlets preyed on fear to control behavior, framing marginalized groups of people, as threats.

  • Class bias: Criminals were often depicted as poor or working-class, reinforcing harmful stereotypes that poverty was linked to moral failure and crime.

  • Gendered narratives: Women accused of crimes were frequently portrayed as either wicked temptresses or victims of their own "weak" nature, perpetuating patriarchal norms. We see can see examples of this in other points of history, biggest example coming to mind at the moment being the Salem witch trials.

Reinforcing Authority to Enforce Compliance

• Pamphlets glorified the power and justice of the ruling class, presenting courts and monarchs as protectors and saviors.

• They helped shape public perception of justice systems, even when those systems were deeply inequitable, and even when those systems worked against their own best interests. Goal = Blind faith.

Dehumanization as Entertainment

• While ostensibly moral, these stories dehumanized the accused and the executed, reducing them to villains or objects of spectacle. Public executions, depicted in vivid detail, became a form of grotesque entertainment.

• The violence was normalized and commodified, drawing people in through shock and gore. This only became more normalized in our society, and now you can watch car crash videos for fun while not thinking of where the urge comes from.

Racial and Religious Propaganda

• In periods of religious conflict, broadsides targeted individuals from opposing faiths (e.g., Catholics vs. Protestants), using crime stories to stoke division.

• During early colonization, these publications often demonized indigenous peoples or enslaved individuals, framing them as savage or inherently criminal to justify imperialism and slavery.

---

So let’s elaborate there as well. Remember when I asked you to put a pin in it back when we were talking about the Victorian era? Did it make you feel weird when you read the words “These stories captured public imagination and often reflected societal fears about urbanization and crime,” because it made me feel weird to write them, knowing what I’m really writing is, “yeah… so once, again… this is mostly rooted in racism, classism, sexism, and upheld by, you guessed it… the patriarchy.”

So let’s use the 19th Century as an example here, and take a look at what was truly motivating the sudden public paranoia, thus creating a demand for serialized True Crime media:

Racism

• "Othering" and Scapegoating: Crimes were often sensationalized with a focus on "foreign" or "exotic" suspects, reinforcing xenophobic fears. In the Jack the Ripper case, for instance, suspicion frequently fell on Jewish immigrants in London’s Whitechapel district, feeding into antisemitic prejudices.

• Imperialist Narratives: True crime stories sometimes tied criminal behavior to racial stereotypes, using crime as a lens to justify colonial ideologies and the supposed superiority of white, British culture.

Classism

• Demonizing the Poor: Crime stories frequently depicted impoverished areas and working-class individuals as inherently criminal. Whitechapel itself was portrayed as a "den of vice," and the systemic conditions that led to poverty and crime were ignored in favor of moralizing narratives.

• Victim-Blaming: Women, particularly sex workers, were often painted as disgraced women, and thus partly, if not entirely responsible for their fate. This dehumanization both sensationalized their deaths and absolved societal systems of accountability.

Media's Role

• Sensationalist reporting stoked fear of urbanization, presenting growing cities as chaotic and lawless, with crime supposedly emanating from marginalized communities.

• By focusing on the "evil" of individuals from specific racial or class backgrounds, media narratives diverted attention from structural issues like economic disparity, lack of housing, or abuse by law enforcement on these very people.

Lasting Impacts

These biases in Victorian-era True Crime stories laid the groundwork for how crime is often racialized and classed in media to this day, perpetuating stereotypes that disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Recognizing these dynamics is key to understanding both the historical context of the genre and the ongoing need for “ethical” storytelling in true crime media.

---

These examples, of this one small part of human history, are by no means the only examples of how racism, and other forms of prejudice, created a demand, and shaped True Crime as a genre. We can even continue to find stark evidence of this in recent history. We label the turn of the 20th Century as the beginnings of “The Progressive Era”, only to be able to look back and identify a focus on eugenics and the illustration of our cultural stereotypes of “who are criminal types?" Pseudoscientific ideas about race and crime flourished during this time. Crime reporting often categorized racial and ethnic groups as biologically predisposed to criminality, particularly targeting immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as Black and Asian communities.

So, we can agree, right? This shit doesn't have the best track record when we really break it down. Now we have to explore if this type of media, today, is “ethical”. The word itself, ethical, is loaded because it carries complex, subjective, and often conflicting connotations that vary based on cultural, personal, and societal contexts. In dictionary terms, it means “relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.” So “morals,” those things - right and wrong, basically, right?

We could spin off here into a whole other, philosophical conversation on “right and wrong” - Does it exist? Who gets to choose? Does it evolve? Will God forgive me for my sins? To keep, me mostly, on track - let’s look at the arguments one may make for why their True Crime content, is not unethical. These people are made up.

The Advocate for Justice

Name: Sarah
Platform: YouTube
Perspective: "I amplify the voices of the unheard."

"I focus on cases involving marginalized victims whose stories are often ignored by mainstream media. Many of these victims - Black women, Indigenous women, LGBTQ+ people, are swept under the rug, and their families are left with no answers. By creating content, I shine a spotlight on these cases and encourage my audience to share, donate, and advocate for justice.

I’m careful to frame my content respectfully. I avoid sensationalizing violence and always prioritize the family’s wishes. I fact-check my research rigorously and include resources where my viewers can learn more or help. I believe true crime can be a tool for social change when it’s approached with care and empathy. I’m not just telling a story; I’m fighting for justice."

The Educator

Name: Alex
Platform: TikTok and Instagram Reels
Perspective: "I educate people about criminal psychology and societal issues."

"My content isn’t about glorifying crime or violence, it’s about understanding why these things happen. I focus on the psychology behind the crimes, the systemic factors that contribute to them, and how societies can work toward prevention.

I see true crime as a gateway for learning. When people are curious about these cases, I use that curiosity to introduce discussions about mental health, important criticism of law enforcement, and the legal system. For example, I’ve done deep dives into how socioeconomic conditions affect crime rates and how biases impact investigations.

I don’t include graphic images or unnecessary details, and I always warn viewers about sensitive topics. My goal is to inform, not to exploit, and I hope to inspire critical thinking rather than blind consumption of tragedy."

The Storyteller

Name: Jamie
Platform: Podcasts
Perspective: "I tell stories that connect us to our humanity."

"True crime stories are inherently about people. Their lives, their choices, their humanity. When I tell these stories, I aim to humanize everyone involved, victims, perpetrators, even bystanders, because understanding their experiences can teach us about ourselves and our world.

I approach my work with sensitivity. I always research how to responsibly share these stories, especially when the victims’ families are still grieving. I make it clear that my content is not about gawking at tragedy; it’s about creating a space for empathy and reflection.

Storytelling is one of the oldest ways we make sense of the world, and True Crime is no different. I believe that when done thoughtfully, this genre can build compassion and help us see the shared threads of humanity, even in the darkest stories."

Now, let’s look at it from the other angle. Despite what these seemingly lovely folks have to say, why might their content still be “unethical?” While these creators may have good intentions, their work still falls into ethical gray areas that are hard to ignore. True Crime content inherently commodifies tragedy, turning real people’s pain into entertainment for an audience, no matter how "respectfully" it’s done. Even with disclaimers or efforts to center marginalized voices, these stories are often framed and dramatized to maximize engagement, which can distort facts and reduce complex, traumatic events to digestible narratives. This risks exploiting victims and their families, particularly when creators profit from ad revenue, sponsorships, or merchandise tied to these cases. Additionally, the very act of revisiting these stories can retraumatize victims’ families or communities, especially when creators speak on cases without explicit consent or involvement from those affected. Even educational content can cross a line, as it risks normalizing violence or creating voyeuristic curiosity rather than meaningful action. The imbalance of power—creators profiting from content that hinges on others’ suffering—underscores the exploitative nature of the genre, no matter how ethically creators try to frame their approach.

Something I fear we must also discuss, however, is another (and more recent) argument - I’d like to call it… Journalismgate. Criticizing true crime creators as inherently unethical can veer into gatekeeping journalism by enforcing rigid, elitist/classist standards about who is "allowed" to tell stories about crime. Traditional media outlets and professional journalists have long profited from sensationalizing crime, often with similar biases and exploitative tendencies, yet they are rarely scrutinized to the same extent as independent creators. By holding content creators to a higher moral standard, critics risk reinforcing the idea that only credentialed professionals with institutional backing can report on these stories. This dismisses the value of democratized storytelling, where marginalized voices and independent creators often bring fresh perspectives, highlight overlooked cases, or challenge systemic injustices in ways that mainstream outlets often fail to do. It also ignores the reality that journalism itself is not free from sensationalism, bias, or profit motives. Condemning creators outright can stifle innovation and exclude those who may have valuable, critical contributions to make outside traditional media frameworks, perpetuating a narrow and exclusive view of who gets to participate in public discourse about crime and justice. Personally, in all of this - this is my favorite part. The very thing created to keep people in line, now a threat to the people who society views as having been kept in line (followed traditional career paths, succumbed to capitalism), the people who are supposed to tell our stories because they are under the control of the system. Fuck, now we’re starting to see good in it?

If you’re like me, it’s not that simple. Sure, the powers that be and have always been created a cultural sensation to maintain an already existing culture of fear and oppression. And sure, in some ways it has bitten them in the ass. But has it really? Because does it matter who keeps the culture alive? Does any of it really matter now that we understand why? So, what do you think? Is it ethical?

1. (source) https://daily.jstor.org/how-truman-capote-advanced-the-new-journalism/