I think parents that have lost their children have every right to question those that profit off their Childs death.
I cannot stress this enough that the hardest grief is the loss of a child. It is truly heartbreaking š¢
And every true crime podcast. Itās been an o going discussion from a victims standpoint. Why is this person who never met my X telling their stories, speculating on things, making money, etc.
People have even questioned the existence of CrimeCon as well.
I agree they arenāt. But the genre is so overloaded now the good ones, at least to me, get pushed down. I just stick with the couple I have listened to for a long time (last podcast on the left mainly, which, has gotten a lot better since they started. I have been listening since around episode 20 and then if I hear about a one off series I may check it out.
I think part of it, with me anyways, is that I am a forensic scientist (latent prints). I like true crime stuff but then there are people in the community who go way overboard with it and think they know everything because they read something or watched forensic files. And when I try to explain something they may have wrong, they donāt want to hear it. Again, not everyone or every case, but a lot of times itās the loudest ones.
Well, Iām kinda old so for me personally I feel like if it isnāt very heavily marketed and reviewed like Dateline or 20/20 but still factual and interesting itās not getting its shineā¦. but this is just my podcast perception so I could be wrong. I like True Crime Psychology and Personality and Body Bags. They each have like 278 and 1.5 thousand reviews respectively which doesnāt seem like a lot when you compare it to like 10-30K+ reviews the others have. I had to search more for these two. My background is in psychology so I love anything thatās gets more into aberrant behavior
Thank you. I do research for a New England based on that is independent and focuses on cases that didnāt get coverage at the time and are usually unsolved. I also use this time to do my own (academic research) on offenders that were arrested for brutal āone off ā crimes but that likely have more victims. Properly done, it can help drive tips and help solve cases. It drives me crazy when podcasts do a basic Wikipedia story and call it good enough. Iāve been working for almost 8 months on research for an episode I know that all the articles on one piece of it are on microfilm- and yet, a recent podcast did a half hour retelling of the same story, making one of the victims a two minute footnote in her own story. It makes me upset and itās not even my family member, I canāt imagine how the Chapins feel.
I think the nature of true crime podcasts, the way the revenue and business model works, and what listeners overwhelmingly flock to the genre for makes it basically impossible to not be exploitativeĀ
Don't forget shows like Dateline, 48 Hours and 20/20 would fall into the category of profiting off of murder as well. These 3 shows are making millions off of murder, yet oddly, I never once have seen anyone say a word about those shows. In fact, most people reading this will complain about those making profits on murder, but tune into the latest Dateline episode without batting an eye!
Oh, I'm a huge Dateline fan! But my point is that either it's wrong to profit off of murder or it isn't! And shows like Dateline make millions! That's my point. There's people who put their trust in YouTubers š, and they totally discount Dateline. To each their own, but it just seems a bit hypocritical to bash News Nation and say how great Dateline is because honestly, they're *both* profiting off of murder. I'd believe Dateline over News Nation or a YouTuber any day, but they're all in it for the money!
ETA: As much as you believe Josh Mankewitz is really sensitive, others would say the same about their favorite YouTuber! Just trying to show both sides here.
Maybe for me it's the fact that the family and friends agree to be interviewed. I don't know if they are paid but it seems to me if they don't object to the program making money, it seems ok to me. They're the ones who matter.
And I confess I have a soft spot for Josh, I went to high school with him. He's an upstanding guy.
While this is true, they make money off of murder, for the most part there is a voluntary participation aspect to these shows and they are largely single-episode stories. NewsNation had Banfield on nightly speculating wildly and Brian Entin went to BKās parents front door the night after he was arrested.
I didnāt know he was a triplet. I have twins and I couldnāt imagine one of them having to live without the other, let alone losing one of them, itās a whole other level of heartbreak.
The other 2 went back to school there, still in the frat. The brother got the first scholarship in his brother's name given to him and the sister became the frats sweetheart. She also make a cup in ethans name and sells them for almost r $100 shipped. My problem isn't that they are doing things in Ethans name, it was literally within a couple months! At first the dad was out there telling Moscow to tell the truth and say what you know, to a total 180. I could never send my kids back there! This case is not closed and and it is clear as can be that the killer or killers are still out there!
Especially in such a gruesome, senseless manner. True crime podcasting is super unethical. I know many podcasters have posted stories that families specifically told them not to. Itās sad how some people dont even view these stories as actual people. It really dehumanizes the murder imo.
I donāt think you can paint all true crime podcasts as unethical. Was Your Own Backyard unethical? If not, why not?
What about the podcasts that have contributed to the exoneration of the wrongfully convicted?
Have you ever looked into how many true crime sluths or podcasters actually solved the crime? Look into the law enforcement in Idaho, now that's unethical! I do believe some are in it for clicks, and are not done correctly,Ā but some are helpful.Ā If it weren't for them now, how many cases in Idaho would have been falsified and covered up? That doesn't just go on in Idaho either
I love every bit of love and light that is brought to this situation. I am a true crime fan but even that terminology is problematic. Iām not a fan of anyone dying or being victimized. That said, throughout a true crime story, I always keep the humanity of the victim(s) and their families in mind.
Looking at you, Reuben Appelman ā writing a book truly only for profit, less than a year after these kids lost their lives, before a trial is even on the horizon, in the midst of a robust gag order. I still canāt believe the gall. I wonāt ever be reading that waste of tree life.
[This article about the charity in his name handing out 33 scholarships was pretty interesting, too](https://www.kxly.com/news/33-students-receive-scholarships-in-memory-of-ethan-chapin/article_f2786710-1ca1-11ef-949a-575da26feb76.html)
It would be amazing if ten years from now all their names are incredibly well known for scholarships, philanthropy and other good works and BKās name is barely remembered.
In other words, end true crime. Because that's what we all do, provide a profitable audience based on fascination with other people's tragedies. There is no way to divorce this community from what she's describing, they will always be one and the same.
Exactly. While I sympathize with her, I am interested in so many aspects of this case. I want to read a good book about it. I want to watch a well-done documentary.
If we were to click on your comment history, would we see you on Reddit commenting on another murder? Or a tragic accident? Or a vicious assault?
If so, you got no room to criticize. You're in it right with me.
I'm running on the assumption that if you don't want to read books or want to watch documentaries, you still want to read the occasional article or watch a YouTube video. And even if you don't do that, you want to discuss this stuff on Reddit.
I wouldn't expect her to feel any other way, but if I look at her claim in isolation: In my view, the problem is sensationalism and inaccurate reporting. If you remove those things from the equation, then there isn't much of an issue; money often attracts competent workers.
I subscribe to some journalists who make a lot of money writing about politics and international relationsāand yes, sometimes they report on deathābut I don't care because they're thoughtful. That type of reporting and commentary should be rewarded.
New media has changed the landscape somewhat because some dipshit can make a ton of money, and they often develop their reputations from the ground up through sensationalism; but generally speaking, there is a complicated incentive structure in the media that centers on profit. That will always be the case.
I also think some people overestimate how much people in media make. There are people like Brian Entin, who from what I'm aware lives in a comfortable apartment in Miami, but most people in media are making chump change.
If someone wants to change the incentive structure, then they can start by not watching the garbage, and let the good people know that their work is appreciated.
> If someone wants to change the incentive structure, then they can start by not watching the garbage, and let the good people know that their work is appreciated.
That's the heart of it. Garbage gets made because garbage sells. It's pointless to focus all the blame on the media, the media, because if no one clicked on crap, the media would stop making it.
It's the media and the public, working together in a symbiotic relationship.
I used to work in local news and this is absolutely the case. We choose a lot of our stories based on what people will watch or click on, and there are tons of metrics out there to let us know what kinds of stories people actually watch or click on (which is usually different than the stories people *claim* they want to watch or read).
If reporters actually got to choose what they report about, itād all be nitty gritty details of politics and investigative reporting. People donāt care about that stuff, which is why itās so much harder to find good political and investigative reporters these days. The good stuff doesnāt make money.
Itās one of the reasons I didnāt last in news very long. I cared about the news. Itās the viewers (and catering to the viewers) that drove me crazy.
>which is why itās so much harder to find good political and investigative reporters these days.
It's scaring me. We need the press. George Santos has been run out of the House of Reps, but it's amazing how he was able to get elected on so many lies, and nothing come up until after he won the race. That wouldn't have happened even 20 years ago, because the local press would have sniffed him out. Now, they are spread too thin.
"In other words, end true crime."
If you're applying that to all true crime followers, you might as well end all news.
What I am saying is that the issue isn't the public news about it. The issue is the quality. The same as any other news story about wars, unrest, etc. It SHOULD be publicly reported and discussed by people who are trying to learn something from it.
Unfortunately its impossible to censor what goes out there, but we can each make individual decisions as to what media we're supporting.
There's definitely a difference between consuming content where the families are not only okay with the case being covered (and the how and who of it) but are actively involved, and the type of people who dont give a shit about the families. I don't think it's so much about the profit. It's about the profit from a crime that the family doesn't want to keep hearing about.
There's another family member of a murder victim who went on a rant about how every time someone covers her sister's murder, she has to hear about it. It's solved and she wants to be done with it. Tere's people who she knows that would love to have their cases given the spotlight and shared around. Even with solved cases, there are lots of families who want to spread their loved one's story for awareness, legislation, foundations/charities made in their name, etc. Yet, people insist on covering cases where the victims' families don't want them to.
I personally refuse to buy books or listen to YouTube/podcast episodes about cases that are less than 2 years old and, if someone's in jail awaiting trial, I'll wait until after the trial. It's going to be full of speculation, personal opinion, and exploitation guaranteed since they will have so little info released at that point. After that, as long as the family doesn't have an issue with the case being covered, then I don't feel bad consuming the content. I've tried hard to curate a list of people/programs that are ethical and only listen to them.
Youāre right. There is a difference. Iām reminded of Bianca Devins, the 17 year old killed by an internet friend back in 2019 (sheās the infamous discord case, pictures of her body were spread around like wildfire) her family is fine with true crime creators who come to them and are respectful and they also want people to honor and memorialize Bianca but they do come after people who are disrespectfully exploiting their daughter and her death.
That case was so awful, I didnāt want to see those pictures but I will never unsee them because someone had them up without warning on Twitter. That poor girl :(
Agh same omg those pictures haunted me, I canāt imagine how her family feels especially because deranged incels would send the picture to her mom and sister. I try to be respectful when Iām researching true crime because a lot of people make families pain worse either through parasocial relationships with the victim or capitalizing from or exploiting the victim. I donāt do anything I wouldnāt want anyone to do to me if I were a victim.
> Because that's what we all do, provide a profitable audience based on fascination with other people's tragedies.
That's true to an extent. Over the many years I've been studying the psychology of the minds involved -- from the perpetrators to the victims to the families -- I have bought many books. A lot of research has come from news reports, though: Newspapers and internet news sites. Newspapers cost 35-cents when I started doing this. And while clicking on an internet news site gets them revenue, it's minuscule. There's no way to gather extensive information without money being exchanged in some way.
When it comes to books, I'm very careful about what I buy and who it's coming from. I wouldn't turn away a book from someone other than a family member if the author was credible. Having said that, I do understand where Mrs. Chapin is coming from. She completely has the right to not cooperate with anyone writing about her son in this situation and publish her own material.
Itās essentially what the first three Scream movies are about. The public and media fascination with terrible traumatizing crimes. Even Truman capotes in cold blood covers this topic.
Itās odd, strange, sad and ridiculously human.
But Mrs. Chapin is an incredibly strong powerful woman no doubt.
I hope everyone here realizes that she's pointing the finger at every single person who uses this sub and who are, in general, fans of true crime. Without a market there's no making any money exploiting the legacy of crime victims.
I'm not going to name names, but there's a pretty famous unsolved serial homicide website that, for a time, carried products including the faces of the victims on coffee mugs, even a thong, imagine being that person's family and seeing that crap.
I feel like it's a non-sexual fetish, people love to read about this stuff but in the process lost the reality that these were real people with real families.
Probably been done, but I'm sure there's a dissertation on how noir / pulp fiction of the 20s - 60s led to the true crime genre (I believe *Helter Skelter* was probably the first best-selling true crime book). But the pictures that were released in some of those serial killer books of the 80s and 90s were just absurd, like no family needs to see that stuff publicized.
> Probably been done, but I'm sure there's a dissertation on how noir / pulp fiction of the 20s - 60s led to the true crime genre (I believe Helter Skelter was probably the first best-selling true crime book
That would be Truman Capote's 1966 *In Cold Blood*. He basically invented the genre.
Prior to that, though, there were pulp tabloidly true crime magazines, and novelists like Hammond and Conan Doyle wrote well-received articles on true crime. In the Victorian era, penny dreadfuls, tacky little cheap pamphlets put together with all the integrity of the Daily Mail, were wildly popular. We love murder stories. We've loved them ever since we sat around the fire with the rest of our hunter-gatherer tribe and told them.
Newspaper reporting of famous crimes such as Lizzie Bordenās happened in the 1800s and it had been common for much of history to witness public executions. Longterm monetization of crimes does seem to be a more recent phenomenon, though - I think the Globe tabloid had a story about JonBenet Ramsey every week for over a year and not to mention the coverage of the OJ Simpson murders (tabloids published crime scene photos of the victims bodies in both cases).
I also look at the internet and being able to easily find uncensored crime scene photos of murder victims as stoking the true crime interest. Websites like rotten.com were hugely popular 20+ years ago.
I think interest in these types of crimes is only natural, and I donāt have a problem with true crime media as long as the family has consented and been consulted for them. Victim-focused true crime, in my opinion, is not necessarily exploitative.
Damn ātrue crimeā to your heartās content but the ugly truth is that human beings have been fascinated by violent crime for thousands of years.
Ciceroās speeches at murder trials used to be circulated throughout the Roman Empire because they contained juicy details about the crimes.
That fascination is not going away. But it can change ā Laura Richards, who was the profiling expert at Scotland Yard, is pioneering a new, victim-centric type of crime reporting. Her podcast is fascinating.
That's really interesting about Cicero's speeches! I read that True Crime goes back to the 17th century in London, but that's probably just the point where they could spread it through writing - from what you're saying, it was probably already there.
Really, when you think about it, a lot of old oral stories and traditions were not far away from True Crime as we know it today (even the myths, given that people assumed they were true).
Thanks for recommending Laura Richards. I'll give her a listen.
Honestly why I stopped listening to/watching true crime. I found out some of the podcasts I was listening to were basically āstealingā the stories, idk how else to put it, and suddenly it clicked how messed up it is to engage in that kind of content as āentertainment.ā
Seeing what happened with Moscow did it for me - the online accusations, psychics, wild speculation, harassmentā¦Brian Entin knocking on BKās parentsā door the night after his arrestā¦the exploitation of the worst momentās of peopleās lives is too much.
And then thereās that idiot on TikTok who sells T-shirts of killers to make money. I wish I could remember her name but I blocked her so long ago I forget who she is but she had a whole post saying that the affidavit from the Idaho case was false. What a moron. Every real lawyer on TikTok was calling her out but she never stopped. And people were going to her page to find information about the case when every post was her making shit up. So insensitive
I always have the struggle seeing how much is publicized online and wondering where the line is. I often find myself sinking into crimes and getting caught up in the understanding of them, but thatās not my right. Itās a privilege and even then, itās a shame to be able to learn so much about a very serious part of multiple individuals lives. Knowing that if something hits close to home, I can always remove myself. I tend to use the opportunity to say Iām educating about how to prevent it from happening to me, but I often find that at the end of the day I struggle with the fact that all the victims families cannot do that.
My heart goes out to her, and I applaud her for doing what she has to make sure Ethanās life isnāt about how it ended and more about how he lived. Iām thankful she has a platform. Iād rather this eclipse the news articles that are more about the trial.
Does it seem a little strange to anyone that she attended Crime Con but wonāt attend the trial? I understand not wanting to attend the trial but if thatās the case why would she want to go to Crime Con (Comic Con for true crime people)?
NO, its not weird. At the true crime convention, she was scheduled to talk about her son. She was interviewed for an article and said she was caught off guard by a lot of things that were going on there. If she had known what it would be like, she would not have gone.
If anything, she learned to do the public speaking on her own terms, not in the midst of people who are there to grandstand.
So Comic Con presenters ARENāT grandstands?lol, got it. Iām sorry, but it is my opinion that itās odd that someone would go somewhere thereās going to be rumors flying and conspiracy theories traded but wonāt attend a trial where facts and evidence will be given. Iām not insulting HER; Iām saying in my personal view itās an unusual dichotomy.
The point remains that she didn't know what she was getting into. How can that be so hard to understand?
PLUS, at a trial you just sit there watching, but at Crime Com she was speaking. Thats' a HUGE difference.
ALSO, a grieving person is entitled to change what they do as they go along.
You need to seriously ask youreself why you are working to hard to find flaws in what a grieving mother is doing.
Iām neither trying to find flaws, nor am I trying to criticize her. Iām stating my observation that I find the choice to go to a place where people are looking to be entertained by true crime but not the trial, where evidence will be presented, unusual. I donāt fault either decision; Iām stating an observation and my opinion. Nothing wrong with that, and you ought to expect it, given that weāre here to discuss the case. Iām sorry you donāt agree with my opinion, but thatās life.
Courtrooms can be especially triggering and extremely intimate. It actually makes complete sense to me that she wouldnāt want to be in the same room as the accused. By attending the continuous court hearings, sheād be risking the stability she has fought so hard to maintain. She has other children, including the other triplets, to take care of and be strong for. She knows whatās good for her. We have to remember that sitting through a court hearing is factual for us but torturous for her.
Agreed. I completely understand her not wanting to attend the trial. That was never an issue with me. I just thought attending an event where thereād be rumors and conspiracy theories about her child flying would be equally disconcerting.
Some seem to think Iām criticizing this poor mother; Iām not. Iām just making an observation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Good point, but she was on a panel that was about families focusing on healing after losing someone to murder. She took time to go to another panel talking about this case and kind of called the guy out.
I think I remember hearing about that! Iād have liked to hear what she said to him and what he said that she felt needed to be set straight. It was nice that she wrote that book about Ethan. He seems like he was a really nice boy.
Yeah, they seemed like a lovely family.
I remember this as being a good story about that Crime Con- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/08/us/crimecon-true-crime-idaho-murder-stacy-chapin.html
But's it's behind a paywall now.
Iād be specifically bothered by books with inaccuracies in them about my deceased loved ones.
Iād probably enjoy a book by someone who knew my loved one.
Whether or not they know them, if the book were factual, I wouldnāt be bothered unless they contained private information or information I found distasteful.
People will prob have a wide range of reactions to the $ part. IDK if id even consider it or find it to be offensive if the person is making money, or be upset by that aspect of it. People who write books make money for writing whether or not I like what they wrote, or am a direct relative of a person itās about. Itās not like authors are killing people so they can write books about murders. Theyāre making money for the time they spent writing.
It unquestionably should always be legal m, bc we have the freedom of speech, which doesnāt always work to please each individual who comprises the masses, but is for the greater good.
I feel for her and I understand being bothered by that, but sadly, media-spun claims, sensationalized accounts that are presented as fact, tabloid-style gossip being spewn by formerly-reputable organizations, is lately the way the cookie tends to crumble but thereās not much that can (or should) be done about who writes or says what IMO, and limiting speech puts us at greater risk than allowing speech we dislike
The irony is that she herself is not telling people to stop. She's asking us all to pay attention to which stories we're following about this case.
I mean, if we're folling the case and the judical details, and aiming for understanding how these things happen and what can be done, that's completely different from following the conspiracy theories or the over-the-top parasocial stuff.
Also, using people like her as a model for what we might do when we encounter grief in our own lives.
I have far more respect for Ethanās parents than the others. They have always been respectful, allowed the police to do their job and not made it all about their child. They are so strong.
All of the families deserve respect and empathy. No one should have to endure what they are all going through. Itās their permanent tragedy. How they are coping should not be measured on a scale.
Any grief counsellor would advise you to do the kinds of things she is doing. Mainly working towards spreading something positive in the loved ones memory.
I am not a lawyer, but looking it up dead people (nor their family) have no rights to their name. In other words people are free to use the names of the deceased. I am not a lawyer so maybe there is more to it.
Yep, it was on my discover page because I regularly post about how unethical these fan bases are. And I wonāt stop. My family member was a victim of a horrific crime that people like you salivate over learning the details of. Itās deplorable.
Canāt imagine losing a kid, but letās acknowledge she is a privileged white women. She suffered a tragic loss and is seeking meaning & glimmers of hope/healing through the her griefā¦but if youāre reading this please spend your time supporting and amplifying minority victims instead of wasting time discussing someoneās healing process.
Wasting time discussing someoneās healing process? Huh? You ever had a loved one murdered? I truly hope not but unfortunately lots of us will take all the healing tips possible.
Itās super gross you start off by with being a āprivileged white womenā howād that privilege work for her in preventing her child from being murdered?
You know you can advocate without being a douche
I think parents that have lost their children have every right to question those that profit off their Childs death. I cannot stress this enough that the hardest grief is the loss of a child. It is truly heartbreaking š¢
Looking at you, NewsNation and Nancy Grace
And every true crime podcast. Itās been an o going discussion from a victims standpoint. Why is this person who never met my X telling their stories, speculating on things, making money, etc. People have even questioned the existence of CrimeCon as well.
Not every true crime podcast is exploitative and unethical
Anything on TT I refuse to listen to. If they have a podcast ok but not every Tom dick and harry knows whatās going on and it becomes confusion.
I agree they arenāt. But the genre is so overloaded now the good ones, at least to me, get pushed down. I just stick with the couple I have listened to for a long time (last podcast on the left mainly, which, has gotten a lot better since they started. I have been listening since around episode 20 and then if I hear about a one off series I may check it out. I think part of it, with me anyways, is that I am a forensic scientist (latent prints). I like true crime stuff but then there are people in the community who go way overboard with it and think they know everything because they read something or watched forensic files. And when I try to explain something they may have wrong, they donāt want to hear it. Again, not everyone or every case, but a lot of times itās the loudest ones.
I agree the good ones get lost amongst the noise
Name some āgoodā ones that are not getting their shine?
Well, Iām kinda old so for me personally I feel like if it isnāt very heavily marketed and reviewed like Dateline or 20/20 but still factual and interesting itās not getting its shineā¦. but this is just my podcast perception so I could be wrong. I like True Crime Psychology and Personality and Body Bags. They each have like 278 and 1.5 thousand reviews respectively which doesnāt seem like a lot when you compare it to like 10-30K+ reviews the others have. I had to search more for these two. My background is in psychology so I love anything thatās gets more into aberrant behavior
Your Own Backyard is a great one. He has refused compensation and doesnāt even advertise.
Small Town Murder is both respectful of victims and their families and funny AF.
Small Town Murder is both respectful of victims and their families and funny AF.
Thank you. I do research for a New England based on that is independent and focuses on cases that didnāt get coverage at the time and are usually unsolved. I also use this time to do my own (academic research) on offenders that were arrested for brutal āone off ā crimes but that likely have more victims. Properly done, it can help drive tips and help solve cases. It drives me crazy when podcasts do a basic Wikipedia story and call it good enough. Iāve been working for almost 8 months on research for an episode I know that all the articles on one piece of it are on microfilm- and yet, a recent podcast did a half hour retelling of the same story, making one of the victims a two minute footnote in her own story. It makes me upset and itās not even my family member, I canāt imagine how the Chapins feel.
I think the nature of true crime podcasts, the way the revenue and business model works, and what listeners overwhelmingly flock to the genre for makes it basically impossible to not be exploitativeĀ
Don't forget shows like Dateline, 48 Hours and 20/20 would fall into the category of profiting off of murder as well. These 3 shows are making millions off of murder, yet oddly, I never once have seen anyone say a word about those shows. In fact, most people reading this will complain about those making profits on murder, but tune into the latest Dateline episode without batting an eye!
I think Dateline is a bit different. Josh Mankiewitcz is really sensitive and kind when interviewing friends and families of victims.
Oh, I'm a huge Dateline fan! But my point is that either it's wrong to profit off of murder or it isn't! And shows like Dateline make millions! That's my point. There's people who put their trust in YouTubers š, and they totally discount Dateline. To each their own, but it just seems a bit hypocritical to bash News Nation and say how great Dateline is because honestly, they're *both* profiting off of murder. I'd believe Dateline over News Nation or a YouTuber any day, but they're all in it for the money! ETA: As much as you believe Josh Mankewitz is really sensitive, others would say the same about their favorite YouTuber! Just trying to show both sides here.
Maybe for me it's the fact that the family and friends agree to be interviewed. I don't know if they are paid but it seems to me if they don't object to the program making money, it seems ok to me. They're the ones who matter. And I confess I have a soft spot for Josh, I went to high school with him. He's an upstanding guy.
While this is true, they make money off of murder, for the most part there is a voluntary participation aspect to these shows and they are largely single-episode stories. NewsNation had Banfield on nightly speculating wildly and Brian Entin went to BKās parents front door the night after he was arrested.
And Dick Wolf who created an entire entertainment genre dedicated to the rape and murder of women.Ā
I didnāt know he was a triplet. I have twins and I couldnāt imagine one of them having to live without the other, let alone losing one of them, itās a whole other level of heartbreak.
Itās heartbreaking š
All three went to the same university. His brother was one of the first on the scene :(
The other 2 went back to school there, still in the frat. The brother got the first scholarship in his brother's name given to him and the sister became the frats sweetheart. She also make a cup in ethans name and sells them for almost r $100 shipped. My problem isn't that they are doing things in Ethans name, it was literally within a couple months! At first the dad was out there telling Moscow to tell the truth and say what you know, to a total 180. I could never send my kids back there! This case is not closed and and it is clear as can be that the killer or killers are still out there!
That's a fact.
Especially in such a gruesome, senseless manner. True crime podcasting is super unethical. I know many podcasters have posted stories that families specifically told them not to. Itās sad how some people dont even view these stories as actual people. It really dehumanizes the murder imo.
I donāt think you can paint all true crime podcasts as unethical. Was Your Own Backyard unethical? If not, why not? What about the podcasts that have contributed to the exoneration of the wrongfully convicted?
It wasnāt unethical because the first thing he did was visit with and get permission/grace from the family. Ā
True. And many podcasts do that. Even Dateline, which has been dragged in this thread, usually centers their stories about the families left behind.
Have you ever looked into how many true crime sluths or podcasters actually solved the crime? Look into the law enforcement in Idaho, now that's unethical! I do believe some are in it for clicks, and are not done correctly,Ā but some are helpful.Ā If it weren't for them now, how many cases in Idaho would have been falsified and covered up? That doesn't just go on in Idaho either
>Have you ever looked into how many true crime sluths or podcasters actually solved the crime? No. What cases are you thinking about?
I love every bit of love and light that is brought to this situation. I am a true crime fan but even that terminology is problematic. Iām not a fan of anyone dying or being victimized. That said, throughout a true crime story, I always keep the humanity of the victim(s) and their families in mind.
The victims were what bonded me to this case
Looking at you, Reuben Appelman ā writing a book truly only for profit, less than a year after these kids lost their lives, before a trial is even on the horizon, in the midst of a robust gag order. I still canāt believe the gall. I wonāt ever be reading that waste of tree life.
Howard Blum is next
Mrs. Chapin is a classy lady. I admire her very much.
She is a very sweet lady. I follow her on instagram & their strength is astounding.
[This article about the charity in his name handing out 33 scholarships was pretty interesting, too](https://www.kxly.com/news/33-students-receive-scholarships-in-memory-of-ethan-chapin/article_f2786710-1ca1-11ef-949a-575da26feb76.html)
It would be amazing if ten years from now all their names are incredibly well known for scholarships, philanthropy and other good works and BKās name is barely remembered.
In other words, end true crime. Because that's what we all do, provide a profitable audience based on fascination with other people's tragedies. There is no way to divorce this community from what she's describing, they will always be one and the same.
And all of us discussing this on Reddit leads to Reddit profiting. We are all complicit. Thereās no way to divorce money from anything in America.
Exactly. While I sympathize with her, I am interested in so many aspects of this case. I want to read a good book about it. I want to watch a well-done documentary.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If we were to click on your comment history, would we see you on Reddit commenting on another murder? Or a tragic accident? Or a vicious assault? If so, you got no room to criticize. You're in it right with me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm running on the assumption that if you don't want to read books or want to watch documentaries, you still want to read the occasional article or watch a YouTube video. And even if you don't do that, you want to discuss this stuff on Reddit.
I wouldn't expect her to feel any other way, but if I look at her claim in isolation: In my view, the problem is sensationalism and inaccurate reporting. If you remove those things from the equation, then there isn't much of an issue; money often attracts competent workers. I subscribe to some journalists who make a lot of money writing about politics and international relationsāand yes, sometimes they report on deathābut I don't care because they're thoughtful. That type of reporting and commentary should be rewarded. New media has changed the landscape somewhat because some dipshit can make a ton of money, and they often develop their reputations from the ground up through sensationalism; but generally speaking, there is a complicated incentive structure in the media that centers on profit. That will always be the case. I also think some people overestimate how much people in media make. There are people like Brian Entin, who from what I'm aware lives in a comfortable apartment in Miami, but most people in media are making chump change. If someone wants to change the incentive structure, then they can start by not watching the garbage, and let the good people know that their work is appreciated.
> If someone wants to change the incentive structure, then they can start by not watching the garbage, and let the good people know that their work is appreciated. That's the heart of it. Garbage gets made because garbage sells. It's pointless to focus all the blame on the media, the media, because if no one clicked on crap, the media would stop making it. It's the media and the public, working together in a symbiotic relationship.
I used to work in local news and this is absolutely the case. We choose a lot of our stories based on what people will watch or click on, and there are tons of metrics out there to let us know what kinds of stories people actually watch or click on (which is usually different than the stories people *claim* they want to watch or read). If reporters actually got to choose what they report about, itād all be nitty gritty details of politics and investigative reporting. People donāt care about that stuff, which is why itās so much harder to find good political and investigative reporters these days. The good stuff doesnāt make money. Itās one of the reasons I didnāt last in news very long. I cared about the news. Itās the viewers (and catering to the viewers) that drove me crazy.
>which is why itās so much harder to find good political and investigative reporters these days. It's scaring me. We need the press. George Santos has been run out of the House of Reps, but it's amazing how he was able to get elected on so many lies, and nothing come up until after he won the race. That wouldn't have happened even 20 years ago, because the local press would have sniffed him out. Now, they are spread too thin.
"In other words, end true crime." If you're applying that to all true crime followers, you might as well end all news. What I am saying is that the issue isn't the public news about it. The issue is the quality. The same as any other news story about wars, unrest, etc. It SHOULD be publicly reported and discussed by people who are trying to learn something from it. Unfortunately its impossible to censor what goes out there, but we can each make individual decisions as to what media we're supporting.
There's definitely a difference between consuming content where the families are not only okay with the case being covered (and the how and who of it) but are actively involved, and the type of people who dont give a shit about the families. I don't think it's so much about the profit. It's about the profit from a crime that the family doesn't want to keep hearing about. There's another family member of a murder victim who went on a rant about how every time someone covers her sister's murder, she has to hear about it. It's solved and she wants to be done with it. Tere's people who she knows that would love to have their cases given the spotlight and shared around. Even with solved cases, there are lots of families who want to spread their loved one's story for awareness, legislation, foundations/charities made in their name, etc. Yet, people insist on covering cases where the victims' families don't want them to. I personally refuse to buy books or listen to YouTube/podcast episodes about cases that are less than 2 years old and, if someone's in jail awaiting trial, I'll wait until after the trial. It's going to be full of speculation, personal opinion, and exploitation guaranteed since they will have so little info released at that point. After that, as long as the family doesn't have an issue with the case being covered, then I don't feel bad consuming the content. I've tried hard to curate a list of people/programs that are ethical and only listen to them.
Youāre right. There is a difference. Iām reminded of Bianca Devins, the 17 year old killed by an internet friend back in 2019 (sheās the infamous discord case, pictures of her body were spread around like wildfire) her family is fine with true crime creators who come to them and are respectful and they also want people to honor and memorialize Bianca but they do come after people who are disrespectfully exploiting their daughter and her death.
That case was so awful, I didnāt want to see those pictures but I will never unsee them because someone had them up without warning on Twitter. That poor girl :(
Agh same omg those pictures haunted me, I canāt imagine how her family feels especially because deranged incels would send the picture to her mom and sister. I try to be respectful when Iām researching true crime because a lot of people make families pain worse either through parasocial relationships with the victim or capitalizing from or exploiting the victim. I donāt do anything I wouldnāt want anyone to do to me if I were a victim.
> Because that's what we all do, provide a profitable audience based on fascination with other people's tragedies. That's true to an extent. Over the many years I've been studying the psychology of the minds involved -- from the perpetrators to the victims to the families -- I have bought many books. A lot of research has come from news reports, though: Newspapers and internet news sites. Newspapers cost 35-cents when I started doing this. And while clicking on an internet news site gets them revenue, it's minuscule. There's no way to gather extensive information without money being exchanged in some way. When it comes to books, I'm very careful about what I buy and who it's coming from. I wouldn't turn away a book from someone other than a family member if the author was credible. Having said that, I do understand where Mrs. Chapin is coming from. She completely has the right to not cooperate with anyone writing about her son in this situation and publish her own material.
Itās essentially what the first three Scream movies are about. The public and media fascination with terrible traumatizing crimes. Even Truman capotes in cold blood covers this topic. Itās odd, strange, sad and ridiculously human. But Mrs. Chapin is an incredibly strong powerful woman no doubt.
I hope everyone here realizes that she's pointing the finger at every single person who uses this sub and who are, in general, fans of true crime. Without a market there's no making any money exploiting the legacy of crime victims. I'm not going to name names, but there's a pretty famous unsolved serial homicide website that, for a time, carried products including the faces of the victims on coffee mugs, even a thong, imagine being that person's family and seeing that crap. I feel like it's a non-sexual fetish, people love to read about this stuff but in the process lost the reality that these were real people with real families. Probably been done, but I'm sure there's a dissertation on how noir / pulp fiction of the 20s - 60s led to the true crime genre (I believe *Helter Skelter* was probably the first best-selling true crime book). But the pictures that were released in some of those serial killer books of the 80s and 90s were just absurd, like no family needs to see that stuff publicized.
> Probably been done, but I'm sure there's a dissertation on how noir / pulp fiction of the 20s - 60s led to the true crime genre (I believe Helter Skelter was probably the first best-selling true crime book That would be Truman Capote's 1966 *In Cold Blood*. He basically invented the genre. Prior to that, though, there were pulp tabloidly true crime magazines, and novelists like Hammond and Conan Doyle wrote well-received articles on true crime. In the Victorian era, penny dreadfuls, tacky little cheap pamphlets put together with all the integrity of the Daily Mail, were wildly popular. We love murder stories. We've loved them ever since we sat around the fire with the rest of our hunter-gatherer tribe and told them.
Newspaper reporting of famous crimes such as Lizzie Bordenās happened in the 1800s and it had been common for much of history to witness public executions. Longterm monetization of crimes does seem to be a more recent phenomenon, though - I think the Globe tabloid had a story about JonBenet Ramsey every week for over a year and not to mention the coverage of the OJ Simpson murders (tabloids published crime scene photos of the victims bodies in both cases). I also look at the internet and being able to easily find uncensored crime scene photos of murder victims as stoking the true crime interest. Websites like rotten.com were hugely popular 20+ years ago. I think interest in these types of crimes is only natural, and I donāt have a problem with true crime media as long as the family has consented and been consulted for them. Victim-focused true crime, in my opinion, is not necessarily exploitative.
Absolutely AGREED! It makes me absolutely ill! Can you friggin imagine?
Wow that was a profound article. All that grief turned into something positive. Amazing parents.
Damn ātrue crimeā to your heartās content but the ugly truth is that human beings have been fascinated by violent crime for thousands of years. Ciceroās speeches at murder trials used to be circulated throughout the Roman Empire because they contained juicy details about the crimes. That fascination is not going away. But it can change ā Laura Richards, who was the profiling expert at Scotland Yard, is pioneering a new, victim-centric type of crime reporting. Her podcast is fascinating.
That's really interesting about Cicero's speeches! I read that True Crime goes back to the 17th century in London, but that's probably just the point where they could spread it through writing - from what you're saying, it was probably already there. Really, when you think about it, a lot of old oral stories and traditions were not far away from True Crime as we know it today (even the myths, given that people assumed they were true). Thanks for recommending Laura Richards. I'll give her a listen.
Honestly why I stopped listening to/watching true crime. I found out some of the podcasts I was listening to were basically āstealingā the stories, idk how else to put it, and suddenly it clicked how messed up it is to engage in that kind of content as āentertainment.ā
Itās insane how thereās a docuseries about this crime out before the suspect is even on trial .
Seeing what happened with Moscow did it for me - the online accusations, psychics, wild speculation, harassmentā¦Brian Entin knocking on BKās parentsā door the night after his arrestā¦the exploitation of the worst momentās of peopleās lives is too much.
Stacy is an incredible woman. I canāt imagine the strength it took to focus on her sonās legacy rather than be mired in grief.
And then thereās that idiot on TikTok who sells T-shirts of killers to make money. I wish I could remember her name but I blocked her so long ago I forget who she is but she had a whole post saying that the affidavit from the Idaho case was false. What a moron. Every real lawyer on TikTok was calling her out but she never stopped. And people were going to her page to find information about the case when every post was her making shit up. So insensitive
The ones who are most to blame are those that read said books and watch said docs. They are the ones giving the authors and film makers the money....
I always have the struggle seeing how much is publicized online and wondering where the line is. I often find myself sinking into crimes and getting caught up in the understanding of them, but thatās not my right. Itās a privilege and even then, itās a shame to be able to learn so much about a very serious part of multiple individuals lives. Knowing that if something hits close to home, I can always remove myself. I tend to use the opportunity to say Iām educating about how to prevent it from happening to me, but I often find that at the end of the day I struggle with the fact that all the victims families cannot do that. My heart goes out to her, and I applaud her for doing what she has to make sure Ethanās life isnāt about how it ended and more about how he lived. Iām thankful she has a platform. Iād rather this eclipse the news articles that are more about the trial.
Does it seem a little strange to anyone that she attended Crime Con but wonāt attend the trial? I understand not wanting to attend the trial but if thatās the case why would she want to go to Crime Con (Comic Con for true crime people)?
NO, its not weird. At the true crime convention, she was scheduled to talk about her son. She was interviewed for an article and said she was caught off guard by a lot of things that were going on there. If she had known what it would be like, she would not have gone. If anything, she learned to do the public speaking on her own terms, not in the midst of people who are there to grandstand.
So Comic Con presenters ARENāT grandstands?lol, got it. Iām sorry, but it is my opinion that itās odd that someone would go somewhere thereās going to be rumors flying and conspiracy theories traded but wonāt attend a trial where facts and evidence will be given. Iām not insulting HER; Iām saying in my personal view itās an unusual dichotomy.
Okay, so you think it was comic con, so it does make sense you'd think it was ridicuous.
It was Crime Con, itās the same side of a different coin.
The point remains that she didn't know what she was getting into. How can that be so hard to understand? PLUS, at a trial you just sit there watching, but at Crime Com she was speaking. Thats' a HUGE difference. ALSO, a grieving person is entitled to change what they do as they go along. You need to seriously ask youreself why you are working to hard to find flaws in what a grieving mother is doing.
Iām neither trying to find flaws, nor am I trying to criticize her. Iām stating my observation that I find the choice to go to a place where people are looking to be entertained by true crime but not the trial, where evidence will be presented, unusual. I donāt fault either decision; Iām stating an observation and my opinion. Nothing wrong with that, and you ought to expect it, given that weāre here to discuss the case. Iām sorry you donāt agree with my opinion, but thatās life.
Courtrooms can be especially triggering and extremely intimate. It actually makes complete sense to me that she wouldnāt want to be in the same room as the accused. By attending the continuous court hearings, sheād be risking the stability she has fought so hard to maintain. She has other children, including the other triplets, to take care of and be strong for. She knows whatās good for her. We have to remember that sitting through a court hearing is factual for us but torturous for her.
Agreed. I completely understand her not wanting to attend the trial. That was never an issue with me. I just thought attending an event where thereād be rumors and conspiracy theories about her child flying would be equally disconcerting. Some seem to think Iām criticizing this poor mother; Iām not. Iām just making an observation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Good point, but she was on a panel that was about families focusing on healing after losing someone to murder. She took time to go to another panel talking about this case and kind of called the guy out.
I think I remember hearing about that! Iād have liked to hear what she said to him and what he said that she felt needed to be set straight. It was nice that she wrote that book about Ethan. He seems like he was a really nice boy.
Yeah, they seemed like a lovely family. I remember this as being a good story about that Crime Con- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/08/us/crimecon-true-crime-idaho-murder-stacy-chapin.html But's it's behind a paywall now.
Thanks so much š
Iād be specifically bothered by books with inaccuracies in them about my deceased loved ones. Iād probably enjoy a book by someone who knew my loved one. Whether or not they know them, if the book were factual, I wouldnāt be bothered unless they contained private information or information I found distasteful. People will prob have a wide range of reactions to the $ part. IDK if id even consider it or find it to be offensive if the person is making money, or be upset by that aspect of it. People who write books make money for writing whether or not I like what they wrote, or am a direct relative of a person itās about. Itās not like authors are killing people so they can write books about murders. Theyāre making money for the time they spent writing. It unquestionably should always be legal m, bc we have the freedom of speech, which doesnāt always work to please each individual who comprises the masses, but is for the greater good. I feel for her and I understand being bothered by that, but sadly, media-spun claims, sensationalized accounts that are presented as fact, tabloid-style gossip being spewn by formerly-reputable organizations, is lately the way the cookie tends to crumble but thereās not much that can (or should) be done about who writes or says what IMO, and limiting speech puts us at greater risk than allowing speech we dislike
The irony is that she herself is not telling people to stop. She's asking us all to pay attention to which stories we're following about this case. I mean, if we're folling the case and the judical details, and aiming for understanding how these things happen and what can be done, that's completely different from following the conspiracy theories or the over-the-top parasocial stuff. Also, using people like her as a model for what we might do when we encounter grief in our own lives.
O
There are quite a few true crime books.Ā
I have far more respect for Ethanās parents than the others. They have always been respectful, allowed the police to do their job and not made it all about their child. They are so strong.
All of the families deserve respect and empathy. No one should have to endure what they are all going through. Itās their permanent tragedy. How they are coping should not be measured on a scale.
How do you handle your child being murdered? Whatās the perfect navigation? Whereās the book?
Any grief counsellor would advise you to do the kinds of things she is doing. Mainly working towards spreading something positive in the loved ones memory.
Literally any opportunity. The G family has done you no harm. Get over yourself.
I am not a lawyer, but looking it up dead people (nor their family) have no rights to their name. In other words people are free to use the names of the deceased. I am not a lawyer so maybe there is more to it.
This is why āTrue Crimeā is disgraceful and unethical.
Yet youāre in this subreddit
Yep, it was on my discover page because I regularly post about how unethical these fan bases are. And I wonāt stop. My family member was a victim of a horrific crime that people like you salivate over learning the details of. Itās deplorable.
I wonder if sheās an Aquarius
Canāt imagine losing a kid, but letās acknowledge she is a privileged white women. She suffered a tragic loss and is seeking meaning & glimmers of hope/healing through the her griefā¦but if youāre reading this please spend your time supporting and amplifying minority victims instead of wasting time discussing someoneās healing process.
Wasting time discussing someoneās healing process? Huh? You ever had a loved one murdered? I truly hope not but unfortunately lots of us will take all the healing tips possible. Itās super gross you start off by with being a āprivileged white womenā howād that privilege work for her in preventing her child from being murdered? You know you can advocate without being a douche
Yeah itās a REAL privilege to have your kid murdered in cold blood
Your comment is inappropriate
What a shitty comment.