“Entertainment is king; news and ads are the filler.” (Christians et al., 1971).
This is the consensus much of the world has come to when responding to our consumption of media. From streaming services such as Netflix and Disney Plus to the phones we keep on person 24/7 that can access news instantaneously, society has become oversaturated with news and entertainment. Whilst this means that there is never a lack of content for users to consume, it also means that producers have to try harder to make their narratives engaging (Sherry, 2002) and thus, entertainment is now a key factor in relaying news stories.
However, with entertainment comes compromise, which often falls onto the representation of victimised groups. The world has always been infatuated with the concept of serial killers. The rate of serial killings per year increased exponentially during the ’70s and ’80s (Allison, 2018) and thus so did stories detailing those killers and their victims. People like Ted Bundy had hundreds of adoring fans, who were all ignorant of the many deaths he had caused. This obsession has continued to this day, with some genuine ethical concerns.
The newly released Netflix drama “Dahmer: Monster – The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” has not only seen a rekindling of these old infatuations but has sparked new ethical debates regarding the future of crime and representation. Through the laws of Kantian ethics, as well as Social Contract Theory, the glorification of real-life criminals such as Jeffrey Dahmer through TV entertainment has been seen to insult those affected by these crimes, and incite others to follow in their footsteps, thus highlighting how this representation is not only unethical but negatively affects society.
From an ethical standpoint via Kant’s framework, “Dahmer” has had many questionable production decisions that highlight the unethical nature of Jeffrey Dahmer’s representation in TV entertainment.
Media is an industry; therefore, it strives for the highest profit possible (Christians et al., 1971).
In only a month after its release, “Dahmer” became the second most-watched Netflix show ever, second only to the highly successful “Stranger Things”. (Porter, 2022) Whilst this was an extremely profitable TV concept, neither the director nor the producers of the show made any attempt to contact the victims’ families regarding the production of the dramatization. Most families were informed at the same time as the public and thus had no say in the representation of the victims (Malik, n.d.).
Kant was infatuated with how human societies operated. He believed that all humans held an “intrinsic worth” and thus all human life must be revered with the utmost importance (Rachels & Rachels, 2022). Therefore, under Kant’s law, murder is the ultimate crime. Kant strove to spread his concept of the “Categorical imperative”, which he explains as “Act[ing] so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (Rachels & Rachels, 2022).
However, this approach has not been taken with “Dahmer”. The lives and traumatic experiences of the victims involved in these crimes are being used as a means to an end: profit. Whether this approach is successful for the show is meaningless, as under the Kantian framework, these lives are being mistreated and disrespected to benefit the media industry. With every single media release of this serial killer, the victims’ families are forced to relive the tragedy. Rachels argues that “To treat people as ends requires treating them with respect. Thus, we may not manipulate people or 'use' people to achieve our goals, no matter how good those goals may be.” (Rachels & Rachels, 2022), yet we see these victims disturbing deaths being publicised and immortalised in pop culture.
Additionally, Kant’s principle of universalizability suggests that an action can be considered morally permissible if it can also be applied as a universal law to society. The general public fails to see the ethical concerns with Dahmer as the concerns do not apply to them. If every rapist, murderer and abuser gained the amount of positive visibility that “Dahmer” has received, every victim would be haunted by their past trauma. Shows such as “Dahmer” capitalise on the suffering of individuals, monopolising their trauma and using them as a ‘means to an end’. Under a Kantian framework, the ethical motivations behind shows such as “Dahmer” highlight its’ unethical representation of serial killers in TV entertainment.
Whilst Kantianism proves the unethical nature of “Dahmer” in the present, the concept of the Social Contract Theory highlights its unethical impacts on the future. The Social Contract is a set of unspoken laws and rules that society abides by to keep running smoothly (Rachels & Rachels, 2022). Thomas Hobbes, who was one of the philosophers behind the contract, argues that we live in a “state of nature” and that humans have the ornate inability to show compassion. Therefore, without a set of rules and government, we would live in a world described as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Rachels & Rachels, 2022). As governed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everybody has the right to live (United Nations, n.d.). Under this right alone, serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer go against basic human rights that keep the social contract running. Whilst news stories and media coverage focus on the crimes and malevolent intentions behind these killers, they also glorify criminals to boost profit.
Narrative media and dramatizations fall into the grey area of broadcasting standards, as they are neither fully fantasy nor truth. Sociologist Laurel Richardson highlights how:
“If the available narrative is limiting, destructive, or at odds with the actual life, peoples' lives end up being limited and textually disenfranchised” (Richardson, 1990).
Under this implication, dramatizations can negatively affect the lives of the viewer. The concept of “Symbolic Annihilation”, heavily applies here, which, as defined by George Gerbner, is the erasure of particular groups of individuals in popular communication (Coleman & Yochim, 2008). This theory highlights how poor media representation can lead to the erasure and disempowerment of a victimised group.
Whilst it has been publicised that “Dahmer” is one of the best representations of Jeffrey’s victims, they have done so in a rather morally ambiguous way, thus exploiting the victims. Evan Peters, who plays Dahmer in the series, is well-known as a conventionally attractive man in pop culture. His various roles as romantic love interests have meant that Peters is portrayed as a “Heartthrob” with each role he plays (McClure, n.d.).
Whilst the show “Dahmer” is a dramatization, it is still a true story about a serial murderer, rapist and cannibal. By casting a conventionally attractive man who has played the “broken man in need of fixing” cliché countless times, the producers erase the trauma associated with the victims and disempower their relatives fighting for fair representation. Additionally, by creating dramatizations with likeable actors and altered details, the theory of the Social Contract would suggest this incites audiences to understand his actions from a moral standpoint (Rachels & Rachels, 2022).
A phenomenon associated with media coverage of crime is that of ‘copycat killers’, in which citizens will recreate crimes that are heavily documented to gain media traction. This phenomenon has grown exponentially with the introduction of the internet and modern forms of entertainment. Daniel Gonzalez was one of these killers, who went on a “three-day murder rampage”, killing four people and injuring another two. When asked why he committed these acts, he responded “What would it be like just to be maybe Freddy Krueger or something like that, for one day?” (Stockton, 2023).
Similar scenarios have happened across the world, with an investigation discovering that between 20-30% of school shootings are inspired by media-covered events (Nedim & Holmes, 2020). Whilst the social contract exists to keep society out of its “state of nature” (Rachels & Rachels, 2022), current media coverage of unethical events and characters continues to incite the public to break the social contract. By documenting serial killers in an altruistic fashion, individuals are encouraged to follow in their footsteps, as they believe they will be immortalized through their craft. Although serial killers are an interesting phenomenon in society, as is demonstrated by “Dahmer”, society often struggles to discern between condemning serial killers and celebrating them. Through the lens of Social Contract Theory, we can already see the warning signs around the representation of serial killers in media, proving that shows such as “Dahmer” are highly unethical.
Whilst outrage has certainly been documented as a response to “Dahmer”, these shows are not governed by social opinion, but by the code of ethics in broadcasting and TV. These codes, as defined by the New Zealand Broadcasting Authority, allow for “discussion and concern about the role [media] play in the spread of misinformation and disinformation” (Broadcasting Standards Authority, 2022). This code has become of increasing concern in the modern era, as our oversaturation of media has acts as an influence for individuals to develop understandings of social worth, likability and what is considered ‘cool’ (Christians et al., 1971). Dramatizations easily slip through the gaps in broadcasting codes due to their utilisation of both fact and fiction.
Freedom of speech is highly valued in media, thus broadcasts such as “Dahmer” “[do] not require every significant viewpoint to be presented in every programme that discusses a particular controversial issue of public importance” (Broadcasting Standards Authority, 2022). Therefore, shows documenting criminals and their victims do not need to present both sides of the story. Whilst this is an integral code that broadcasters know and understand, these codes are rarely known by the public. Neil Postman highlights “Where audiences lack direct contact with others, the more likely they are to judge these others based on what the media say about them”. Whilst broadcasting standards are not being broken by presenting these shows, they create an unsafe environment for victims to speak out.
As seen with “Dahmer”, as well as countless other dramatizations, the serial killer is the main character, with their victims acting as short-lived ‘events’. As a result of this, audiences develop a bond with a malevolent character, pushing the victims aside. Combined through Kantianism and the Social Contract, the glorification of a criminal means the degradation of their victims. This is further emphasised through the plot and crimes themselves. Shows like “Dahmer” spare no details in the gruesome deaths of these victims, with the result being that Jeffrey Dahmer is now worshipped for his attention to detail and ‘art’.
Although these are interesting facts regarding the murders, the broadcasting code states that “Broadcasters should not disclose private information or material about an individual in a way that is highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in the position of the person affected” (Broadcasting Standards Authority, 2022). Under this notion alone, any documentation of murder victims is highly unethical and breaches broadcasting standards. Not only are these victims’ deaths analysed in great detail, but their assailants are given praise for their technique. Although this is a valid argument and excuse for a breach of broadcasting standards, the code also states “The privacy standard applies only to identifiable living individuals” (Broadcasting Standards Authority, 2022). Therefore, although highly unethical through Kant’s philosophy (Rachels & Rachels, 2022), broadcasters have the full right to mass produce and share private information about the victims and their deaths, as they no longer fall under the privacy policy. Additionally, from a legal standpoint, lawyer Ashton Williams highlights how “if a person’s identity has been creatively adapted in some way, then some courts will allow it to be utilized without violating their right to publicity” (Williams, 2020). Whilst from an ethical standpoint, the depiction of serial killers is not adherently illegal, the loopholes “Dahmer” utilises highlight the unethical approaches that dramatizations use when depicting serial killers.
As society becomes more connected to media and each other, there is no better time than the present to investigate the implications around the representation of unethical persons. Whilst the broadcasting codes of ethics prove that the representation of serial killers in TV entertainment is legal, Kantianism and Social Contract Theory highlight the ethical discrepancies and questionable motives behind dramatizations such as “Dahmer”. As has been highlighted, “[television] has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience” (Postman, 2005). Through dramatizations such as “Dahmer”, it is clear that from an ethical standpoint, the representation of real-life criminals such as Jeffrey Dahmer through TV entertainment should be stopped immediately.
REFERENCES
Allison, R. (2018, January 12). Analysis of serial killings in the US | The SAS Training Post. SAS Learning Post. https://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/2015/07/20/analysis-of-serial-killings-in-the-us/
Broadcasting Standards Authority. (2022, July). Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. https://www.bsa.govt.nz/broadcasting-standards/broadcasting-code-book-2022/the-codebook/
Christians, C. G., Fackler, M., Richardson, K. B., & Kreshel, P. J. (1971). Media Ethics: Cases and moral Reasoning. http://repository.umsu.ac.id/bitstream/123456789/14807/1/Media%20Ethics%20Cases%20and%20Moral%20Reasoning%20Ed%2010.pdf
Coleman, R. R. M., & Yochim, E. C. (2008). Symbolic Annihilation. The Symbolic Annihilation of Race: A Review of the “Blackness” Literature. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/60140/1/Symbolic%20Annihilation.pdf
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. (1980). Television violence, victimization, and power. American Behavioral Scientist, 23(5), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276428002300506
Malik, M. (n.d.). Is “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” ethical? The Rubicon. https://www.rubiconline.com/is-monster-the-jeffrey-dahmer-story-ethical/#:~:text=The%20morals%20of%20true%20crime,tragedies%20for%20their%20own%20profit.
McClure, K. (n.d.). Netflix’s Dahmer: The Heart-Eating Heartthrob. The Tattler. https://bcctattler.org/1086/culture/netflixs-dahmer-the-heart-eating-heartthrob/
Nedim, U., & Holmes, Z. (2020). The influence of the media on copycat crimes. Sydney Criminal Lawyers. https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-influence-of-the-media-on-copycat-crimes/
Porter, R. (2022, October 12). The Hollywood Reporter. The Hollywood Reporter. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/dahmer-netflix-no-2-english-language-series-1235239137/
Postman, N. (2005). Amusing ourselves to death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Penguin.
Rachels, J. R., & Rachels, S. (2022). ISE The Elements of Moral Philosophy.
Richardson, L. (1990). Writing Strategies: Reaching Diverse Audiences (Vol. 21). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986526
Sherry, J. F. (2002). Media Saturation and Entertainment?Education. Communication Theory, 12(2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00267.x
Stockton, C. (2023, August 13). 20 movies that inspired Real-Life Copycat Murders. Creepy Catalog. https://creepycatalog.com/movies-that-inspired-real-life-copycat-murders/
United Nations. (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Williams, A. (2020). Shockingly evil: the cruel invasive appropriation and exploitation of victims’ rights of publicity in the true crime genre. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 27(2), 303. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1459&context=jipl