As a society, we have made an entire celebrity culture out of serial killers. It’s not a new phenomenon that America has a disturbing fascination with the psychotic. It’s our entertainment and has become almost an obsession. Documentaries, novels, TV shows and Netflix originals about serial killers, murderers and sexual assailants all feed into this unhealthy interest. It grows and perpetuates the idea that fame can be attained through horrific acts of violence. And we continue to encourage it with our attention.
Media has an influential impact on society, its values and what it deems important. It can influence and inform. But we’ve gone about it in the wrong way. Criminals are gaining too much attention by media exposure.
One of Netflix’s top three “most binged” shows in 2018 was “Making A Murderer.” The show is a dramatized adaptation of the case involving Ted Bundy, a notorious rapist and serial killer from the 1970s. This show is just one example. It didn’t help that in the film, Bundy was portrayed by teen heartthrob, Zac Efron.
In an article from the Washington Post, a Purdue University professor, Glen Sparks, studying the effects of media violence, said, “The research shows that escalating violence on-screen can make us more tolerant of it in real life.”
So, by the glorification of these murderers, society has become desensitized to their actions in real life.
One of the arguments for the making of these films is that it’s an accurate representation of how Bundy was in real life. It was meant to portray his charismatic charm, which allowed him to lure women into trusting him. He captured the media and the public with his good looks and allure. Yes, that may have been an accurate account of his personality, but that should not be the most prominent point of his story.
By telling the story through the eyes of Bundy’s longtime girlfriend and not giving time to the horrific accounts of his murders, they are exploiting his attractiveness over his actions. His charm, though accurate, should not have been the emphasis.
“Murderabilia” is also a disturbing fad that encourages this infatuation. The website Supernaught True Crime Gallery lists 40 to 50 well known murderers and has various paintings, sketches or signed notecards for sale. On that website, a simple sketch of a clown by John Gacey runs for $125,000. There’s a market for this stuff and people buy it.
If this is how we treat our serial killers, with fame, recognition, infamy and even business, are we not sending the message that this is something to be sought after? We give murderers the same qualities attributed to celebrities.
After the horrific attack on the two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in a statement that the terrorist’s name would never be heard coming from her lips, and then within three days New Zealand’s government banned assault rifles and all military style semi-automatic weapons.
That day will be remembered and mourned for several people who lost loved ones. The names of those whose lives were taken should be remembered, not the name of the man who took those lives. Arden had the right idea. By not saying the killer’s name, she denied him the notoriety that he sought.
You know the name Ted Bundy, and it’s likely you know of John Wayne Gacey, Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson. Can you name just one of their victims?
