The BTK Serial Killer was finally caught, after decades in
hiding, and at least 10 murders. His story is being told in countless ways through
various forms of media. The serial killer himself, seems to be getting exactly
what he wanted, a chance to be in the spotlight.


Is it beneficial or harmful for the public at large to see and/or read about the
life story and murder history of serial killers?

Does media attention glorify, and possibly recruit criminals of this nature?

How much media attention should be doled out to this sort of high-profile crime?

The poll question isn't quite the same as your questions for debate, so my answers may seem a little different. As far as the poll goes, I think that it is almost never a good idea to limit the amount of information (unless it is clearly violating the privacy of an individual without good cause) about any event in which the public is interested. Popular books, television series, and movies prove that the public has always been interested in crime, and always will be.

1. I can see it going either way. Some deranged person might be inspired to commit a copycat crime; other people might become more aware of the fact that monsters walk among us, and do something about it. Somewhere in the middle, I suspect, are most people, who enjoy accounts of true crime as a form of gruesome entertainment.

2. It's hard for me to think of a situation where the media glorified these monsters. As far as recruiting goes, it is certainly true that one reason why people do wicked things is to become famous. There is nothing new about this.



-- Luigi Lucheni, who stabbed the Empress Elizabeth of Austria to death in 1898.

(Source: The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War 1890-1914 by Barbara W. Tuchman.)

3. The media have very little choice. People want to hear about horrible crimes, and they will get the information they want from one source or another. The best we can hope for is accurate and sober accounts of such crimes, instead of sensationalism.

Is it beneficial or harmful for the public at large to see and/or read about the
life story and murder history of serial killers?

Neither. It's entertaining for the public at large to watch/read stories about serial killers. There's no harm in human curiosity, and everyone has the ability to either look away or live in ignorance of the evil in the world.

Does media attention glorify, and possibly recruit criminals of this nature?

How is reporting facts glorification? This guy got his incoherent rant in the media, and the victims' families got their unsurprising responses in the media, and that was that. Nobody gave the murderer a medal or a job.

One of the big themes in literature is how humans can be warped to where fame and glory become more important than survival. There isn't any recruiting to this at all. It comes from feelings of inadequacy, misdirected sexual desires, maybe brain chemical imbalances -- a whole ocean of psychological critters.

How much media attention should be doled out to this sort of high-profile crime?

Good question. What are the ratings? When do people switch channels? Did the papers sell? It's a consumer-driven thing.

I voted to let all the dirty laundry hang in the sun. Please don't spare our sensitivities about how nasty things can get in the world. Reporting the nasties could make people more cautious, and thus fewer victims and tearful families. Meanwhile, the nasty people will do their things regardless of media attention. That's just frosting on their muck cakes. I think they know it and try to get as much gloating as they can, while the rest of us shake our heads.

How can people be so flubbed up? It's a fascinating subject.

Is it beneficial or harmful for the public at large to see and/or read about the life story and murder history of serial killers?

I believe the public should see and hear about serial killers like BTK and their MO, because, let’s face it, the monsters DO walk among us - they look just like us, get married and have kids like us (well, some of us anyway), go to work like us, to the grocery store, the post office, Little League games and all the other mundane stuff that NORMAL people do. I want to know what makes people like BTK tick, and how to spot the squirming, stinking, heinous creature behind the bland exterior. How many times have you heard “he seemed like such a NICE guy” about these slimeballs?


I have to take exception to this depiction. I have an interest in what makes serial killers tick. I think it’s more self-education than “gruesome entertainment”. To me, it's a more gruesome form of entertainment to participate in/watch brutal blood sports. Words and information cannot hurt you. Ignorance can.

I wouldn’t have chosen the word “entertaining” here, but I agree with your point. Living in ignorance of evil makes you more susceptible to being victimized by it.

Does media attention glorify, and possibly recruit criminals of this nature?

Sure, media glorifies it – if it bleeds, it leads, the gorier and more deviant the better, but I doubt there is any “recruiting” of serial killers going on. Either a person is aberrant enough to become a serial killer or he isn’t. A media story isn’t going to turn him into one.

How much media attention should be doled out to this sort of high-profile crime?

We’re talking about it here, aren’t we? It’s obviously of some interest to people, be it morbid curiosity or something else. I find the BTK case more newsworthy than, say, Michael Jackson's trial or Brad and Jen's divorce, but which got more media coverage? (Hint: it wasn't BTK)

Edited to add this:
This is why we need to expose creatures like BTK. I found this in a Kansas paper (I bolded the part I think justifies the media surrounding the likes of BTK).

Is it beneficial or harmful for the public at large to see and/or read about the
life story and murder history of serial killers?

I don't think it's ever going to be beneficial to the public at large to read every gory detail of such cases. However, I don't think that it's going to be harmful either.

It might be interesting, or just titillating, but I don't think anyone who would otherwise be law-abiding turns into a serial killer just by reading about other serial killers, or watching shows about them on TV. Similarly, I don't imagine that a complete news blackout would prevent any further serial killers from emerging.

One area of press coverage of ALL crime that does concern me, however, is the mass coverage of such cases before a suspect has been arrested & charged, and during the trial.

I think there is a fine line between using just the official press releases of the police and the court proceedings themselves, which might tend to ignore procedural errors and miscarriages of justice, and the kind of slavering reportage of every possible tangential witness and "expert" before a single suspect has been questioned that we seem to see today - if find it very hard to believe that even the bloodiest-handed open-&-shut case can receive a fair trial with such blanket coverage.

I know that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech in the press, but surely the kind of prejudicial coverage we often see with major court cases needs to be curtailed a little more - perhaps some contempt of court writs need to be issued to editors and journalists who publish information that hampers (or worse) ongoing investigations and trials? I am not sure where to draw the line, or how, but I can't help feeling that we need to have one drawn.

Does media attention glorify, and possibly recruit criminals of this nature?
Occasionally there might be some kind of cult status given to the surviving notorious, but I think it is always notoriety and not glory that such coverage generates. And, as I've mentioned, I don't believe that recruiting ever happens. Someone my copy a method they didn't otherwise consider, but I believe such people would have committed a similar crime using a method of their own devising anyway.

How much media attention should be doled out to this sort of high-profile crime?
I think the current amount in total is about right, but it should be spread out so the bulk of it comes out after conviction is secured, rather than during the investigation and trial, if only to safeguard the possibility of these being fairly conducted and likely to identify, prosecute & convict the actual perpetrator and not just the first person the press finds easy to demonise.

1.) I think that the answer is neither. It can be both harmful and helpful when put into the right/wrong hands.

2.) It certainly doesn't condemn it. When people are constantly surrounded by the truth of serial murder their brain patterns change, the brain responds to certain words in different ways. When I say picture, animal or salad your brain waves are normal, but when I say rape, incest or murder the pattern shifts. This can lead to depression and other forms of mental distress- when bombarded with the possibility of brain wave changes it can certainly contribute to a future criminal becoming a deviant or killer.

3.) I do not think that any media attention is needed, the original coverage of the crimes committed by a serial killer are enough media attention. When the authorities had next to nothing to do with the capture of the killer (BTK) it should not be crammed down the public's throat that they finally caught the killer. Allow the knowledge to speak for itself and do not bring the case back to life by never silencing.

Is it beneficial or harmful for the public at large to see and/or read about the
life story and murder history of serial killers?
Beneficial. Serves as a teaching lesson on how these individuals develop, how to recognizing warning signs, and how to prevent the development of a similiar situation if possible.


Does media attention glorify, and possibly recruit criminals of this nature?
Its possible that some individuals may find serial murders entertaining but I doubt it recruits criminals. If the circuitry is defective in an individual, they will seek out a mode and method. Most well adjusted individuals will not migrate into serial murder.


How much media attention should be doled out to this sort of high-profile crime?
Well, who can control the media? If the interest in the subject exists, the media will exploit it. Although there have been situations where the media has co-operated with law enforcement officials and British royalty, if the stakes are high enough, the media will exploit it.

I actually voted that the information should be available, but only in a limited way, but I didn't actually mean that we should censor the media or hide information about killers. What I meant was that serial killers get far too much attention in the media. News stations should show some restraint on their own (not necessarily be forced by law). Having 24 hour news coverage on four different channels of a killer's trial with analysts talking about how the killer committed his crime because he longed for attention seems ridiculous to me.

And of course there is also the danger of a copy cat, or just any other maniac who realizes how important he can become if he goes on a killing spree. Many killers commit their crimes because they want the media's attention. So I would say yes, the media does glorify the killers, although not intentionally. Normal people may not see it as glorifying since the killer is called a "monster" etc in the coverage, but a deranged person following the story could still decide that they want to gain the same notoriety as the killer shown on TV.

Also, there are many other significant stories to be covering, just maybe not ones as entertaining. It's really kind of sad that so much news (especially TV news) is first and foremost entertainment. Of course the media is not going to give up its coverage of gory and sensational stories as long as covering those stories is still profitable. This is not exactly something new. As the old saying goes, "If it bleeds, it leads."

Very well put, King. I agree, completely. The individuals who are
guilty of such crimes do not live by our (the general population) moral code.
What is appalling and shameful to us is exciting and gratifying to them.
That is why media attention should be limited - not to limit our understanding,
but to limit their internal satisfaction and glory over what they have accomplished.

Also, it is completely unnecessary to show graphic photos of victims. It is
very distasteful and disrespectful, and it is catering to those who are looking
for gore. They can find that in a horror movie.

Is it beneficial or harmful for the public at large to see and/or read about the
life story and murder history of serial killers?

I watch the shows about serial killers, usually long after they are caught and incarcerated. It is good to make the public aware that anyone can be a serial killer, not just the ones who "look" dangerous.

Does media attention glorify, and possibly recruit criminals of this nature?

Don't think so. Weirdos are usually wired from an early age, and most learn to hide it well. The media isn't likely to influence that in any way.

How much media attention should be doled out to this sort of high-profile crime?


Enough to make us aware, but not so much that other important news gets pre-empted.
I have seen all the network affiliates here in Phoenix pre-empt network news for some pretty dumb things. If not pre-empt, they might cut back in during network news to tell us a big building is still on fire, the washes are still flooded, or they still don't know why someone got shot, so we should "be sure and tune in at 10PM for the latest". Sounds like excessive competition to me.

Is it beneficial or harmful for the public at large to see and/or read about the
life story and murder history of serial killers?

It is if you believe in knowing your enemy and in doing so learning how to defeat them. Being a police officer I have learned a lot of information from studying criminals and their motives and techniques and actions. The public learns from what we learn, so I think an interested public would do well to educate themselves about these kinds of people. You can not make them go away by not learning or looking at them.

Does media attention glorify, and possibly recruit criminals of this nature?

I don’t think so. I think they may bring more attention to the killer than they may want to, but again, learning from these individuals is always a good thing. Knowledge is the tool we use to now find and capture these types of killers. The more we know, the more likely we are to be able to catch them.

How much media attention should be doled out to this sort of high-profile crime?

As long as its informational and not entertainment based, then I see no problem with it being very in depth. We learn from our past and learn how to prevent these types of crimes in the future from just such information.