The true crime genre, the true crime, opens a new discussion in the public debate, so we are facing a great opportunity. Because? Because we live in times in which little and bad reflection is done, in which contrary opinions are despised and in which, therefore, we shrink as a society. In this way, a good discussion about how we manage and consume events can make us progress.
The recent complaint by a victim, Patricia Ramírez (mother of Gabriel Cruz), against the possibility of a documentary about the murder of her son being broadcast without her consent, with the alleged complicity of the murderer and under possible legal breaches, gives us the opportunity to debate about this genre and, also, about another important issue, about the society we want to be.
Nobody is against freedom of expression and information or the right that citizens have to be informed. Nor is it denied that there is progress in some investigations thanks to the contribution of the press. And there is no opposition to the production of fictions and their consumption, because furthermore one cannot emerge victorious in a fight against morbidity; It would be like trying to put dikes in the sea, it is useless. The appeal of these situations fascinates the consumer because the crime is wrapped in emotion and captivates the public in a special way thanks to the irresistible combination of the uncertainty of knowing the outcome of the cases, together with the curiosity to check if we are right in our hypotheses. of resolution, to which is added a momentary empathy with the victims. It is a consumer success, but since we live in the era of content generation, that empathy ends up being punctual; Unfortunately, it only lasts until the next news. For all this, the world of true crime It needs correct regulation of its limits, which must always be subject to ethics, and it must never forget the victims.
The more morbid, the more it sells, and communicators of any format (fiction productions, journalistic media, podcasts, etc.) we are always ready for that benefit, basing ourselves on our service to society. But, of course, the victims are part of the society we claim to serve and, far from it, we are harming them. We are not aware of how much because we do not notice them; We have neither true empathy nor a real interest in stopping hurting, in a sharp way, such a sensitive minority. The debate is not only about the true crime It goes to the point of putting ourselves in front of the mirror as a society. Do we like what we see?
Let’s stop cheating on solitaire. The events are news and deserve to be told, because they help us to know the complexities, oddities and evils of human beings in order to learn from them. But let’s put ethics first, because the anniversary or recovery of a tragic death is not news, it is not correct to use photographs of some cases to position oneself better on the Internet, not everything is valid under a notice of “based on real events” and it is not rational to consume information or entertainment knowing that we seriously harm third parties. And there are the limits. We have a lot of room for improvement so that the consumption of pain and violence against real people, made of flesh and blood, stops being normalized. Because the victims never recover from these events, but they have every right to live a future, even if it is different, while we should not condemn them to suffer in a permanent past. It’s not fair.
The correction factor in the long term is always education, one of whose new challenges is teaching about the consumption of information, including events. And in the short term it involves monitoring real and effective compliance with the laws, to then generate an appropriate debate that addresses the correct regulation of the aforementioned limits, because fictions can be created with the consent of those affected, but it should never be allowed. that an event rewards the guilty with probable enrichment, possible legal benefits or a kind of shady vendetta about those who suffer.
If the opposite argument is in favor of freedom, let us think that its maximum enjoyment is experienced from the existence of rules that protect us and help those who need it. And these victims demand them before a world that does not understand them, because no one asks the question of whether we would like the media circus of a personal tragedy to revolve around our brother or our daughter and, of course, without our consent or date. of expiration.
In conclusion, the true crime It allows us to open a debate about what type of society we want to be, the one that cares about those who suffer, living and letting live, or the one that enjoys consuming morbidity without thinking about who it hurts to earn a few more coins. For all of this, and for all of them, we are obliged to have a good debate, because we have the obligation to take advantage of the opportunity to do things well, instead of doing them as usual.
_
