The true crime genre has undergone a seemingly exponential rise in popularity over the last decade, manifesting in all areas of entertainment from movies to documentaries, from books to podcasts. As a result of this popularity, true crime has become far more mainstream with streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime trying to capitalise on this new, lucrative market. Although for consumers, this seemingly unending catalogue of true crime documentaries to stream is a blessing, for those involved with the documentaries, this may not be the case. As with all documentaries there is a strong risk of bias – something which may negatively impact everyone involved.

Late December 2015 marked a period of Steven Avery-mania. Netflix had just released arguably their most popular true crime documentary ever: Making a Murderer, and consumers couldn’t get enough. Admittedly I got caught up in hype, like many fans of the show, I believed wholeheartedly that Steven Avery was innocent, a feeling echoed by a petition signed by 275,000 people asking for a pardon for the show’s focal character. While I still believe in Avery’s innocence, some doubts were raised when I realised that the show was biased: leaving out evidence that would make Avery look potentially guilty. This isn’t unusual, after all filmmakers have to approach a documentary from a particular viewpoint, however, it becomes more problematic when members of the public feel entitled to involve themselves in cases which, in reality, they know very little about.

It becomes…problematic when members of the public feel entitled to involve themselves in cases which…they know very little about

Another strongly biased documentary is The Staircase which focuses on the death of Kathleen Peterson and the subsequent trial of her husband, Michael, who is accused of her murder. While the filmmaker, Jean-Xavier de Lestrade tries to make the show as unbiased as possible, to some extent this is out of his control: unlike Peterson’s defence and family, the prosecution and Kathleen’s family did not grant full access, meaning the documentary inevitably focuses on Michael. However, unlike Avery where the bias towards the defence highlighted his innocence, in some ways I believe the focus on Michael potentially harmed his defence. Throughout the documentary he remains relatively unemotional as the defence’s arguments become more absurd, including an attempt to argue that his wife was attacked by an owl. While fans of Making a Murderer generally agree that Avery is innocent, fans of The Staircase seem far more likely to believe in Michael Peterson’s guilt: proving that even if a documentary is biased, it cannot fully dictate the audiences’ response to the facts that they are given.

Obviously bias is very difficult to entirely remove; quite often bias is subconscious meaning it’s difficult to have control over. The publicity that true crime documentaries generate is the cause of many of the issues, with Making a Murderer being estimated to have been streamed by 19 million viewers in the US alone within the first 35 days of its release. While this could be viewed positively; after all it brings further attention to Steven Avery’s appeals, it can have negative consequences, for example making it very difficult to fulfil the right to a fair trial. One of the most difficult parts of a trial is selecting a jury, particularly as they are expected to have little to no prior knowledge of the case. When documentaries manage to amass tens of millions of viewers, it becomes very difficult to find jury members who not only haven’t seen the documentary but also haven’t heard about the case. As defendants become more of a household name, the right to a free trial becomes compromised, something which could interfere with the course of justice.

As defendants become more of a household name, the right to a free trial becomes compromised

Another issue with biased documentaries is the vilification of particular ‘characters’ within the documentary. As an audience it can become easy to detach ourselves from the reality of the trial, forgetting along the way that we are dealing with real peoples’ lives, something which can lead to abuse of people that come across badly in the documentary. This was prevalent in Making a Murderer with the lead prosecutor, Ken Kratz, whose law firm’s yelp page has had to be ‘cleaned-up’ due to reviews based on the documentary, rather than actual experience with the law firm. Kratz and his wife have also had to delete their Twitter accounts as a result of the abuse they were met with following the release of the show. While Kratz certainly didn’t come across as a particularly nice guy, he remains the perfect example of the ways the public can attack those involved as a result of the bias of a documentary. In the more recent example of Tiger King, Carole Baskin was vilified arguably more than Joe Exotic as a result of the accusations that she killed her husband by feeding him to her tigers. While Joe Exotic, the true criminal of the show, is seemingly being celebrated as his music listenership has increased drastically, Carole has been the victim of death threats as a result from the documentary. This highlights many societal issues; however, it also perfectly exemplifies how a biased documentary can sway an audience towards a certain viewpoint. Joe Exotic, the so-called ‘Tiger King’, was the star of the documentary, leading viewers to be more likely to take his side in his ongoing feud with Carole, instead choosing to vilify her over the convicted criminal.

Unfortunately, bias in true crime documentaries is often very hard to detect, meaning it will be hard to improve over the next few years. I admit I’ve been caught up in the ways that certain filmmakers present certain facts, however, it’s important to make sure that as consumers we react appropriately to the information we are provided with. While it might seem helpful to launch petitions and call hotlines with tips about certain cases, unless we have all the evidence, this is usually a waste of everyone’s time. I’m sure the true crime craze will continue to expand and evolve, but as consumers we have to make sure we take everything with a pinch of salt and try not to negatively interfere with the lives of real people.