Site Title

✳

How True Crime Media Shapes Our Understanding of Serial Killers (Jeffrey Dahmer)

By

bhinesbe

✲

When it comes to serial killers and mass murderers, I usually do not dig deeply into their stories because they are constantly broadcast across different news channels, newspapers, and especially social media, and it can be hard to tell what is actually factual. There are so many opinions and perspectives that it becomes overwhelming at…

When it comes to serial killers and mass murderers, I usually do not dig deeply into their stories because they are constantly broadcast across different news channels, newspapers, and especially social media, and it can be hard to tell what is actually factual. There are so many opinions and perspectives that it becomes overwhelming at times. I would rather watch a movie about serial killers because I am not really a documentary person. Documentaries are boring if you ask me, and they usually include different scenarios from different stories combined into one. Recently, Netflix released a series on Jeffrey Dahmer, someone I had never heard of before, although I first saw people talking about it on Facebook. I tried to watch it, but I could not get past all the disturbing things he experienced growing up, as well as what he did later in life. Honestly, I was scared to continue watching.

Jeffrey Dahmer is portrayed throughout the media as having a troubled childhood that stemmed into struggles with abandonment, social isolation, and difficulty forming relationships. In the Netflix series, Jeffrey Dahmer is described in ways that present him as a violent person whose childhood was affected by family trauma. Having such a troubled childhood is often used to justify why Dahmer may have shifted toward violence as a way to escape his family situation.

Empirical research argues that many of the things we believe about serial killers come from the media and what is presented to us as the truth about what all serial killers are like. In fact, according to Fox and Levin (1999), there are many myths about what serial killers are and how they are portrayed. Fox and Levin state that there are common myths that serial killers are different from everyone else, that they are insane, and that their behavior comes from childhood trauma. However, research suggests that many serial killers appear ordinary and act normal, and that childhood trauma alone cannot pinpoint the cause of their violent behavior. The research at hand counteracts what the media feeds us to believe about how serial killers are shaped and what they want us to believe.

The media is not always completely wrong when they cover serial killers because they usually show that serial killers are dangerous to the community and cause severe harm to people. However, the media can label serial killers as monsters and create panic and then shift the focus and overlook signs of danger that were already there. Research shows that violence tends to develop over time and follow identifiable patterns rather than appearing randomly (Alvarez & Bachman, 2023). This focus on extreme cases can distract from more common forms of violence that affect everyday people and take attention away from prevention and early warning signs.

In conclusion, true crime media can shape how society understands what a serial killer is and the violence behind the person. In the example of Jeffrey Dahmer, the media labeled him with many myths about his violent behavior but was not always able to fully back these claims with empirical research. We now know that serial killers do not randomly attack, but that their violence is built up over time and often follows patterns. When the media portrays serial killers in sensational ways, the public can go into panic mode, leading to fear and major misunderstandings about who is behind violent crime.

References:

Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (1999). Serial murder: Popular myths and empirical realities. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 165–175). Sage Publications.

Alvarez, A., & Bachman, R. (2023). Violence: The enduring problem (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

2 responses to “How True Crime Media Shapes Our Understanding of Serial Killers (Jeffrey Dahmer)”

  1. Erica Grayson Avatar
    Erica Grayson

    Your post raises an important point about how overwhelming and distorted media coverage of serial killers can be. I think it’s completely valid to feel hesitant about engaging deeply with these stories, especially when social media amplifies opinions, dramatizations, and misinformation. That overload can make it difficult to separate fact from narrative, which is exactly why critical analysis—like the one you’re doing here—is so important.

    Your discussion of the Netflix series on Jeffrey Dahmer highlights how dramatizations often center heavily on childhood trauma. While it’s true that Dahmer experienced family instability and social isolation, you correctly point out that research does not support a simple cause-and-effect explanation between trauma and serial murder. Many individuals experience difficult childhoods without becoming violent offenders. By bringing in Fox and Levin (1999), you effectively challenge the myth that serial killers are either “insane monsters” or purely products of abuse. That shows strong engagement with empirical research rather than relying solely on media narratives.

    I also appreciate your point about labeling. When the media describes offenders as “monsters,” it can create emotional distance that prevents society from examining warning signs, behavioral patterns, or systemic failures. As Alvarez and Bachman (2023) explain, violence tends to develop over time and often follows identifiable pathways. By focusing only on extreme, sensational elements, media coverage may overlook those gradual developments and reinforce the idea that serial violence is random and unpredictable. That misunderstanding can fuel public panic rather than informed prevention.

    Another strong part of your discussion is your recognition that the media is not entirely wrong. Serial killers are dangerous, and public awareness does matter. However, the balance between awareness and sensationalism is often skewed. When extreme cases dominate coverage, they can distort perceptions of crime overall, making rare forms of violence seem common while minimizing more prevalent issues like domestic violence or acquaintance-based homicide.

    If I were to suggest one area to strengthen your post, it would be to expand slightly on prevention. You mention early warning signs and patterns—adding a brief example of what those patterns might include (such as escalating violence, antisocial traits, or prior criminal behavior) would deepen your analysis even further.

    Overall, your response thoughtfully critiques how true crime media shapes public understanding. You effectively connect media portrayals, research findings, and broader social consequences like fear and misunderstanding. It’s clear you are thinking critically about not just the offender, but about how narratives influence society’s view of violence.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Erica Grayson Avatar
    Erica Grayson

    Your post raises an important point about how overwhelming and distorted media coverage of serial killers can be. I think it’s completely valid to feel hesitant about engaging deeply with these stories, especially when social media amplifies opinions, dramatizations, and misinformation. That overload can make it difficult to separate fact from narrative, which is exactly why critical analysis—like the one you’re doing here—is so important.

    Your discussion of the Netflix series on **Jeffrey Dahmer** highlights how dramatizations often center heavily on childhood trauma. While it’s true that Dahmer experienced family instability and social isolation, you correctly point out that research does not support a simple cause-and-effect explanation between trauma and serial murder. Many individuals experience difficult childhoods without becoming violent offenders. By bringing in Fox and Levin (1999), you effectively challenge the myth that serial killers are either “insane monsters” or purely products of abuse. That shows strong engagement with empirical research rather than relying solely on media narratives.

    I also appreciate your point about labeling. When the media describes offenders as “monsters,” it can create emotional distance that prevents society from examining warning signs, behavioral patterns, or systemic failures. As Alvarez and Bachman (2023) explain, violence tends to develop over time and often follows identifiable pathways. By focusing only on extreme, sensational elements, media coverage may overlook those gradual developments and reinforce the idea that serial violence is random and unpredictable. That misunderstanding can fuel public panic rather than informed prevention.

    Another strong part of your discussion is your recognition that the media is not entirely wrong. Serial killers are dangerous, and public awareness does matter. However, the balance between awareness and sensationalism is often skewed. When extreme cases dominate coverage, they can distort perceptions of crime overall, making rare forms of violence seem common while minimizing more prevalent issues like domestic violence or acquaintance-based homicide.

    If I were to suggest one area to strengthen your post, it would be to expand slightly on prevention. You mention early warning signs and patterns—adding a brief example of what those patterns might include (such as escalating violence, antisocial traits, or prior criminal behavior) would deepen your analysis even further.

    Overall, your response thoughtfully critiques how true crime media shapes public understanding. You effectively connect media portrayals, research findings, and broader social consequences like fear and misunderstanding. It’s clear you are thinking critically about not just the offender, but about how narratives influence society’s view of violence.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Erica Grayson Cancel reply