C2 Lesson: Entertainment or Exploitation? The Ethics of True Crime Media

Level: C2 (Mastery)

Content Objective: The student understands the main arguments in the debate over true crime media, using the 2022 Netflix series on Jeffrey Dahmer and the case of Michelle McNamara as test cases, and can explain why consent, profit, and public record pull the argument in different directions.

Language Objective: The student recognizes and produces cleft sentences (it-clefts, wh-clefts, and “not until” clefts) to place emphasis precisely in argumentative writing.

---

1. Reading Section

In 1992, at the sentencing of the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, Rita Isbell delivered a victim impact statement about her brother, Errol Lindsey, who had been murdered at the age of nineteen. Thirty years later, her words reappeared, verbatim, in a Netflix series that was streamed for more than 700 million hours in its first three weeks. What bothered Isbell, by her own account, was seeing her name appear on screen beside words she had spoken in court, and discovering that no one had asked her first.

Hers is not the only account, and it is a contested one. According to Eric Perry, who has described himself as a relative of Lindsey’s, it was not until Netflix released the series on September 21, 2022, that the family learned it existed. Perry conceded that Netflix had no legal duty to consult anyone, since the events are a matter of public record; what he questioned was whether the absence of a legal duty settles the moral question. Shirley Hughes, the mother of another victim, Tony Hughes, told The Guardian that the series misrepresented her son’s death, although she had not watched all of it. The creator, Ryan Murphy, has said that his team spent roughly three and a half years on the project and reached out to about twenty of the victims’ families and friends without receiving a single reply. The relatives who have spoken publicly say they were never contacted. These accounts are difficult to reconcile, and the sources available do not settle the dispute.

For critics, the quarrel illustrates a larger problem. It is the economics of the genre, they argue, that turn grief into content: a case that has already been investigated, tried, and reported offers a ready-made story, and a notorious name offers a ready-made audience. Money was part of what rankled Isbell as well. What she suggested was that some of the profits should have gone to the children of Dahmer’s victims, and she said that if the show had benefited the families in some way, it would not have felt so careless.

Defenders answer that audiences are not simply morbid. In a widely cited 2010 study in Social Psychological and Personality Science, Amanda Vicary and R. Chris Fraley found that women were more likely than men to choose a true crime book over other violent nonfiction. What seemed to appeal to women in their experiments was practical information: how victims had survived, and what had driven the offender. The researchers suggested that this may reflect a heightened fear of crime and a wish to learn from other people’s misfortune, although they also raised an irony, namely that reading such books might deepen the very fear that sends readers to them in the first place.

The strongest case for the genre is usually Michelle McNamara. A writer who spent years on an unsolved series of California rapes and murders, she is credited with coining the name “Golden State Killer.” She died in April 2016, before finishing her book, and I’ll Be Gone in the Dark was published posthumously in February 2018. Two months later, Joseph DeAngelo was arrested, and he later pleaded guilty. It was DNA evidence, not anything McNamara wrote, that led to his arrest, so crediting her with the capture would be a mistake. What her supporters can fairly claim is that her persistence kept a notorious case in public view, and that her book gave the victims names and voices.

Placed side by side, the two cases suggest that the real divide runs not between those who consume true crime and those who refuse it, but between work that treats victims as subjects and work that treats them as raw material. It is rarely the genre itself that determines which side a project lands on; it is the choices made along the way, such as whom to ask, whom to credit, and who profits. What remains unresolved is whether consent can reasonably be required of anyone who retells events the law treats as public property, and, if it cannot, whether decency can be expected to do the work that regulation does not. Arguably, that question matters more than whether any single series should have been made.

---

2. Vocabulary Section

Word / Phrase	Meaning	Example
verbatim	in exactly the same words as the original	Her courtroom statement reappeared verbatim in the series.
contested	argued about; not accepted by everyone as true	Hers is not the only account, and it is a contested one.
reconcile	to make two conflicting accounts or ideas fit together	These accounts are difficult to reconcile.
rankle	to cause lasting irritation or resentment	Money was part of what rankled Isbell as well.
posthumously	after a person’s death	McNamara’s book was published posthumously.
notorious	famous for something bad	Her persistence kept a notorious case in public view.
consent	permission given willingly, usually before something happens	Can consent be required of anyone who retells public events?
arguably	used to introduce a claim that can be defended but is not certain	Arguably, that question matters more than any single series.

---

3. Example Sentences (Target Grammar in Use)

• What bothered Isbell, by her own account, was seeing her name appear on screen beside words she had spoken in court.
• According to Eric Perry, it was not until Netflix released the series on September 21, 2022, that the family learned it existed.
• What he questioned was whether the absence of a legal duty settles the moral question.
• It is the economics of the genre, critics argue, that turn grief into content.
• It was DNA evidence, not anything McNamara wrote, that led to his arrest.
• What remains unresolved is whether consent can reasonably be required of anyone who retells events the law treats as public property.

---

4. Grammar Section

Cleft Sentences

A cleft sentence splits one clause into two parts so that a single piece of information receives the emphasis. The speaker or writer chooses which piece is the “news” and places it in a prominent position, usually after a form of be. Clefts are common in argumentative writing because they let an author correct an assumption, sharpen a contrast, or build toward a conclusion.

Type	Structure	Function	Example from the reading
It-cleft	It + be + focused element + that / who clause	highlights one element, often to contrast or correct	It was DNA evidence, not anything McNamara wrote, that led to his arrest.
“Not until” cleft	It was not until + time expression + that + clause	emphasizes when something finally happened	It was not until Netflix released the series that the family learned it existed.
Wh-cleft (pseudo-cleft)	What + clause + be + focused element	builds toward the new information, which arrives last	What bothered Isbell was seeing her name appear on screen.
Reverse wh-cleft	focused element + be + what clause	puts the focus first, then explains it	Money was part of what rankled Isbell as well.

Three points that trip up advanced learners:

1. Use that or who in an it-cleft, never which for a person or a plain relative. “It was McNamara who kept the case alive” and “It was her persistence that kept the case alive” are both correct. “It was her persistence which…” sounds unnatural in clefts.
2. The verb be in a wh-cleft agrees with the focused element, and the tense of the two halves should match. “What she suggested was that profits be shared” is standard. With a plural focus, formal usage prefers the plural: “What critics want are clear rules.”
3. Clefts are emphatic, so use them sparingly. One or two per paragraph sharpens an argument. A cleft in every sentence sounds theatrical and weakens the effect.

Quick Tip: Begin with a plain sentence, such as DNA evidence led to his arrest. Decide which phrase is the news. Move that phrase into the slot after It was (…that led to his arrest) or to the end of a wh-cleft (What led to his arrest was DNA evidence). Everything else goes into the clause.

---

5. Comprehension Questions

A. True or False

1. Rita Isbell’s victim impact statement was delivered in 1992, and a version of it appears in the Netflix series.
2. The reading presents it as settled fact that no one from Netflix contacted the victims’ families.
3. Vicary and Fraley found that men were more likely than women to choose a true crime book over other violent nonfiction.
4. According to the reading, DeAngelo was arrested because of evidence in McNamara’s book.

B. Short Answer

5. Explain why Eric Perry’s acknowledgment that the events are public record does not end his objection to the series.
6. The reading says the competing accounts “are difficult to reconcile.” How does the writer avoid taking sides in the dispute over whether the families were contacted?
7. What irony do the researchers raise about the readers who are drawn to true crime for safety information?
8. How does the McNamara case support the defenders of the genre, and why does the writer insist on a limit to the credit she can be given?

C. Transform / Rewrite

9. Rewrite the sentence as a wh-cleft beginning with “What”: Isbell was bothered by seeing her name appear beside words she had spoken in court.
10. Rewrite the sentence as an it-cleft that emphasizes “DNA evidence”: DNA evidence led to DeAngelo’s arrest.
11. Rewrite the sentence using “It was not until…”: The family learned of the series only when Netflix released it.
12. Rewrite the sentence as a reverse wh-cleft (focus first, ending in “what remains unresolved”): What remains unresolved is whether decency can do the work that regulation does not.

---

---

Next lesson: C2 — “Who Owns English? The Politics of ‘Correct’ Grammar”