Immersive media / blurred lines between reality and reality/ sensationalised TV
However, there is a fine line between expressing concern and sympathy for a tragedy online and making a spectacle of that tragedy for engagement. Unfortunately, most of the TikTok content surrounding the Clancy case resembles the latter.
From A.I. songs being created about Lindsay’s innocence, to rampant Facebook stalking of the Clancys themselves, TikTok users are treating the trial like it is an interactive, bingeworthy Netflix series.
The insensitive nature with which TikTok users are approaching the Clancy case is precisely the problem with the “true crime” genre in the era of social media.
On short-form content platforms like TikTok and Instagram, videos are designed to grab users’ attention in the first few seconds, so they don’t scroll on through the endless mass of content available to them. This is exactly why social media algorithms push extremist content: it triggers more engagement and keeps users scrolling.
And how can “true crime” content not be insensitive when it is created on platforms that reward sensationalizing tragedy?
Evidently, the online response to Lindsay Clancy’s trial has not been appropriate in the slightest. The murder of her children is not a “hot topic” or a puzzle for TikTok users to solve. It is a horrific event that the family will continue to live with after the Clancys have circulated out of the algorithmic trend cycle.
https://brockpress.com/the-lindsay-clancy-trial-highlights-the-ethical-concerns-of-true-crime-in-the-digital-era/
A Facebook post put it like this;
The Lindsay Clancy case has me thinking about something much bigger than one trial: forensic fandom.
Forensic fandom is what happens when people become deeply immersed in a real criminal case, dissecting every detail, creating theories, choosing sides and sometimes treating an unimaginable tragedy almost like a mystery they are personally trying to solve.
And here’s the part I find particularly troubling.
On Facebook, legitimate news organizations can face restrictions on sharing real news, yet we can spend hours watching creatively produced videos and listening to theories about “who really did it,” whether the father was involved, what someone supposedly knew, what someone supposedly didn’t know, and countless other theories that may have little or no basis in the evidence presented in court.
Think about that for a minute.
We can struggle to find reliable journalism in our Facebook feeds, while algorithms can serve us hours of speculation because speculation keeps us watching.
And somewhere in the middle of all of that are real people.
Three children who died. Parents and family members whose lives were shattered. A woman whose mental state is now being examined in a courtroom and people - like first responders - who have to live with this tragedy long after the cameras and social-media posts move on to the next story.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t discuss difficult cases, we absolutely should and there are important conversations here about postpartum psychosis, mental illness, criminal responsibility, domestic circumstances, the justice system and whether people in crisis are getting the help they need.
But there is a difference between understanding a case and simply consuming it.
There is a difference between asking questions and creating facts.
And there is a difference between responsible journalism and a cleverly edited video designed to make us believe we’ve uncovered a secret the investigators somehow missed.
I’m curious what you think.
Have social media algorithms turned true crime into entertainment?
Why does speculation sometimes get more attention than verified reporting?
And why can we watch hours of theories about who “really did it,” while actual journalism struggles to reach us? I actually watched live footage of the trial yesterday and some of the footage going around on social media as it relates to the case simply did not happen yesterday in court.
Maybe it’s time we ask ourselves not just “What happened?”
But also “Why am I watching this, and what am I doing with what I believe I know?”
