Russel Williams: True Crime in the US vs Canada
There are definitely some differences between Canadian media coverage of crime and American media coverage of crime. The documentary "Above Suspicion", was a Canadian film that talked about the crimes of Russell Williams with re-enactments and interviews with victims and their families. It did an overview of Williams' past, his time in the military, and his crime spree afterwards.
Much of the documentary was compiled of interviews with investigators, victims, their families, and even one of Russel's friends. I think the interviews were a good way to present the information because they were from people who had a part in the cases, and they weren't dramatized in a way that would traumatize people, unlike many shows that cover true crime. The language used in telling the story wasn't to make it entertaining, it was to have people understand what happened without being too spooked.
The American documentary "Name, Rank, and Serial Killer?" also covered the case of Russell Williams, but I found that it wasn't just made to inform people, it was made to entertain people. It sounds bad, but people do find violent crime really interesting and take a guilty pleasure in watching shows that cover true crime events like this one. A key difference in this one when compared to the Canadian version was a smaller amount of interviews, they were just little snippets of people saying things and not a full recounted version by the victims. It had a reporter narrating the entire thing, using very graphic language, I found the tone and word choice made the video seem sensationalized, giving more entertainment value rather than straight info. Another thing in this one that wasn't in the first was the part where they went over Canada's response, criticizing it but also asking the victims families about the death penalty and if they wanted it. This is interesting, it makes me wonder whether it's a dig at Canada's legal system or just to get more emotion out of the person they were interviewing.
I do think that some of the coverage of the story was too sensationalized, but I get how they didn't want to hold back any information. However, some of it was very graphic and not very necessary to the public. The press perhaps thought of the case as a business opportunity to grab people's attention, and I think they gave more information than the public needed. I think people should always be allowed access to information, but I don't think that all of it needs to be broadcasted as it might be disturbing to some people. For example, someone who is interested in all the little details in a case could go online to a more secure source rather than a broadcasting company website or show.
So yes, there is such thing as "too much information" and things that are too graphic for the general public shouldn't be sensationalized as much, but I think that those who want to know more should be able to have access to that information.
Comments
Post a Comment