http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/reality-tv-murder-investigation-discovery?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=IHTM

Thanks for the link to the article, Meg.

It is pretty thought-provoking. I guess I can understand where she's coming from with the whole "murder porn" angle. Admittedly, I watch a LOT of shows on ID. I believe the show the author is discussing is "Deadly Affairs," hosted by Susan Lucci. I have not yet watched that show. I do not like the route that ID has been taking with some of its programming and really upping the "sex" factor in these crimes. For that reason, I quit watching "Scorned."

Part of me wonders, however, if this would have been her stance regardless of the "angle" the show had chosen to take. For example, would she be as upset if "Motives and Murders" chose to cover it? I've seen quite a few of those episodes, and they are told in a more "48 Hours" style. Actually, the murderer I know that I've discussed on these boards was featured on that show and I found the telling of the tale to be pretty close to what I remember from reading the papers and knowing the family. Would the author of the article still be upset if just the facts, rather than the salaciousness of the murder, been covered?

Part of me wonders, however, if this would have been her stance regardless of the "angle" the show had chosen to take. For example, would she be as upset if "Motives and Murders" chose to cover it? I've seen quite a few of those episodes, and they are told in a more "48 Hours" style. Actually, the murderer I know that I've discussed on these boards was featured on that show and I found the telling of the tale to be pretty close to what I remember from reading the papers and knowing the family. Would the author of the article still be upset if just the facts, rather than the salaciousness of the murder, been covered?

My takeaway is that she objects to the way sensationalism has trumped journalism. A factual, responsible, non-exploitative account of her sister's murder - with more of a focus on the ADC's culpability and the issue of domestic violence, rather than a juicy love triangle - would likely have gotten the family's cooperation imo. She says they declined to participate when they saw the angle the producers were taking, not that they object to any coverage at all.

I don't watch a lot of these shows for this very reason. UM may have been cheesy at times (okay a lot of the time) but I can't recall it trying to be salacious and it had an actual purpose which was to try and get people to come forward with information on cases that needed help. The show this article references is little more than the tv equivalent of click bait.

My takeaway is that she objects to the way sensationalism has trumped journalism. A factual, responsible, non-exploitative account of her sister's murder - with more of a focus on the ADC's culpability and the issue of domestic violence, rather than a juicy love triangle - would likely have gotten the family's cooperation imo. She says they declined to participate when they saw the angle the producers were taking, not that they object to any coverage at all.

I don't watch a lot of these shows for this very reason. UM may have been cheesy at times (okay a lot of the time) but I can't recall it trying to be salacious and it had an actual purpose which was to try and get people to come forward with information on cases that needed help. The show this article references is little more than the tv equivalent of click bait.

I would agree with that. I watched Scorned: Love Kills for a few episodes mainly because I was interested in hearing about the various love triangles, but it got really tired really fast. It does seem like an emphasis is being put on the salaciousness of some of these crimes ("Tabloid with Jerry Springer" comes to immediate mind) and that's sad. I think that's part of the reason I LOVED Disappeared so much. I will never forgive ID for cancelling that one... I wish "Last Seen Alive" was being produced a bit more, since I would argue it's the closest thing ID has to Disappeared.

Aside: The "cheese" is also what made UM awesome at times. :)

I've been SO disappointed with ID. True Crime with Aphrodite Jones may have been their best show. They profiled a reality show contestant who killed his wife. I was obsessed with this case for a while (even though there's nothing particularly dubious) and was able to find a torrent, since ID seemed to have no intention of airing it ever again.

Was that the Jasmine Flores murder?

I agree about True Crime with Aphrodite Jones. Great show. Not sure why they aren't airing new episodes.

I only stated watching ID in 2010, when they first started airing Disappeared. I love Disappeared as it was a way to help families find their loved ones giving their stories a national audience and yes, the REAL stories were fascinating. It was also the closest thing to Unsolved Mysteries in years (aside from American Most Wanted)

I am appalled and disgusted at the way this network has been going in the last year or two. They repeat the same crime stories for different "shows" on their network. It is getting WAY to soap opera-y and sensationalized. Even their commercials seem to advertise their shows as sex driven. They also basically got rid of Disappeared. IMO, they are trying to appeal to bored middle aged house wives who aren't interested in REAL events and stories but rather a sensationalized tabloid like story line.

The name of the network is "Investigation Discovery" Yet most all of their shows now are terrible tabloid junk and have little to do with any real investigations or real life stories.

I prefer to watch (aside from UM obviously), Disappeared, Missing: the First 48, The First 48, Vanished with Beth Holloway ect. (all on different networks). The rest of the garbage on ID is for people whos interest is only in tabloid like stories. The Aphrodite Jones show wasn't bad but I'm not exactly a fan of hers, shes too dramatic for my style but yes it was better than the crap their air now

On the show, crime "experts" in suits sit in front of authority-lending bookshelf props, describing events no one witnessed, offering commentary on the internal dialogue of dead people they never met. The story is slickly packaged and the reveal saved for the final minutes, though the police reports and news accounts have long been public record.

At the time, the medical examiner told me not to attempt to visually identify my sister's body because it would be too gruesome and disturbing to me, and to this day, I have never viewed pictures from the crime scene of her murder. But the Discovery Channel has, and they have now aired these blurred images for all the world's entertainment.This is why I don't like ID's new crop of shows. It's all about sensationalism and not about actual crime solving.

They canceled Disappeared, yet they keep bringing back crap like this show which offers nothing to anybody. I don't know what exactly happened to this network, but it has gone deeply off the rails and needs to find its way back.

I've never watched the show referenced in the article, because it seems too soap opera like and very cheesy, but I do know that a lot of their current shows aren't what I would consider "murder porn". "Murder Book" is a good one as is "Homicide Hunter". They're still making some good true crime shows, I just tend to ignore the stupid ones.

Excellent post as always Meg! You know i don't watch ID never really have. I did see a few episodes of disappeared and a few others before most of them seemed fake. Every now and then I watch the beaurocratic crime shows on the original
Discovery channel because they seem more realistic.

This does make me wonder though how the families feel about UM now and also these forums if they bother them at times. I know sometimes people can be inconsiderate of the devastation that they felt. I think at heart most of us wish that we can help them solve their mystery and just want to stay tied to a show that was a part of our lives. I do see that many family members and friends have come on here and voiced their appreciation for people continuing to care and help.

I can't speak for celebrities but they do have to be careful of the programs or companies that they endorse. It seems so easy now for a celebrity to get a paycheck to take on a spokesman role and you wonder if they really do their homework or if they care?

I know bob stack loved UM because he wanted to help real people and did have a side of him that wanted to be a detective. I know it was a dark show but I really felt UM helped a lot of people at a time in history when network tv was our primary medium to the masses.

Most of the time the families were directly involved with Unsolved Mysteries. They wanted to solve/find their loved one or their case ect. Many times, even 20 years from the original segment aired, family members have posted on these forums with updates, sharing ideas, or correcting misinformation, or just are happy that people still care about their loved one or their case. The way UM was formatted was that usually the police department or family contacted UM. For example I know that Wendy Camps sister was very active on these forums and through her facebook.

I don't think there's any comparing UM/Disappeared/AMW to those tabloid sensationalized shows. The main purpose of those shows was to get those stories told to a national audience and get them solved. Yes, they had great ratings but they served a purpose and 99% of the time the family/friends/LE were fully involved. These new shows on ID serve no purpose other than to entertain with sensationalized versions of real events

I agree many of the shows use younger attractive actors and focus on sex. Heck there is even a TV show hosted by Jerry Springer called "Tabloid"!! I can understand people being put off by the way their loved ones are portrayed on the shows.

It's a bit jarring when watching "Scorned" to find out the real person is actually in their 50's and up yet is portrayed by a 20 year old Model. But what keeps me watching "Scorned" is the ending montage showing what happened to the people and their real pics. Gets me every time.

The channel has it's fair share of shows that don't "sex it up". "Deadly women" I think is a decent show. (if violent) The TV show "A Crime to Remember" is pretty great. Many of the cases I wouldn't have heard about if not for the channel.

I can't speak for celebrities but they do have to be careful of the programs or companies that they endorse. It seems so easy now for a celebrity to get a paycheck to take on a spokesman role and you wonder if they really do their homework or if they care?

Celebrities nowadays care about publicity & their bank balance only. They will promote any nonsense as long as the money is good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwylBRucU7w

[QUOTE=James T]Celebrities nowadays care about publicity & their bank balance only. They will promote any nonsense as long as the money is good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwylBRucU7w[/QUOTE



Sounds about right.

Was that the Jasmine Flores murder?

I agree about True Crime with Aphrodite Jones. Great show. Not sure why they aren't airing new episodes.


She went by Jasmine Fiore. Not sure if she legally changed her birth name, maybe.

The thing about this is, I Love Money was a show designed for sociopaths to thrive. Fans were deprived of the third season when the reported winner, Ryan Jenkins, killed his wife that he met and married mere days after being eliminated from Megan Wants a Millionaire.
If I remember correctly, less than a week (two weeks at most) after finishing up I Love Money, he murdered Jasmine Fiore.

They seemed like two of the biggest *******s in the universe.

Curiously, the perpetrator of the murder described in the article is the daughter of a murder victim herself. Her mother Kathy Augustine's murder was featured in an episode of Forensic Files entitled "Political Thriller". On top of this, it is theorized by law enforcement that Kathy Augustine's killer, husband Chaz Higgs, may have been responsible for Augustine's first husband's death. Higgs was a registered nurse and cared for Mr. Augustine during a hospital stay when he suddenly died. (Three weeks after his death, Higgs and Kathy were married.)

If this is indeed the case, an entire family has been literally destroyed by murder in one way or another. :(

Great article, Meg. ID is such a terrible channel now. Their list of shows is laughable. "Wives with Knives" ...seriously? It's such a terrible shame, especially after having produced a great show like Disappeared. I recorded On the Case with Paula Zahn so I could catch the Roxanne Jeeves segment and watched it a few times. It wasn't so bad, but it did have horrible reenactments that seemed to almost idealize the crime. All of their shows seem overrun with reenactments that are overly graphic and gratuitous.

"Dates from Hell" was another show I tried watching. I couldn't believe what I was watching when they showed sexual assault scenes. It just went on and on and really went overboard. It's like whoever is writing/producing these shows is on some serious drugs. "This stuff is great, let's make horribly violent scenes last forever, that will be cool!" Murder/Sexual Assault/Crime is not sexy nor is it appealing. It's just sickening. ID makes History Channel's turn to Alien shows seem Emmy-worthy.

The ONLY guilty pleasure show I like on ID besides Disappeared is Deadly Women. However, that show has been on since like 2007 or 2008. Has anyone ever noticed that Snapped is just a bunch of interviews strung together with flashes of a random courtroom, police car driving, ect with a few super blurry soft focus reenactments a thrown in? I hate snapped (not that it's on ID but that's a terrible show to). I did recognize the detective from the two Mary murders segment giving an interview on an episode on snapped.

I think it's more of a trend for tv shows as a whole, not just the crime docudramas. Sexual scenarios interspersed with violent imagery (usually of women being abused and/or killed). I'm a bit leery on how that dynamic plays out in the minds of younger people, but I've been out of the loop with most crime oriented shows for years.

I've always been bothered when shows play video or audio of victims being tortured - Cold Case Files showed part of the video and audio of Maury Travis berating one of his victims and another show featured fairly graphic portions of videos that Leonard Lake and Charles Ng made of themselves tormenting two of their female victims. Just my take, that sort of stuff is undignified towards the victims and wholly unnecessary.

I've always been bothered when shows play video or audio of victims being tortured - Cold Case Files showed part of the video and audio of Maury Travis berating one of his victims and another show featured fairly graphic portions of videos that Leonard Lake and Charles Ng made of themselves tormenting two of their female victims. Just my take, that sort of stuff is undignified towards the victims and wholly unnecessary.

I agree. In my opinion it should only be included if the victim's family wants it to be, or if LE wants it included for some reason (and hopefully they would have conferred with the family), or if serves some sort of journalistic purpose which let's face it Cold Case Files is not journalism. Otherwise, leave it out. People should watch Dexter if they want to be entertained, not get their kicks from real victims. :(

The snippets of home video from Leonard Lake and Charles Ing is seriously disturbing. :/ I still remember that episode.

very well said, WishfulDreamer

I think it's more of a trend for tv shows as a whole, not just the crime docudramas. Sexual scenarios interspersed with violent imagery (usually of women being abused and/or killed). I'm a bit leery on how that dynamic plays out in the minds of younger people, but I've been out of the loop with most crime oriented shows for years.

I've always been bothered when shows play video or audio of victims being tortured - Cold Case Files showed part of the video and audio of Maury Travis berating one of his victims and another show featured fairly graphic portions of videos that Leonard Lake and Charles Ng made of themselves tormenting two of their female victims. Just my take, that sort of stuff is undignified towards the victims and wholly unnecessary.

Yep-it is the way television has gone the last 15 years or so-pretty much every true crime show has an element of sensationalism to it. Cruelty & selling sex or whatever takes precedent over presenting facts & treating people as humans in the need for ratings.

Just look at the 'educational' channels now-rather than shows about science & history they are filled up with 'reality' shows about redneck truckers, pawn shops, top gear etc. Television has been dumbed down so much it is beyond belief. 30 years ago as a child I would watch documentaries that told a no frills factual story, now you have to have crappy CGI graphics & a techno soundtrack to air it. The supernatural would be looked at by Arthur C Clarke, now you have Yvette Fielding scaring girl bands in haunted houses-usually a crew member banging something like a polt would etc.

They dummy down everything now. Let's not forget so called "news channels". They now are made more for entertainment value. Just take CNN and fox news during the first few weeks the Malaysian flight went missing back in March. They had nothing new to report after a week or so, so they had different experts and talking heads on to give their opinions and scenarios. They even made a replica cockpit and simulated different possible theories for days on end. It was ridiculous. HLN is the biggest joke. Between Nancy Grace being over dramatic and obnoxious (even to her own guests) and Dr.Drew and his "expert panel " going over news stories, crime, or trials it's all sensationalized. It's not news anymore, just telling the straight facts, it's dummied down for entertainment.

Curiously, the perpetrator of the murder described in the article is the daughter of a murder victim herself. Her mother Kathy Augustine's murder was featured in an episode of Forensic Files entitled "Political Thriller". On top of this, it is theorized by law enforcement that Kathy Augustine's killer, husband Chaz Higgs, may have been responsible for Augustine's first husband's death. Higgs was a registered nurse and cared for Mr. Augustine during a hospital stay when he suddenly died. (Three weeks after his death, Higgs and Kathy were married.)

Oh man, that is nuts... I feel like that FF comes on often, and there is at least one other crime show that has done the story, so I feel like I know it well. It was a bizarre one, and that slimeball Higgs' face has stuck with me from seeing it so much.

http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/reality-tv-murder-investigation-discovery?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=IHTM

I remember when I first discovered that ID was a thing, I was so excited. I quickly discovered and really liked Disappeared. But just about as fast as I found the channel, it seemed to circle the drain into the tabloid unwatchable garbage it now is.

The recent true-crime podcast Serial is certainly many cuts above anything currently airing on ID, both in terms of intellectual rigor and tastefulness in dealing with the subject matter. But even this podcast has - rightly - ignited a debate that I honestly had had with myself years ago regarding UM: UM is, for me, entertainment. We can talk about how the show was designed to publicize cases and generate leads, and indeed it did do that, and for that reason its existence is justified. But my OWN enjoyment of the show - when you come right down to it - was perhaps not so justified. I was engaged by mysteries of real people's real tragedies - disappearances & murders mostly - as a kind of voyeuristic entertainment, an opportunity to play "armchair detective" - an armchair detective with no possibility of solving or even contributing to the solving of any these cases.

It does seem an ethical conundrum. ID is just the logical extension of the basic impulse. Cases like the ones they cover - and the "Final Appeal" segment of UM, and what Serial did - are on the one hand the most interesting (I think pretty much all of the Final Appeal segments from UM were really engaging and interesting). But they also present the most complex ethical questions because they involve re-litigating what has already been adjudicated, and putting the family of the victim through that process for what mostly boils down to entertainment purposes. Every so often one of these shows probably does set off a chain of events that sets an innocent person free - but how much more often do they make present reality out of tragedy that had mercifully become history for the families, prior to their airing, and all for nothing?

Us longtime fans of ID have regularly complained about Scorned and similar shows. Perhaps that's why they made A Crime To Remember and introduced Murder Book and shows that are less soft porn and more procedural in nature. You can only show many scenes of clothes being ripped off along to guitar riffs before people get tired of it. And using good-looking actors and actresses when in reality the ones cheating and murdering are average, sometimes unattractive, makes it less connected to reality.

I remember when I first discovered that ID was a thing, I was so excited. I quickly discovered and really liked Disappeared. But just about as fast as I found the channel, it seemed to circle the drain into the tabloid unwatchable garbage it now is.

The recent true-crime podcast Serial is certainly many cuts above anything currently airing on ID, both in terms of intellectual rigor and tastefulness in dealing with the subject matter. But even this podcast has - rightly - ignited a debate that I honestly had had with myself years ago regarding UM: UM is, for me, entertainment. We can talk about how the show was designed to publicize cases and generate leads, and indeed it did do that, and for that reason its existence is justified. But my OWN enjoyment of the show - when you come right down to it - was perhaps not so justified. I was engaged by mysteries of real people's real tragedies - disappearances & murders mostly - as a kind of voyeuristic entertainment, an opportunity to play "armchair detective" - an armchair detective with no possibility of solving or even contributing to the solving of any these cases.

It does seem an ethical conundrum. ID is just the logical extension of the basic impulse. Cases like the ones they cover - and the "Final Appeal" segment of UM, and what Serial did - are on the one hand the most interesting (I think pretty much all of the Final Appeal segments from UM were really engaging and interesting). But they also present the most complex ethical questions because they involve re-litigating what has already been adjudicated, and putting the family of the victim through that process for what mostly boils down to entertainment purposes. Every so often one of these shows probably does set off a chain of events that sets an innocent person free - but how much more often do they make present reality out of tragedy that had mercifully become history for the families, prior to their airing, and all for nothing?

So much of what you've shared here are the same thoughts I had and questions I asked myself when I initially read the article, and things I have considered in the years I've become such a fan of true crime books and TV shows. I catch myself thinking back to posts I've made on this board and wonder how it would make me feel to read my words on someone else's family member from their position--even if I am nearly certain to the core of my being that they are truly guilty of a given crime. We've had family members and friends come here pretty burned up about our discussions at times, and although I'm sure they almost never have unbiased objections, I can certainly empathize with their feelings about us hashing and rehashing a case that's probably been hell on their lives for years--or one that's been long resolved and continues to be a constant source of pain for them.

Hell, just reading what some people had to say about the perpetrator in the crime described in the article was absolutely horrible, regardless of the fact that she took the life of another person. The ugly, homophobic, sexist, hateful things said about that woman on one site in particular made my stomach sick. What topped it all off, however, was the fact that a friend of the perpetrator apparently visited the site and read all these things about someone she cared about. She replied in a comment and was remarkably quite civil in light of the inflammatory, disgusting general remarks this person made about lesbians and women as a whole.

I think what struck me about the article is that it forced me to confront the "why" behind my enjoyment of so-called true crime. I find what motivates individual human beings to be infinitely fascinating. Criminals are certainly very interesting case studies in that context. But I don't flip on Forensic Files or crack open an Ann Rule book because I'm seeking edification--at least not on a conscious level. I'm seeking entertainment. That's hard to admit, personally. I imagine few people want to admit that such a basic tendency exists within them. But I think acknowledging and being mindful of it lends itself to fostering sensitivity and greater empathy toward those who have actually lived these events. At least that's what I'll seek to do.

I think what struck me about the article is that it forced me to confront the "why" behind my enjoyment of so-called true crime. I find what motivates individual human beings to be infinitely fascinating. Criminals are certainly very interesting case studies in that context. But I don't flip on Forensic Files or crack open an Ann Rule book because I'm seeking edification--at least not on a conscious level. I'm seeking entertainment. That's hard to admit, personally. I imagine few people want to admit that such a basic tendency exists within them. But I think acknowledging and being mindful of it lends itself to fostering sensitivity and greater empathy toward those who have actually lived these events. At least that's what I'll seek to do.

In terms of confronting the "why" I think interacting with victims and families (some from UM) through this forum has opened my eyes a lot. I think the most sobering moment came for me a few years ago when I was corresponding with a family member regarding a case on the show and they came out and asked me something like "why do you want to know all of his information? Why do you care?" I had a very difficult time answering that. Truthfully, I felt a little bad too because I couldn't justify my need for the information. In a way, I suppose they are right. It is none of my business, that isn't my family, I shouldn't care. My own morbid curiosity shouldn't trump the possible pain and suffering such questioning could cause a family member or someone who has an actual stake in the case.

It is a moral and ethical conflict I still struggle with. I don't know the answer. I hope I'll find it, but I think it is something I avoid reflecting on too deeply because I still enjoy coming here and discussing the cases, watching the shows, reading the books, etc.

It is a moral and ethical conflict I still struggle with. I don't know the answer. I hope I'll find it, but I think it is something I avoid reflecting on too deeply because I still enjoy coming here and discussing the cases, watching the shows, reading the books, etc.

This is exactly how I feel.

I think the most sobering moment came for me a few years ago when I was corresponding with a family member regarding a case on the show and they came out and asked me something like "why do you want to know all of his information? Why do you care?" I had a very difficult time answering that. Truthfully, I felt a little bad too because I couldn't justify my need for the information.


For me personally, it is like an unfinished puzzle. An unsolved case is a puzzle waiting to be solved. Seeing families getting justice and closure is also gratifying as well. We also have to remember that this is largly the same drive that police detectives have as well - though the major difference is they are often in a position to actually be able to do something about it.

As far as ID goes, I have only heard second hand that it is getting bad. I don't have cable, and the only way I saw it was over my parents house, but ID was suddenly dropped from their cable teir awhile back, so I haven't seen it since perhaps late 2012.
The only newish series I have seen is 'Dark Minds', which although somewhat gimmicky seems OK to me (see espically the I-70 Killer episode, great amount of detail in that).

I would be curious to know which shows are still good and which are tabloid material, because I had thought about getting some of the DVD sets.