Beyond the Beast: Why Journalism Must Reexamine Its Addiction to "Monsterfication"

Main Facts

True crime has evolved into a cultural phenomenon, functioning for most audiences as a "mental roller coaster: exciting, but safe." However, beneath the global appetite for gripping narratives lies a deeply entrenched journalistic habit: the reliance on the "monster" frame.

Whether explicitly stated or subtly implied through loaded terminology, labeling perpetrators as inhuman anomalies is an extraordinarily efficient storytelling device. It draws a clear, comforting moral boundary between them and us, simplifies complex societal failures, and drives high engagement metrics.

Yet, this reflex of "monsterfication" carries profound collateral damage. It creates confirmation traps in the justice system, fuels moral panic, and hinders our collective ability to understand how harmful behavior actually develops. Moving beyond this trope does not mean abandoning moral accountability; rather, it demands a journalistic shift toward rigorous context, trauma-informed interviewing, and a commitment to investigating the systemic roots of crime without reducing individuals to one-dimensional caricatures.

Chronology

The evolution of modern crime reporting and the growing critique of the "monster" paradigm can be traced across several key developments:

• 1986: Diane Sindall is murdered in the UK, a crime for which Peter Sullivan is subsequently given a life sentence and branded by the press as "the beast of Birkenhead."
• 2007: Media historian Dr. Claire Wardle publishes a landmark study revealing that UK news coverage of child murders had shifted overwhelmingly toward "personalisation," focusing heavily on grief and societal emotional response while displaying little tolerance for contextualizing offenders.
• 1990–2015: Researcher Rebecca A. DiBennardo analyzes 323 Los Angeles Times articles, finding that coverage of sexual predators persistently used victims’ stories to frame offenders as predatory monsters deserving of harsh punishment.
• 2019: Daemon Fairless and colleagues release Hunting Warhead, a podcast exploring the life and crimes of Benjamin Faulkner, a Canadian man imprisoned for child sexual abuse material distribution and assault. Faulkner later notes that the podcast forced him to see himself from the outside, prompting deep personal reflection.
• 2024: Elin Floberghagen leads the Norwegian Press Association’s commission investigating the media’s role in the wrongful conviction of Viggo Kristiansen, sparking renewed calls for newsrooms to appoint critical "cold brains" to challenge editorial assumptions.
• 2025: Veteran crime journalist Stephen Wright—who spent 33 years covering crime for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday—reports that Peter Sullivan was most likely innocent of the 1986 murder, raising uncomfortable questions about the enduring harm of sensationalist labels like "the beast of Birkenhead."

Supporting Data

The mechanics and impacts of crime reporting are increasingly illuminated by academic research and investigative insights:

• The Scale of the Problem: Stephen Wright spent 33 years covering crime for mainstream British tabloids before reporting on the likely wrongful conviction of Peter Sullivan nearly four decades later.
• Historical Shift in Framing: Dr. Claire Wardle’s 2007 study of UK newspapers demonstrated a measurable shift away from systemic institutional coverage toward hyper-personalized narratives of victim grief and societal outrage.
• Longitudinal Media Analysis: Rebecca A. DiBennardo’s study of 323 articles from the Los Angeles Times (1990–2015) documented how recurring framing strategies systematically construct sexual offenders as irredeemable predators.
• Interviewer Dynamics: Criminological and psychological research consistently shows that even minor instances of maladaptive behavior by an interviewer directly increase maladaptive responses in the subject, emphasizing that humane, structured interviewing yields far richer information than aggressive confrontation.

Official Responses

Journalists, researchers, and criminal justice watchdogs have increasingly spoken out about the dangers of media demonization and the necessity of reforming investigative practices:

• Stephen Wright, veteran crime journalist, reflecting on the label "the beast of Birkenhead" applied to Peter Sullivan:

  "I’ve never really thought about that. This is the culture I’ve been brought up in… This is how we do it in the UK."

• Line Vaaben, editor at Danish newspaper Politiken:

  "These are cases with enormous click potential. Most of us live very boring lives, so true crime is like a mental roller coaster for most of us: exciting, but safe."

• Annemarte Moland, Norwegian journalist with Aftenposten, on investigating the extreme 764 network:

  "I have reported on stories about pedophiles, abusers, and suicide among teenage girls. When I started investigating 764, I met myself at the door."

  

• Dr. Nadja Heym, psychologist, on the societal necessity of rehabilitation over pure condemnation:

  "It’s not helpful to society. If you wish to improve society as a whole, the moral responsibility is that you should be rehabilitating these criminals… It is not about removing the moral aspect, but trying to look at the events from a different angle."

• Benjamin Faulkner, serving a life sentence in Arizona, reflecting on his journalistic exposure:

  "If you ever want a person to learn from their mistakes, to help the next person with their mistakes and to be a productive member of society, it’s important to talk openly. Let’s talk about what happened and why. How do we fix it for next time, for the next person?" He added regarding accountability: "I deserve to be here because I hurt people. I chose to do what I did. It’s a choice I have to take responsibility for."

Implications

The Feedback Loop of Monsterfication

The media, the police, and the justice system do not operate in vacuums. They continuously influence one another, creating a powerful feedback loop where early assumptions become mutually reinforcing. When journalism relies heavily on monsterfication, it actively disrupts the social and institutional functioning of all three pillars.

Demonization fuels confirmation traps, moral panics, public stigma, and vigilante mentalities. By ascribing "othering" labels to behaviors we refuse to comprehend—treating them as acts committed by creatures fundamentally detached from humanity—we obscure the developmental pathways of harmful behavior. If a perpetrator is born a monster, prevention becomes an impossibility; we can only wait for evil to manifest and react with righteous retribution.

Shifting the Journalistic Toolkit

Adopting a more nuanced approach does not mean offering a platform for uncritical self-praise or erasing the severity of criminal acts. Instead, it requires a structural overhaul of how reporters approach trauma, perpetrator interviews, and editorial oversight.

1. Protecting Journalistic Well-being: Investigative reporters diving into heinous crimes—such as Annemarte Moland’s work on the 764 network—face severe psychological distress. Newsrooms must enforce protective protocols, including working in pairs, viewing disturbing materials on muted, small screens with strict time limits, and conducting mandatory debriefs. Furthermore, newsrooms should appoint a "cold brain"—an independent devil’s advocate inspired by recommendations from the Norwegian Press Association—to challenge editorial assumptions with fresh eyes.
2. Building Rapport Through the Rapport Compass: Adapting frameworks like John Birtchnell’s Interpersonal Octagon and the ORBIT interviewing model, journalists must assess a source’s behavioral state—whether they are controlling, cooperative, guarded, or confrontational—and respond effectively rather than reflexively. Humane interviewing is an operational tool designed to maximize factual disclosure and depth.
3. Trauma-Informed Perpetrator Interviews: While journalism has rightly embraced trauma-informed approaches for victims, perpetrators also experience fear, deep shame, and cognitive paralysis. Acknowledging these psychological states is essential for eliciting reliable, reflective accounts.
4. Fostering Reflection and Context: In-depth interviews yield richer results when reporters encourage reflection, explore personal principles, examine coping mechanisms, and place painful experiences within the context of an entire human life.

Conclusion: A Better Conversation With Ourselves

Challenging the addiction to monsterfication undoubtedly makes the work of journalism more difficult. The monster frame is ancient, deeply rooted in myth, fear, and our collective urge to establish rigid moral boundaries.

Yet, reading and digesting the news is ultimately a private, internal conversation: What does this tell me about the world? How would I have behaved? What does this say about me?

The core responsibility of modern journalism is not to cut that internal conversation short by handing readers a neatly packaged villain. Rather, it is to provide the rigorous truth, unflinching context, and necessary complexity that empower audiences to engage in a deeper, more honest dialogue with themselves about human nature, accountability, and the prevention of harm.