Overlooking Ethics for Entertainment: Media and the Story of Gypsy Rose Blanchard

Police lights at a crime scene. Ajax9/Getty Images via Canva for Education

Willa Weinsheimer ’24

Willa Weinsheimer was a 2023-24 Hackworth Fellow with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University with Journalism and Media Ethics Director Subbu Vincent.

News and entertainment have long overlapped because we want to know what is happening in the world around us. But, who is responsible for shaping the media content we consume? On the one hand, the writers and producers of news are responsible for the information that is distributed to us. Yet, we decide what stories we pick up or scroll past; we tell writers and producers what we will read. So, who is responsible for monitoring the direction of our news consumption, and how does our choice of topics impact what information we are provided?

First, we must consider the relationship between journalists and citizens within a democracy; media and journalists work as a connection between citizens and formal authorities. Remaining as the connector, rather than a talking piece, between entities, is crucial to upholding the trust and functionality of a media within a strong democracy. The goal of democracy is to foster an environment in which each citizen holds power within the government that maintains their rights and freedoms (1). This is why the media often serves in a watchdog role; citizens rely on journalists to provide accurate and transparent information about those in decision-making positions within the government. So, how does this normative role of the media square off against our fascination with crime and, in turn, impact attitudes around crime, entertainment, and how people view justice?

Over the last few decades, there has been an enduring fascination with true crime–books, podcasts, television, documentaries–you name it and it has been created. Only so often has a single story been discussed for over a decade. Arguably, one of the most elevated true crime stories of the last decade (in America) is the killing of Dee Dee Blanchard by her daughter, Gypsy Rose Blanchard, and boyfriend, Nicholas Godejohn. Complicating this story is the fact that Gypsy Rose suffered years of abuse from her mother, Dee Dee, who suffered from Munchausen syndrome.

Between June 2015, when Dee Dee Blanchard was murdered, and January 2024, when Gypsy Rose was released from prison, this story was discussed through thousands of social media posts, hundreds of news articles, three documentaries, and one book. That is nearly a decade of discussion of one story. In a media world of 24/7 news production, relevance for over a decade is rare (2).

While Gypsy Rose suffered years of abuse at the hands of her mother, DeeDee Blanchard, it was not until the death of Dee Dee that this story received significant media attention. The first national media coverage of this story was published on August 18, 2016, with the headline, “Dee Dee Wanted Her Daughter To Be Sick, Gypsy Wanted Her Mom Murdered.” Such a simplified headline leads readers to the assumption that such a complicated and sensitive story is simply black and white. This leads to a fascination with this story, with immediate judgments–accurate or not. This is intentional. Media outlets depend on the interest of the public to remain functional and relevant, so there is a systematic incentive to design headlines to grab the attention of a reader rather than to best inform the reader. This article set this story up to do just that; Because this article is what brought this story to the national spotlight, what it shared, how it framed the events of Gypsy Rose’s life, and the actions that led to the murder of Dee Dee, drove the contours for how this story was to be discussed further.

The Business of Information

The dissemination of information surrounding the Gypsy Rose case comes through two avenues: (1) local news outlets, such as the Springfield News-Leader, led the coverage of what was happening regarding the criminal trial of Gypsy Rose and her then-boyfriend, Nicholas Godejohn, (2) meanwhile, national outlets, such as ABC News, Harpers Bazaar, Time Magazine, and more, focus on what happened leading up to the murder, including analyses of the societal and legal implications of such cases of abuse.

Much of the media discussion about Gypsy Rose was driven by a curiosity about how such a shocking scenario came to be. So much so that in 2017, only one year after Gypsy Rose went to jail, HBO released a documentary detailing this story titled, “Mommy Dead and Dearest.” Then, in 2019, Hulu produced a documentary titled ‘The Act’ which, in contrast to HBO’s documentary, told the story through a dramatized docuseries adaptation of Gypsy Rose’s life and the events that led up to Dee Dee’s murder. Each retelling of this story was made through a series of decisions by journalists and producers.

Journalists harness this power not only through their storytelling but also in their choices about which stories to tell; the issues and topics brought forward in media drive public discussion. Traditionally, in democracies, journalism ethics have focused on the decisions made during the investigation and writing of a story, rather than the broader impacts of how topics are framed and whose voices are highlighted. For example, the Society of Professional Journalists established a Code of Ethics (3) with four principles of ethical journalism: Seek truth and report it, Minimize harm, Act independently, and Be accountable and transparent. While these are all important cornerstones for journalists to produce ethical stories, there’s little concern with the consideration of story selection. Story selection is often based on what is timely and relevant. With such a broad baseline, there needs to be a consideration of what stories are timely and relevant to whom. Because journalists know we, as consumers, have natural curiosity, the type of curiosity they appeal to will drive story and topic selection. In many cases, especially with stories focused on crime or tragedy, the curiosity being tapped into is a more morbid curiosity, centered on guilt, culpability, and shock. This is distinct from a more reflective curiosity that encourages learning and understanding, highlighting the need to recognize the specific type of curiosity at play when discussing story selection. To engage readers quickly and consistently, journalists often win over our immediate curiosity by delving into stories that target our curiosity of shock.

Social Media Content

There is another line of public communication about the Gypsy Rose case - social media. Within the realm of social media as a distributive platform of information, consumers have a higher level of agency than through the consumption of formal media because social media offers a more direct two-way line of communication. With this agency, social media allows for our curiosity about stories to play out without structured limits, and many people turn to it to gather news and information. A 2022 Pew Research Center study (4) found that there is growing trust in information from social media from younger adults. Specifically, this trust has been found to have grown while trust in local and national news organizations falls across all demographics. With this trust in social media growing, the distribution of news has entered a new and often boundless arena. With this, comes an important consideration of the balance of the consumer and producer relationship.

It Takes Two to Tango

While the media companies control what stories to cover, we decide which stories to pick up and read. So, who is responsible for the direction our news and media consumption moves? Is it the consumers or the producers?

Simply put, commercial news outlets need to make a profit to keep functioning. So, they need to work to keep readers engaged enough to maintain retention. Every story that we choose to pick up, and every news outlet we choose to support, is a message suggesting what information we expect next, shaping the editorial decisions of producers. Coverage of Gypsy Rose piqued readers' interest the more that there were insights into her personal life, and the relationship between her and her mother, particularly in topics of health care fraud, mental health, and caregiver abuse. Yet, sensationalizing this story brought in commentary on social media platforms that may not have always been productive in moving real information forward.

A screenshot of a 2017 post from X, discussing the decision of Gypsy Rose Blanchard’s prison sentencing.

Image 1: A screenshot of a 2017 post from X, discussing the decision of Gypsy Rose Blanchard’s prison sentencing.

As engagement increased with the sensationalized coverage of Gypsy Rose’s story, such as Hulu’s docuseries, the amount of news coverage increased exponentially. Yet, not much of the information reported was new information. There became a silo of repeated context between news outlets.

The headline of the 2016 Buzzfeed article that jumpstarted much of the media coverage of Gypsy Rose Blanchard.

Image 2: The headline of the 2016 Buzzfeed article that jumpstarted much of the media coverage of Gypsy Rose Blanchard.

Connecting the Dots… Supply & Demand in Practice

In my research, I closely analyzed 44 news articles and read nearly 100 X (formerly Twitter) posts from 2015 to 2024. As media production surrounding the story of Gypsy Rose increased, social media conversations about it grew correspondingly. And, the longer social media conversations would last, the longer formal media outlets would produce related content - no matter how repetitive. Additionally, as news production became more sensationalized, social media responses grew increasingly emotional, and vice versa. So, because there is a strong correlation between producers and consumers of media, where does the responsibility of action lie?

The fall of responsibility lands in two sets of hands: those of consumers and citizens, and those of producers.

Responsibilities of Consumers/Citizens

Within a democracy, citizens decide what news stories to read and consequently what news sources they support. Because this is an active choice of an individual, the decision becomes a personal responsibility. The need for self-control becomes apparent from this understanding; one’s virtues are exposed by one’s actions (5). It is a personal choice to remain honest about your virtues through actions. So, in the example of media consumption of Gypsy Rose’s story, there is a constant choice to read to learn or read to be stimulated by shock value.

When one passively gives in to the feedback loops of social media, the power of personal choice is given away. While it is momentarily easy to passively move through the world, it is hard to have to deal with the consequences of actions that are not true to one’s self. So, when engaging with media content, being intentional about the type of media one chooses signals a preference for real, factual information, which in turn encourages the media to align with those preferences, thereby influencing the educational opportunities that follow.

Additionally, our media consumption actions signal to media companies what information we want to consume in the future. So, if we desire a democracy where citizens are accurately informed, particularly about the decisions of our justice system, then we must ask ourselves: “Does engagement in this genre of media produce a signal for producers to do more or less of these stories?”.

True crime stories capture significant public interest, yet this engagement rarely translates into tangible action or meaningful change. A more intentional alignment of values and story selection from readers can make a difference. For example, there have long been calls for more attention to be given to stories of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW). Yet, a casual observer of media coverage might say that there has been little increase in coverage or conversation. The imbalance in the amount of coverage of Gypsy Rose’s case and those of MMIW are indicative of what has been coined to be considered “Missing White Women Syndrome,” (6) which refers to the fact that the media has historically uplifted the concerns of white women while neglecting the concerns on women of color (7). And specifically, in the case of Gypsy Rose, we see a focus on uplifting the story of an individual, who is white, rather than investigating the systemic ways in which communities of color are disenfranchised by our criminal legal system every day.

When we choose to engage with communities that may be different from our own, we act in alignment with the virtues of care for the humanity of all those around us. Our society's hyper-attention to stories such as Gypsy Rose’s–who fits into the narrative of a victimized white woman–perpetuates a cycle of marginalizing and devaluing the lives and experiences of women of color, thereby reinforcing systemic inequalities and biases. To truly live up to our democracy’s goals of all rights applying to all individuals, we must show care and concern for the issues that face those around us.

Responsibility of Producers

While we signal to producers what we are interested in, it is their responsibility to engage us in constructive and productive dialogue. Regardless of their economic dependencies, mass media companies are accountable for the feedback loops they create and sustain. When social media companies platform dramatized conversations, they are choosing what conversations to highlight and perpetuate. Because media companies hold the decision-making power as to what stories get produced, there is a responsibility to consider how that information impacts the citizens in the democracy in which they are engaged.

Media companies sometimes hold dual responsibilities as they are responsible for performing for both their shareholders and the public as stakeholders. This is especially true when we see the benefit of the shareholders, who are often interested in profitability, conflicts with the interests of the public who rely on media companies for true and balanced information. When we consider how the actions of an organization or company impact the common good of society, we must evaluate based on not only the economic performance but also their contributions to societal well-being. The media production of the story of Gypsy Rose Blanchard exposed this balance that media production companies must maintain, and how often production is performed in an imbalance of these responsibilities.

Formal media coverage of Blanchard’s story was continued by different outlets, with some happening to be owned by the same company. In 2017, Hulu released a docuseries titled, “The Act,” (8) which depicted a dramatized retelling of Blanchard’s life and the events leading up to the planned murder of her mom, DeeDee Blanchard. In 2018, ABC News (9) published a detailed timeline of Blanchard’s life. Both Hulu and ABC are owned by The Walt Disney Company. The continued retelling of Blanchard’s story through multiple platforms, all owned by the same corporation, creates an illusion of diverse perspectives while actually serving the profit motives of a single entity.

Additionally, Lifetime produced a 2019 movie (10) dramatizing a story like that of Blanchard’s. Lifetime is now producing "The Prison Confessions of Gypsy Rose Blanchard," (11) which is a series of interviews with Blanchard near the end of her prison sentence. The decision of a media company to hyper-focus on the story of an individual also brings into light the consideration for the well-being of that individual. Lifetime has not solely produced information on the overall story but rather has retold it through dramatizations. This brings into question the ability of the individual in focus to hold onto the autonomy of their story, without this consideration the dignity of an individual can be undermined. All of the attention that media companies have perpetuated onto Blanchard has pushed her into the spotlight of formal media and social media platforms. While Blanchard first leaned into this attention following her release from prison, she has since limited her media appearances and deleted her Instagram account, insinuating that the intrusion of media attention (12) is not always welcomed.

The motivation of profit also drives the storytelling of an individual that may not be welcomed mutually. Hulu’s production of “The Act” was produced without any collaboration or approval from Blanchard and her family (13). This hyperfocus on an individual drives unsolicited exposure that may do more harm than good. Additionally, the dramatization takes time and resources away from realistically depicted patterned issues within our society. If the responsibility of journalism and media is to inform citizens of a democracy, then it is also their responsibility to do so in a holistic and considerate manner.

Extending the example of the fight for MMIW recognition, it would have been of great responsibility for the story of Blanchard to be used to paint a larger picture of the flaws within the American Criminal Legal System. Any qualms consumers of media had with the sentencing of Blanchard were not a story of one mishap. The story of Gypsy Rose Blanchard encapsulates aspects of our society that are often unaddressed, such as the needs of the MMIW movement. To go beyond the immediate shock factor of an individual story, responsible media production ought to portray systems that impact society as a whole.

Taking Control of Our Future

As highlighted before, News outlets respond to what we engage with because they rely on our engagement to stay functioning. So, I invite you all to reflect on the stories you choose to read, and consequently, the news sources you support, and how you are contributing to the conversations that proceed. While individual action is necessary to create change, there are systemic changes that also must be made for the ethical dissemination of news and general media to the citizens of a democracy. I further invite us to reflect on whether an economic model that relies on profit to sustain media companies truly allows for the most ethical and accurate production of information to the citizens of a democracy. I hope to leave you considering this question: Can a profit-driven media landscape serve the public interest, or does it inherently compromise the integrity of the information we receive?

Further actions you can take today:

Critically evaluate the news you consume. Diversify your consumption of news and cross-check news stories across multiple outlets to identify biases or inaccuracies to gather a balanced understanding of events.
Value & maintain your curiosity. Allow yourself to be led by your questioning and wonder about world events. Consume news to understand something you may have once been unfamiliar with. By suspending our immediate judgment, we can slow our consumption and push against a production system that is constant.

Invest in local & non-profit journalism. Find inspiration at the American Journalism Project.
Financially support quality journalism by subscribing to reputable news outlets, donating to investigative journalism projects, or contributing to crowdfunding campaigns that support in-depth reporting.

Engage in public discourse. Join discussions of media ethics and journalism’s role in our democracy. Advocate for and support policy changes that promote transparency in media ownership, restrict the concentration of media power, and encourage ethical journalism.
Vote for policies and candidates who prioritize the common good of public interests over the profit of corporations.