The ethics of true-crime TV: What Ron Goldman's sister wants Dahmer viewers to know

More than 20 years after her brother, Ron, was murdered alongside Nicole Brown Simpson in Los Angeles, Kim Goldman learned that FX and producer Ryan Murphy were releasing a star-studded limited series about the case called The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story. But it wasn't the people involved in making the show who told her.

"I was bombarded — bombarded — with news, and phone calls, and emails, and my feed, and I had no fricking idea what was going on," she tells EW. "So, either I had to choose to watch so that I could be part of the conversation or not. It's unnecessary, to not be able to just send an email that says, 'Hey, we're doing this about your family. I'm so sorry. We hope that you're proud of the work that we've done.'"

Murphy's latest true-crime hit, Dahmer — Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, has racked up more than 700 million viewing hours for Netflix since its Sept. 21 premiere, and it's left several of the victims' family members feeling equally blindsided. "I'm not surprised," says Goldman. "The same creator did the same thing to our family. I've seen [this type of backlash] from Gabby Petito's family about the Lifetime movie. Lots of other families have talked about how their case has been exploited without any involvement or even a courtesy call. It's pretty gross." (Representatives for Murphy and FX did not respond to a request for comment.)

In the nearly four decades since her brother was murdered, Goldman has become a successful advocate for victims' rights. As the co-chair of the National Center for the Victims of Crime and the host of the Media Circus podcast, she aims to put the focus on people whose lives have become fodder for sensationalistic news coverage and true-crime entertainment. "It was an opportunity for me to give the power back to the people that often get their voice taken or quieted," she says. "It puts all of the energy and the attention on the victim and the survivor and their family and what they want you to know."

Goldman joined EW for an in-depth conversation about the myriad ethical questions surrounding true-crime dramas, and what viewers should keep in mind when they're enjoying the latest adaptation of an infamous real-life story.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Let's start with a macro question, since you've had a lot of time to think about this. Why do you think people love true-crime dramas so much?

KIM GOLDMAN: I don't know that I understand why. I know there's been lots of studies done about why women seem to be more drawn to it. If I remember correctly, it was along the lines of women wanting to know how to protect themselves, and it's more of a personal safety issue. I always liken it to why people were infatuated with, you know, the Jenny Jones type of talk shows, or tabloids, where you're peeking into somebody else's trauma or chaos, and it's sort of a reflection that yours isn't as bad. [Laughs] But when it comes to true crime, I don't know. It's totally morbid to me in some ways. But I think that's partly why I've sort of embraced it, because I think it's an opportunity to change the conversation around it.

Whenever a new true-crime drama drops, does it affect you or upset you in any way since you lived through it with your own family?

I scroll and I see what's trending and it bothers me, because I know what those [families] are enduring. I can bet my mortgage on the fact that they weren't included in the process, or told about it, so I'm making that assumption. I made that assumption about the Ryan Murphy show Impeachment about Monica Lewinsky. I actually tweeted about it, and they said, "Oh no, Monica's the executive producer." I'm like, "Oh, maybe you got it right this time!" [Laughs] But it's upsetting because it's par for the course. It has spawned a conversation within some folks in the victim advocacy world about whether or not there's something we can do about that. I am curious if there's anything that can be done.

I think the general assumption from the viewing public is that families and survivors are always consulted — or at least alerted — by the creative team when they're making a show or movie about a high-profile crime. But based on your experience and the experience of the families you've talked to, that's usually not the case, right?

No. And that's what I've been thinking about lately — why that process doesn't happen. I would imagine [it's] because of the pushback that a production company or a network would receive if a family got wind [of a project] and wanted some kind of involvement. I mean, God forbid you consult, or God forbid you pay a fee. It's not like you can't find people. I just don't think that people have often thought about the fact that families are not included in that process. And if they are, good for them, I just don't know that that's the [norm].

The people that I spoke to for the book I wrote, Media Circus, and also for the podcast, they hear [about the shows] on the news for the first time. They see things on television for the first time. While I'm obviously only doing a sampling of high-profile cases, it's those stories that are being made into shows and movies and podcasts without any contribution from family.

In one of your podcasts, you and a guest discussed the idea of creating a law that would require a show or movie to disclose whether the family participated or authorized the production. Do you think that should happen?

I don't know where I read it recently, but it was some article that said Netflix is not required to notify the families. And it bugged me! How s----y is that, that it doesn't even dawn on you from just a human space that you would give someone a courtesy call? I don't know if it's required, but I think about biographies, you'll see "unauthorized biography" [on the cover]. That tells me, "Oh, that probably means that the person who they're writing about doesn't support this or know that this book is being written." Now I get to take that [book] with a grain of salt. When or if I choose to read that book, now I know the lens with which to view it.

I feel like that could be applied to these types of shows, and then people can decide whether to watch it… I'm not trying to stop people from [watching], but just maybe to have a different sensitivity as you consume the show that it wasn't at the pleasure of the victim's family.

Has your family ever been contacted, consulted, or given a heads-up about any of the projects related to your brother's murder?

No. I'm trying to think. No. I can't remember a time that we were. I know for the Ryan Murphy one, we reached out to them once we heard about it and asked what we could learn about it, and we were just emphatically told no. We asked if we could see an advanced copy — we were told no. I was pissed, because Marcia Clark and Kato Kaelin had received an advanced copy, and I was like, "I don't understand." [Laughs]

But we were absolutely told no, we could not have anything. I said, "Well, that's unfortunate. It kind of works against you. If you were to at least share it with me, then I would be able to say, 'Hey, they shared it with me, and this is what I feel about it.'" Missed opportunity. I didn't have anything to do with that show being successful or not. I mean, I was very vocal against it.

In fact, I asked Jeffrey Toobin, who wrote the book the series was based on, about it. We did some program together, and I asked him [why we weren't consulted]. He said, "Well, it wasn't victim-focused." And I'm like, "Well, that's the problem." [Laughs] I said, "You opened the show with the scene of my dead brother. You depicted me and my father in it, but you didn't think that you could send me a courtesy note?"

Full disclosure: As a TV critic, I've written about American Crime Story in the past and held up the first two seasons as an example of true crime done right — primarily because People v. O.J. and Assassination of Gianni Versace brought new perspective to those high-profile events. Without asking you to comment on ACS specifically, in your opinion, can anything positive or edifying ever come from a true-crime series that is made without the family's involvement?

It's kind of tricky. After watching [People v. O.J.], I was like, "Well, they definitely painted him as a guilty person." But I guess there's a part of me that feels like, what was the reason for that? Why bother doing a fictionalized version of something that was on our television [constantly]? And why not include the family, or just give a heads-up? I'm not telling people not to [make these shows]. Knock yourself out. I can't stop any of that. But the blatant disregard for the impact that it has on a family member of a violent crime, or the story that you're telling — and you don't even find the decency to say, "Hey, we're doing this, just a heads-up so that you can be prepared"? Just something as a courtesy that you acknowledge that you are profiting, and you are exploiting our family story. You can talk all you want about Marcia and the sexism [she faced], I totally understand that. But at the end of the day, you're still exploiting our crime. Come on, people. Just have some sensitivity around it.

Peacock recently premiered a true-crime drama called A Friend of the Family. The survivor at the center of that story, Jan Broberg, was an executive producer on the series. In your opinion, does it make a true-crime drama any more palatable or less harmful when the victim or family is involved?

Yes. Using that example, if she was part of the process and was able to be part of the conversation in which her story was being told, then a hundred percent. If she's comfortable with that, and that's what she wants the world to know, the more power to her. I can still choose whether I want to watch based on my own interest. But the fact that she was part of it and her voice was heard and she was consulted throughout the process, of course I think that's more palatable.

On the flip side though, if a show like that is successful it helps the genre continue to thrive — so more will be made, and probably most won't consult family and survivors. Is there an argument to be made that even the shows made with consent do more harm than good?

I don't think [true crime] is going to stop. But I think we can change the narrative about the way we tell stories and to make sure that we're telling the stories that include the victimization, and that can allow people to understand that that's part of the process. I think it's changed a little bit over the last couple of years, but most of the shows are from the criminal's perspective, from the law enforcement perspective, from the legal perspective. Very seldom do you often see it from a victim's perspective. It paints a picture that victims and survivors are in the background, you know, in a fetal position on the floor. If we're going to continue to have true crime, which I think we will, it's irresponsible to not in some way include the families so that you can understand what they're experiencing and to give a little bit more power back to them.

I have a very dear friend of mine who was a survivor of Richard Ramirez, and when Netflix was streaming their Night Stalker [documentary], she panicked. She was just flipping around, and there it was. Imagine how jarring that is for someone. I mean, how insensitive! It's not hard to find us. If you found all the material you could to write your episode, you certainly can figure out a way to find us and let us know that you've done it. I know [the response] is going to be, "First Amendment!" I know it's public domain — I get all of that, but we're talking about human decency.

In your Media Circus podcast, you talk to people whose lives were affected by high-profile crimes — including Amanda Knox, Matthew Shepard's mother, Judy, and Bonny Lee Bakley's daughter, Rose. How do you want these conversations to change the narrative around the true crime genre?

It's honestly the reason that I started it, because there are so many stories that are told without our perspective being acknowledged — or we're like 20-second sound bite in an hour-long show. It was an opportunity for me to give the power back to the people that often get their voice taken or quieted. It puts all of the energy and the attention on the victim and the survivor and their family and what they want you to know. They determine the direction of our episodes. They all know that they can tell me what they want to talk about or don't want to talk about.

With Gina DeJesus, who was one of the three kidnap victims in Ohio, she doesn't like to talk about her trauma, what happened to her in the house, and people do it anyway. I wanted to make sure that Gina was respected, because she doesn't want to talk about the violence and the assault that she endured. We want to be able to tell our story the way that we want to tell it, not the way that we think the media wants you to know it.

I've gone to Crime Con twice, and I was really uncomfortable with the notion of being in a true-crime enthusiast conference. But I took the opportunity to talk to the audience about why they consume it and what I, as a family member, hope that they take away from these conversations. We talked about being sensitive and being compassionate and to be thoughtful about what you're doing with the stories — if you're forwarding them, liking them, tweeting about them. Just be mindful that we see all of that. We may not comment, but we get pinged, and people forward it. As you're sharing your opinions and your conspiracy theories on what happened and who did it, [remember that] we see it all.

Sign up for Entertainment Weekly's free daily newsletter to get breaking TV news, exclusive first looks, recaps, reviews, interviews with your favorite stars, and more.

Related content:

• Mother of Dahmer victim condemns Netflix series: 'It didn't happen like that'
• Monica Lewinsky consulted on 'every word' of Impeachment: American Crime Story
• People v. O.J. Simpson: Kim Goldman blasts FX series' portrayal of Ron Goldman