The Culture is a weekly culture and society podcast brought to you by the publishers of The Saturday Paper and The Monthly.
How to listen? Submit Website Submit

The Culture Podcast

Whether it’s podcasts like ‘Serial’ or ‘The Teacher’s Pet’, Netflix documentaries like ‘Making a Murderer’ or ‘Tiger King’, true crime is absolutely dominant.

The problem with our true crime obsession



Whether it’s podcasts like ‘Serial’ or ‘The Teacher’s Pet’, Netflix documentaries like ‘Making a Murderer’ or ‘Tiger King’, true crime is absolutely dominant. 

But what does our obsession with these stories say about us, and our perception of the world we live in? And with institutions like the police and the media under increasing scrutiny from the public, is it time for a genre like true crime to reinvent itself?

This week on The Culture we discuss all of that and more with Sarah Krasnostein, the best-selling author of ‘The Trauma Cleaner’, criminal law expert, and The Saturday Paper’s TV critic.

 

Guest: Sarah Krasnostein. TV critic for The Saturday Paper.

Show Transcript

[Theme music starts]

 

OSMAN:

Hey there I’m Osman Faruqi and welcome to the first episode of The Culture, a brand new show from the team behind Australia’s number one daily news podcast 7am. Every week on The Culture we will be going deep on the latest in the world of culture and entertainment, talking music, TV, film, art, everything you love to listen to, watch or just consume in whatever way possible!

 

Every episode we’ll focus in on a show, a movie, an album, an artist, a genre, a moment… anything and everything in the world of culture. And I’ll be joined by some of the best critics in the country, from The Saturday Paper, The Monthly and beyond to unpack what’s good, what’s bad and why it’s a great idea to use up my entire budget for this show to talk about ‘The Fast and the Furious’ for you know 4-5 hours.

But that episode is still a few weeks away!

Today, to kick things off, we’re talking about one of the most popular genres in the world right now: true crime.

 

Whether it’s podcasts like ‘Serial’ or ‘The Teacher’s Pet’, Netflix docos like ‘Making a Murderer’ or ‘Tiger King’, true crime is absolutely dominant right now. 

 

Netflix’s latest foray into the space, ‘The Sons Of Sam: A Descent Into Darkness’, shot into the top 10 most watched rankings just a few days after being released - demonstrating the appeal of the genre.

 

But what does our obsession with these stories say about us, and our perception of the world we live in? And with institutions like the police and the media under intense and deserved scrutiny from the public, is it time for a genre like true crime to reinvent itself?

 

To talk about all of that and more, I’m very excited to welcome the incredible Sarah Krasnostein. The best-selling author and award winning book ‘The Trauma Cleaner’, as well as her latest book The Believer, is an extremely accomplished lawyer and expert on all things crime. She is also believe it or not The Saturday Paper’s new TV critic. Sarah, thanks for joining me on The Culture.

Sarah:
Thank you for having me.

Osman:
I'm very excited to get stuck into talking about true crime with you. And I'm thinking about who are all the people that I would love to just, you know, spend half an hour having a drink with and talking about this sort of topic. You were right up at the top of the list. And then I was very excited to see you actually write about this for the paper. 

Sarah:
That’s very kind.

Osman:
This is a question that just occurred to me as I as you were walking into the studio and I was thinking about your background, what's it like as someone who has a background in criminal law, has a PhD in criminal law? True crime is this genre that, you know, so often scenes and reconstructions happen from within courtrooms. They show the entirety of the criminal legal process. What what's it like when you know what it actually looks like watching it on television or in movies?

Sarah:
Yeah, I mean, that part, it loses the requisite authority because it doesn't really match the very boring reality, which is often much more administrative than, you know, dramatic. So you'll get, you know, the law and order. Oh, I object hearsay using this statement for the truth of those. And then, you know, no one speaks like that. Yeah. But it's a necessary conceit to make it more palatable. And so you kind of just have to suspend the the knowledge which in in the case of anyone who's gone to law school is not hard to for get most of what you know.

Osman:
I think I think the same about, you know, movies that depict journalism. Right. I think, you know, like shows like All the President's Men. It's like I wish we're all as attractive as those guys who I had as good suits as those guys. I think that's why I like Spotlight. So because it portrays journalists as sort of really dorky, awkward characters with terrible dress sense. So good. Which is what most of us. Yes, I think yes. 

Sarah:
The sad reality that the writer never actually carries a pen or something on hand when needed. 

Osman:
Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Um, let's maybe start with with a broad question, which it just goes to, like how much of a fan of the true crime genre you are. I mean, there's so many formats in which people are consuming it now, streaming movies, fiction, non-fiction, audio like in the podcast space, which is, you know, where I spend most of my time out of the top ten podcasts on most of the charts. At least half of them are true crime. It's a hugely popular genre. But how do you find it? How deep into it are you? 

Sarah:
Yeah, I always return to it as something that appears more interesting than I then find it. You know, the promise is always kind of greater than than the reality because, you know, at the heart of each of those cases is a human story and ideally true crime as a genre, whether it's a book or a podcast or a movie or show, whatever doco would have the space to explore what makes all of those human stories interesting, but very rarely do we see that. And so I kind of find myself always a little bit disappointed and just overwhelmed by the volume that's on offer. 

Osman:
Yeah. That I'm really interested to hear your thoughts on, because it seems like, you know, we're in this kind of wave where there's a whole bunch of streaming platforms now from Netflix and Amazon, Hulu, HBO Max like everything is happening. And they're pumping a lot of money into making a lot of things. And true crime seems to be one that is just picking up, you know, so much investment. And I think the quality, as we'll talk about is there are some of the shows, you know, the staircase, the American murda making a murderer. I think just within that, there's a combination of, I think, quality and perspectives and all of that. There's there's a new show on Netflix, The Sons of Sam, a descent into darkness. And that's about the investigation of a series of murders in New York in 1970s. Yeah. Can you tell me a bit about that show and the case that they're trying to that they're trying to explore?

Sarah:
So its subject is the murders of young people that began in the summer of nineteen seventy six in New York City. 

Archival Tape
A killer on the loose in New York for a year and three days. There were real questions in this case. Why do the police not investigate more? You got suspects dying accidentally. 

Sarah:
Eight people were shot and killed and seven were wounded. And it took about a year for the New York Police Department to arrest David Berkowitz. 

Archival Tape
Is David Berkowitz the man police believe to be the Son of Sam? There were eight attacks due to all of them. I did not pull the trigger. And every single one. The worst serial killer in New York City didn't do it on his own. This is huge. 

Sarah:
It's a case that kind of lives large in the public imagination, not just as a New York City story or an American story, but one of the big serial killer stories because of the random nature of the violence, the way in which these young people were targeted, they say, in lover's lane. They're kind of making out in cars or just out in the city at night. And the whole the whole city was held in this kind of suspended state of terror that the newspapers capitalised on. 

Archival Tape
Is there a link between the Manson killings... And the Son of Sam killings? 

Sarah:
So when we talk about Son of Sam, people think about David Berkowitz and that that year between 76 and 77. 

Osman:
Ok, lets go to a quick break and when we come back we’ll dig into Sons of Sam and what it can tell us about the good, and the bad, of true crime.

[Advertisement]
 

Osman:
So this is a it's a four part series on Netflix. And, you know, one of the things I think that produces people making these shows when they're approaching them, there are so many different ways they can do they can do just a sort of literal reconstruction. They can find a a loose thread from a cold case that they can piece back together. They can find, you know, perhaps a perspective from a victim we hadn't heard from before. What is Sons of Sam, the Netflix series? What are they what are they pulling out here? Why why are they saying right now this is a time for us to revisit this case? What's the new element of it? 

Sarah:
So the yeah, the kind of the aperture in is the well, generally the theory that he didn't act alone and specifically the life's work of a investigative journalist called Maury Terry. It's a very interesting man and story. And in himself more.

Archival Tape
wanted the truth to come out, but nobody would listen. Son of Sam is not over. Son of Sam still exists. 

Sarah:
And so, you know, Maury Terry was the editor of an in-house IBM publication in suburban New York. And through his enormous personal scepticism about the NYPD party line that the crimes had been solved with the arrest of Berkowitz turned himself effectively into a journalist. And it was his conviction over time that Berkowitz didn't act alone. Eventually, he would say, you know, there was a satanic cult that he was part of. And, you know, the evidence that he was finding and writing about is pretty compelling. 

Archival Tape
The sketches don't match up. You're not going to misstate Berkowitz for being six feet tall and blonde. 

Sarah:
Eyewitness sketches don't really match up to Berkowitz and the timelines don't match up, and there was pretty compelling evidence also kind of the impulse for the police to make that public pressure of having solved the crime. We know that the Central Park, five, 10 years later, they had no problem fabricating confessions. And so, yeah. So that's kind of the new take on a story that's been pretty much endlessly metabolised in the public imagination in various forms over the last 40 years. 

Osman:
And how? Well, like thinking about what this show is trying to do, obviously there's an element of Netflix, the producers trying to, like, find stories that they think, you know, deserve wider attention or perhaps just think that they're trying not to be too cynical yet, you know, stories that they think that, you know, a younger generation might not be aware of, but they think tell a particular story about a particular time. And then on top of that, there's this conceit of Maury Terry. What do you think the show works, do you think, both in terms of what it sets out to achieve this sort of building, this argument that it was perhaps something much bigger? The NYPD didn't quite get it right. Maybe we'll separate. Maybe we'll start with. Do you think the show works there before we talk about whether you think it's just compelling television? 

Sarah:
Yeah, I mean, I think that argument that, you know, it wasn't cleanly or accurately resolved is mostly plausibly made. I think, you know, they throw up a lot of evidence that is pretty convincing. I don't think that it does so in the most authoritative way. It's a bit messy and a bit over sensationalised, which, you know, is is a feature of many of these very slick, almost cartoony true crime offerings. But, yeah, I mean, it's convincing enough. 

Osman:
I think that's so interesting because when I started watching the show, I have to say, and it might just be a function of me having watched so much of these things recently as I was thinking about why this was a topic worth getting into. I think the sheer volume and the popularity warrants like, you know, a kind of engagement with what's going on. Yeah. And I found this one. It almost just felt like it was a checklist of tropes in my head that I was ticking off. You know, and I understand that, you know, there's a genre. So there's certain there are certain tropes and that makes sense. That's what makes true crime, true crime. But it just felt like they were racing through, you know, so they needed to say, New York, 1976. It was a hot summer and then everything changed and the cops are here, but maybe they didn't get like it just felt it was they were just going through those motions. And then all of a sudden, Paul Giamatti is narrating it and they're like, OK, you're doing this because you're making it. You want to compel people. But surely, surely the job of you as a storyteller, for instance, if you can't find a natural way to just tell the story, that makes it compelling, like if you can actually find the organic thread within this that is in and of itself compelling, perhaps that's your problem, that maybe this just isn't really something that warrants this level of scrutiny and attention? 

Sarah:
Well, yeah. I mean, that's that's I think that's very interesting to me. But I think the problem is that it's not a problem. The problem is that the vast audience, the market for this, isn't really wanting anything at a greater depth. 

Osman:
What do you think they do want? What are they looking for? 

Sarah:
I think they're looking for fear at a remove. So something that kind of sparks that little serotonin burst of. Oh, that's that's scary. But I'm safe. Just scary enough to, you know, highlight the safety in which, you know, the viewer on their couch finds themselves, you know, cocooned in you know, it's it's 40 years ago, happened far in time, long ago and far away. And so I think that that we want those kind of hardboiled tropes that function formally to signify this is happening at a remove. This is happening to other people. And I think that's part of why I found the genre so annoying, is that we want that kind of predictability, you know, signalling you can come this close but no closer. And that's fine. And fantasy does have a role, of course, in an art form or even a factual art form, but not when we're talking about human trauma. So there's something really dysfunctional, I think, in in the the size of this market. 

Osman:
I want to I want to understand that better, because I think you can help me understand something that I've been maybe unable to articulate to myself or to other people lately, which is, I guess maybe in ickiness when I watched this. Like, I understand and I you know, I find it very hard to I tried to not begrudge people for the things that they consume. You know, I think, you know, I don't really buy into these arbitrary divides of, like, you know, low, high or whatever. I think, like, you know, I think. People who make things and people who consume things have their own motivations, and just because the show is extremely popular, the fact that it's almost actually that if a show is extremely popular, but I don't really like it, Iphigenia is really popular, but I find it icky. I'm kind of more compelled to figure out what's going on because it's clearly, you know, setting up light bulbs in people's heads. 

But with true crime, I just find that there's something I understand. The purpose of this crime is significant. It involves powerful institutions from the media to police to the to the legal and court system. It impacts us. It shapes the way that we think about society in the world around us. So then why do I find so much of these shows not quite satisfying and almost in a way, I kind of think that they're. Yeah, I guess I'm trying to ask you the question, is there one structural problem with these things, but what do you think it is? Is it the fact that they focus so much on historical violent crimes, for example, or is it the fact that there's such an emphasis on the murderer themselves in these instances? Like I'm just sort of throwing these ideas because they've been swirling around in my head. But I wonder if you have a thought on it? 

Sarah:
Well, I mean, I think there's a couple of different grossness, but the the one that stands out most for me is that it centres exceptionalism as the story. So we're talking about statistically exceptional offending. Right. 

Osman:
Like serial murders are not very common, but they're the ones that are the most common feature in true crime. 

Sarah:
They take up most of the oxygen in the space there. And I think that it's a form of distraction. And again, that's why we watch TV most of the time for entertainment and kind of a brain holiday. And again, I wouldn't judge judge those tastes. I don't think that, you know, you have to say you're watching something. Ironically, I think you have a right to watch whatever you want and enjoy whatever you want. But again, when the story is about, you know, human drama, there's something disturbing in the quality and the volume of that attention. Because if we were really concerned with things like social safety or justice or fairness or, you know, various forms of dysfunction and dysregulation that go into violent behaviour, it wouldn't look like a four part docu series on a 40 year old murder would look quite different. And maybe it's made more disturbing, by the way, it's mirrored in the tabloid press or even, you know, most of our daily newspapers. This kind of appetite for horror and outrage seems to be more important to us. Broadly understood the market than actual solutions or talking about what we mean when we talk about true crime, the fines that take up most of, you know, put the court's attention or policing practises or, you know, stuff like that. So it feels distracted in a way that also feels unethical. And I think that for me, that's a grossness. 

Osman:
I think that that's really interesting because I think it's also helped me understand something else that I've not really been able to quite put my finger on until now, which is, you know, these shows present themselves, I'm saying shows. But whatever the genre presents itself is investigative and and therefore almost journalistic. Yeah. And so it says that because it wants the viewer to think you're going to we're going to find out something new. We're going to change what you think you know about this story. But then what it delivers is so often kind of dros entertainment, which is not I'm not trying to say that, like, these people can't do journalism. The thing I'm maybe more thinking about is if you're going to do journalism and you're going to do investigations. And as someone who does this and thinks about this a lot and you know that there is only a certain amount of resources and certain stories you can tell, is that really what you should be putting your resources in? Like I'm thinking about the true crime series that I do find compelling. And I think Ruby Jones, my colleague and the host of Seven may hate me for mentioning that she used to work at the ABC on a project called Unravel, which write a series of true crime podcast and TV shows. And I think why I really liked those and I'm not just saying this because I know Ruby is that they found stories that I think spoke to some kind of structural or societal problem, whether it's the series Blood on the Tracks, which investigated how the death of Aboriginal people in central west New South Wales 30 years ago and the poor investigation there spoke to structural racism within a police force that continues to this day and perhaps how the murder of women was not taken seriously at a particular time by police officers. To me, I'm thinking like, why do I like those? All because they're using the same tropes of true crime as a way to build suspense and convince people it's important. But they're doing it on topics that actually aren't sort of just this guy did something 50 years ago. It's a bit of a good story. Here we go. It's like let's actually because none of those issues, whether it's to do with racism in policing, whether it's to do with victims that get attention, they haven't disappeared. So do you think we'd be more comfortable when I say we I mean people like you and I, if that's what we saw more of? 

Sarah:
Well, I think I think perhaps not comfortable, but it'd be satisfying in a, you know, richer, thicker way. So I think the beauty of those podcasts or I'm thinking of Rachael Brown's trace. Yeah. And is that you're not they're not seeking a traditional slick kind of law and order, that kind of resolution, which, you know, I make the point in my review that it's the it's a resolution that's. As more in the realm of fiction than fact, we're not going to get the oh, it's old man winters and you know, that's that's got you all along. That's what it looks like. It looks like saying, oh, this is part of a pattern that actually puts us in real danger. And what needs to change structurally in our, you know, legal or social or economic paradigms in order to to address this this actual public safety issue, this real justice issue, an issue of fairness. And so it's satisfying maybe intellectually or ethically or socially in a way that, you know, we're not going to get with the sleeker, more caricature true crime. And it's not satisfying in its own way because not everything is going to be tightly resolved and put tied up in a bow. But it's going to feel well, it's going to feel truer. And, you know, I would prefer to, you know, consume media of that type. 

Osman:
You've mentioned a few times what you see is kind of the media's own problem in this space. Yes. I wonder if you can tell me a bit more about that. Are you sort of talking about, you know, when you're talking about Sons of Sam, it does explore briefly the way that the crimes were reported in the 70s, particularly by the Murdoch press. Maybe we can stop there. Like, what do you think about before you get into the way that true crime documentaries made when crime is occurring in these instances? What do we learn from Sons of Sam about the role they play? 

Sarah:
Well, one of the stories that I wish you know, it had focussed more on is that in this exact time frame in which Berkowitz was unapprehended, with or without his band of Satanic Conrads. Murdoch had purchased the formerly left leaning New York Post and. It was in the process of kind of making his mark in the American market and the blackout that happened in July of 1977 led to a night of arson and looting all around, you know, the the city. And it was worse and worst in neighbourhoods where with mostly black and Latino neighbourhoods. Where their buildings had been burning, children were living literally in rubble. 

Archival Tape
The clock stopped exactly 24 hours ago, along with just about everything else here in New York. No lights, no refrigeration, no appliances, no air conditioning, no television, no elevators. And in some of the worst cases, no water. 

Sarah:
And the blackout edition of The Post kind of made Murdoch's mark in America right. Dog whistling racism that really ignited or, you know, inflamed this public punitive attitude.

Osman:
Toward who would have thought a Murdoch tabloid. 

Sarah:
Exactly what they say. You know, it was well known in England and here, of course, and this was how he started growing that market in America. Right. So then, you know, the other daily was the New York Daily News, and they are in direct competition. So they kind of have a one upmanship battle each day on more stories even tangentially connected to these crimes. And the appetite for that was so great in this climate of fear that it infiltrated into the network newscasts, which had previously had, you know, more of a reserved journalistic tone. Right. And we see this rise of interest in the market that they're actively creating and enlarging for true crime stories, popular punitive, fear mongering stories. And I think it is a line that comes to us straight today, not just in the offerings on, you know, streaming bendable true crime, but also in our tabloids today to.

Osman:
The kind of symbiosis between police and the media and politicians who all, I guess, sort of benefit from creating a sense in the community that crime is out of control, even though at a point where crime rates in most Western societies are lower than they've been in a long time. But, you know, there's so much research that shows that people have no understanding of that because it's not really in the interests of I mean, if the media thinks that they sell newspapers, they'll get views by telling these stories. If politicians win elections by talking about it, if police get extra resources, everyone sort of is egging each other on, right? 

Sarah:
Yeah. And they get votes and they get fierce. And it also creates, I think, in times of social uncertainty or discontent, which is pretty much always this narrative of, you know, imminent threat threats that are identified but not contained and definitely never to do with us, whoever us is. And so this narrative of us and them functions as a substitute way of, you know, feeling like we're in control of our lives. We have, you know, belonging and moral righteousness. And, of course, that's what's going to get clicks and votes and, you know, move units content. And it's quite dangerous. 

Osman:
I think this is a good time to go to a quick break, before we get stuck into what true crime could do to be more compelling and relevant.

[Advertisement]
 

Osman:
There is one show that I found more compelling. I think it's a Netflix trial by media, which is a George Clooney produced show, which actually specifically goes to this question of and I probably should have thought about this before asking you that last question, but it specifically goes to what was the role of the media in some of these big high profile cases and how did that change the way we perceive crime and how we discuss it now? And there's one case that I found so interesting. It was the first televised rape trial, I think, in the in the 80s in in Massachusetts. 

Archival Tape
When you turn a courtroom into a studio, you have to turn reality into a story with good guys, bad guys, drama. 

Osman:
It was something that the judge clearly thought was helpful as a way for the public to understand how courts work. Right. You can understand that. But the way that that played out in a society which, you know, did then and still does hold deeply misogynistic views when it comes to the belief of women and, you know, what is what is consensual and not. And the episode really unpicked the ongoing legacy of what it means to just turn cameras on certain things and certain institutions that have been operating in a certain way and have certain norms. And when that's refracted out to the wider community, similarly with, I guess, just tabloid reporting of any kind of crime, the way the incentives of media are not the same as the incentives of people who are trying to stop crime happening. 

Archival Tape
I found out early on as a lawyer, doesn't matter about the law, it's about being able to tell a story.

Sarah:
That's true and in the market for it as well. I mean, it's very confronting to be told that the end of the story isn't, you know, the imprisonment of the bad guy. People don't want to look at evidence that we've had for decades now that, you know, incarceration is. Criminogenic, its crime causing we don't want to fund solutions or elect politicians who are talking about, you know, you know, the dangers of a carceral state or retributive justice and what therapeutic justice might look like or restorative justice might look like, it doesn't sit well with our appetite for outrage, but it does sit well with our desire to be safe for our children to be safe. It sits well with a very deep seated longing for community and what we know about, you know, dysfunction and evil and goodness. But it's very difficult to sit with those concepts. I don't think they could be, you know, massaged into a four part docu series on deadline as easily as, you know, something like Sons of Sam Cooke was. And it requires much more of of the artists and much more the writers and also the viewer. So I don't think we're going to be seeing a huge increase in that content anytime soon. 

Osman:
So I guess that probably leads me to my last question, which is something we touched on before. But do you think, like you're you're sort of outlining, you know, a formula under which these sorts of programme shows, podcasts, whatever, could be perhaps more socially useful or more compelling? And I was talking about, you know, maybe it's the kind of crimes that we're focussing on the frame. Do you think that there is a way to redeem the genre or do you think that it's the genre itself being defined by these tropes are what make it it's almost like, you know, do we reform true crime or do we just say it does it thing? Some people like that. But there's another thing that we need to be doing, and perhaps we need to identify a new format, a new set of tropes within which to do that. 

Sarah:
It's a really interesting question, I think. Yeah, it might look it might be the difference between, you know. I'm thinking, you know, uh, what are those, John Grisham? Yeah, but could not to knock him. I have read a John Grisham book on holiday, but you know, the difference of what that looks like and what you know, Helen Garner's court novels look like something that, you know, Castanet Whydah looks for detail and meaning in a more broad sense. So, you know, kind of a sister genre. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, the subject matter is there you look at the recently televised version of Jess Hill's work on coercive control and domestic violence. You know, it doesn't look so dark and quirky and cute anymore when they're actual really true crime. So, you know, a way of of telling these stories, factual storytelling that does justice to the complexity of human action. And we have it. I mean, I don't think it's an enormous leap. And I think that there is a market for for, you know, real storytelling. The first serial, I think, in terms of podcast, did that nicely. I think there was, you know, the making a murderer came close to it when, you know, exploring the integrity of the conviction of Steven Avery. And, you know, I make the point that The Jinx made some pretty, pretty weird choices. But, you know, giving time for actual character study is the best of, you know, these these deeply traumatic cases that come before the law, which are about character and causation and context and human motivation and what resolution looks like, what fairness and justice look like. These are not boring didactic topics. There's space there for real, real storytelling at a deep level. And we're not reaching it at all with something like Sons of Sam. 

Osman:
Sons of Sam here and hearing you describe it. I don't know if you're into spy movies at all, but it's making me think of the difference between what we saw for most of the 20th century. The Ian Fleming James Bond trope, where you spy is inherently good, right? Like they're working for a service that is noble and pure and that sort of fit a Cold War mindset. They're up against, you know, Russians on nefarious things. And then as the world gets more complicated, particularly post 9/11, that gets kind of eased out for the Jason Bourne style movies. Right. Which I like doing a bit more to grapple with the complexities. And ‘Is this actually good?’ Maybe not. And now you start to see that reflected back in James Bond, where maybe I don't know if I'm like out on a crazy limb here comparing true crime to Bond movies. But I think what you're outlining is really sensible, which is that we're not talking about smashing it apart. We're talking about and we're pointing to things that have already happened in this space that are sort of acknowledging what works well and what doesn't. And if people want stories, that's great. If they want characters, that's great. And we can deliver them that. But there are things that we can't always deliver, like resolutions that we shouldn't promise and that there's complexity here that deserves to be explored. 

Sarah:
Yes, that's exactly. That's much better than I could... 

Osman:
I think you put it well and I went on a James Bond tangent. Now, here I am desperately trying to claw us back to a conclusion. 

Sarah:
It's beautiful. 

Osman:
Sarah, thank you so much for joining me on the culture today to talk about everything true crime related. 

Sarah:
Thank you for having me.

Osman:
That’s it from us! Thanks for listening to the very first episode. We’ll be back with fresh eps every Friday morning, so make sure to follow us in your favourite podcast app.

If you liked the show I’d love it if you could give us a review, it helps more people find the show.

And make sure to follow us on Instagram! We’ll keep you posted on what’s coming up on the show and share some sneaky behind the scenes grabs. 

A very special thanks to my producers: Bez Zewdie and Atticus Bastow

Until next time, I’m Osman Faruqi, editor of 7am and host of The Culture from Schwartz Media. Take care!

 

Host

Osman Faruqi is a journalist and the editor of 7am, Schwartz Media’s daily news podcast.

Guest

Sarah Krasnostein is the author of The Trauma Cleaner and The Believer and is The Saturday Paper's television critic.