I enjoyed Tiger King. It's seven 40-minute
episodes of
drug-fueled, adrenaline-pumping insanity
was the perfect entertainment
I needed to quell my quarantine boredom.
But after the excitement wore off and
reality kicked in, I couldn't help but
think - what the f--- did I just watch?
Marketed as a true-crime docu-series,
Tiger King was created by Eric Goode and
Rebecca Chaiklin with the intention of
exploring the pervasive purchasing of
exotic animals in the US. However once
they started meeting with the different
owners and breeders of these majestic
beasts to understand the pathology of
keeping such an animal, they fell into a
goldmine of polygamous hillbillies and
personality cults that would forever
change the direction of their research.
And this is where our problem lies. If
Tiger king is purporting to be a piece
of true crime documentary media, well
then we have to hold it to that standard.
The show's deviation from its original
motive is both a good and a bad thing.
Good because the series, which is
overflowing with plot twists and bizarre
characters became an overnight sensation
during the current Covid 19
pandemic. It's been ranked the number-one
show of the moment by Rotten Tomatoes and
it's become the subject of a swath of
memes Twitter and reddit threads and
even Tik Toks. Bad because it
completely abandons any commitment to
journalistic integrity that comes along
with the documentary title. Rather its
exploitative practices and misguided
advocacy betrays the respectability now
associated with other big hits in the
true crime documentary genre. And that's
what I'll be discussing in this video.
With roots that can be traced back all
the way to the 1550s, true crime is a
genre that has historically been
dismissed as low culture trash, which
preys upon our most base and sordid
fascinations with gore and wrongdoing. But
this all changed in the mid 20th century
when esteemed author Truman Capote
published his nonfiction novel, In Cold
Blood. In this book
Capote documents the horrific murders of
the Clutter family and the subsequent
trial of their killers. It was met with
widespread acclaim for its literary
brilliance, and criticized for its
bending of the facts due to Capote's
closeness to one of the murderers. In
Cold Blood is regarded as a pioneering
work in the genre of what we now call
prestige true crime. Yet till his dying
day Capote maintains that this text was
not in fact true crime, but rather 'new
journalism'. And this classification
problem persists in the new wave of true
crime material. Major hits like Serial,
The Jinx ,and Making a Murderer fall into
a similar tradition of advocative
nonfiction, however their creators never
identify with the true crime title. But a
study by Ian Punnett found that programs
like Serial actually align with most of
the components that characterized
prestige true crime. Within Punnett's
parameters, true crime is distinguished
mainly by a commitment to finding
justice for a perceived victim; a call
for further investigation or retrial on
the case in question; a press for social
change; and
an advocative of tone rather than an
objective one. It's also characterized as
a blend of investigative journalism and
sensational storytelling. And while these
juggernauts are inherently journalistic
in their intentions, they commit many of
the same follies that the true crime
genre has been historically criticized
for. In the effort to quote find the
truth these shows often end up re-traumatizing the victims families and
turning the audience into armchair
investigators, which leads to extensive
harassment sent to people involved in
the case. And in the desire to construct
a compelling and emotional narrative,
shows like Serial and Making a Murderer
end up bending certain facts and leaving
out incriminating information to get the
audience to root for the protagonist in
prison. Now I'm not speaking one way or
another about the innocence of people
like Adnan Syed and Steven Avery, or the
clear missteps in both the investigative
and legal processes that put them in
prison. But as attorney Megan Boorsma
puts it, "not guilty" and "innocent" are not
synonymous. Or in other words, there's a
stark difference between wrong person
convictions and procedural errors that
these shows tend to conflate. In doing
all of these things, these shows have
serious implications for the real people
involved in these cases and cut certain
corners to evoke an emotional response
in the audience. But although they can't
entirely be considered journalistic,
Making a Murderer and Serial still
deserve the respect that comes along
with the title of "prestige true crime"
just like In Cold Blood.
They are meticulously researched,
integrate expert opinions, and give the
crimes the breathing room and time that
they deserve to be afforded. They treat
the majority of their subjects with
integrity and maintain an important
overarching message about our social
systems throughout. However I can't say
the same for Tiger King. In an interview
with Wired, Jane Kirtley, a professor of
media ethics and law at Hubbard School
of Journalism and Mass Communication
states, "Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty
and things like that don't purport to be
journalism" and she argues that if Tiger
King's showrunners hadn't considered
their work to be journalism, then they
haven't violated any ethical codes. But
if it's set up as an independent piece
of investigative
work, quote "that means telling the truth."
So in this video I want to argue that
since Tiger King regards itself as a
documentary, then it is a deeply
unethical one. And if it's packaged as a
heavy hitter true crime drama, it doesn't
have the same journalistic
characteristics as other shows of this
caliber. Now my intention in this video
is not to be completely disparaging of
the series, as I said I enjoyed it as a
form of entertainment. But I want to
demonstrate how it represents all the
elements that plagued the genre by
looking at it through the lens of Punnett's
seven components of true crime. For the
sake of time I'll only be focusing on
these four: Justice, Crusader, Geographic,
and Vocative. One: justice, where it's
ensured that getting justice for the
victim is at the core of the narrative.
Tiger King's choice of a person to rally
behind is questionable. The story that
the show leaves us with is that Joe
Exotic has been framed in a
murder-for-hire scheme, which is one part
of the charges he was found guilty for.
But the problem here is this: it accounts
for only two of the 19 charges against
him, which include eight counts of
falsifying wildlife records and nine
counts of violating the Endangered
Species Act. Unlike something like Serial,
which questions Syed's guilt based on the
clear lack of physical evidence linking
him to Lee's murder, Tiger King itself
displays incriminating evidence
regarding Joe's abuse. And what's worse
is that they barely even touch on the
extent of his negligence and brutality.
For example, this abuse is detailed at
length in a report from a 2011 Humane
Society Investigation, which to give just
a few samples found that: the tiger cubs
were punched dragged and hit with whips;
tigers with a lack of veterinary care
were killed and their bodies burned in a
horse enclosure; an infant tiger who had
sustained a head injury while living in
Joe's house was buried by the Humane
Society investigator; three federally
protected hawks died during the
investigation, and one was placed in a
dumpster under Joe's orders; bears went
without water and temperatures above 100
degrees; a horse was shot five times and
fed to the Tigers - and to stress this
once again, these are just a few of the
instances listed in the report and all
of this happened during the small
timeframe of this investigation. So the
show builds a theory that Joe was
wrongfully imprisoned, a speculation with
only circumstantial evidence and one
that is given only two episodes of
screen time, even though this is the
crime that this true crime series is
purportedly based on. And to top it off
if blatantly ignores and even under
plays the severity and palpability of
the evidence against him. Its misguided
advocacy was so effective that it
engendered an online movement called
#FreeJoeExotic. But Joe exotic
is not an underdog. Rather up until the
last episode it's clear that he's
actually incredibly conniving and
abusive.
So is Joe truly someone who deserves to
be rallied behind when even the show
itself can barely contain his illegal
and reckless actions? Two: Crusader, where
there's a clear call to action intended
to result in social change. The series is
bookended with the sobering fact that
there are more tigers living in
captivity in the US than there are in
the wild, and then beyond this the issue
is largely dropped. Apart from Carol
Baskin's statements on animal breeding
and cub exploitation, the show makes no
effort to bring in any experts that can
speak on the exotic animal trade and
it's devastating effects on these
species populations. It ultimately feels
like the Tigers are reduced to
background fodder for the bizarro
actions of Joe and his menagerie of
off-the-wall characters. When we get to
the end of the series and we're
completely absorbed in the 'whodunit' of
Joe's incarceration, are we truly
thinking about the Tigers? The ones who
are taken care of by a group of
vulnerable people with no wildlife
training? Tigers who have been fed
expired Walmart meat neglected due to
Joe's mismanagement of the zoo's
finances, and bred to pay off Carol's
lawsuit?
When he's on the run he even goes so far
as to sell his adult Tigers to stay
afloat, but this all takes a backseat to
the minutiae of human drama.
So is Tiger king a passionate call to
action for the mistreatment of
endangered animals?
Not really. Three: Geographic, which is a
narrative that intentionally discusses
locality which is particularly useful in
setting the scene of events. So I'm going
to discuss locality but I'll also be
using this as springboard to talk about
the exploitative practices that occurred
in the show.
Tiger king is primarily set in Oklahoma,
where Joe's G.W. Zoo is located. Now
location plays an important role in a
lot of true-crime because it can colour
our understanding of the culture that
surrounds the characters. For example,
Making a Murderer is set in Manitowoc
County. Wisconsin - a rural and low-income
neighborhood in which both Steven and
his nephew Brendan (who was also
convicted) were raised. Stephen and
Brendan's poverty plays a major role in
the allegations of prejudice surrounding
their case. Poverty plays a similar role
in Tiger King in that Oklahoma is an
overwhelmingly impoverished state. And
this has made clear from the people in
Joe's orbit. Many of his staff members
are people who were recently released
from prison and have nowhere else to go.
To make their situations worse, Joe
pastes them only a hundred and fifty
dollars a week. Oklahoma also has a
severe meth problem. This is briefly
mentioned in the show, as Joe and his
husbands engage in recreational drug
use and cite meth as their drug of
choice. But the show makes no effort to
explore these issues beyond the occasional
mention of it, and even goes so far as to
exploit the vulnerable participants for
spectacle. I don't want to be too
specific in my reference here for the
sake of the people involved, but there
were a couple moments in the series
where the person being interviewed
appeared to be under the influence.
Either they were slurring their words, or
their eyes were unfocused, or they were
surrounded by alcohol bottles. And while
it's technically legal for the
showrunners to interview someone who is
incapacitated if they aren't consuming
the substance on camera, the moral
decision to include this interview lies
on their shoulders. It is deeply
unethical to broadcast an interview in
which the participant cannot provide
ongoing consent to the words that
they're using. I can't confirm whether
these people were in fact incapacitated,
but if it does happen to be the case,
this is a problem. Rather than protecting
these people or respecting their
integrity, the showrunners put their most
vulnerable moments on display for
millions of people. And for what? And then
there's the handling of Travis's story.
Travis was a California native who
married Joe at the age of 19 despite the
revelation that he allegedly identifies
as straight. He's an extremely vulnerable
person who, similar to Joe's other young
husband John Finley, is an addict. Halfway
through the show were told that the
relationship between Joe and Travis is
actually quite abusive. He isn't allowed
to leave the compound or get a job, and
he relies on Joe for access to drugs.
We're then without any warning shown
security footage in which Travis walks
into the office of Joe's campaign
manager Josh dial and accidentally
shoots himself in the head off camera.
Not only is the inclusion of this
footage disrespectful to Travis, Dial, and
Travis's family - some of whom had never
seen this footage until watching the
show, it's also irrelevant to the plot.
Sure you could say this was the moment
that Joe descended into outright madness,
but showing us the footage itself serves
no true purpose. It isn't used to
educate on the safe handling of guns, on
suicide, or mental health and addiction.
It exists only to shock the viewer. So
rather than using the systemic problems
occurring in Oklahoma to enrich our
understanding of the narrative, they're
presented as something to be gawked at . Four:
Vocative, this shifts the narrative from
a neutral journalistic tone to an
authoritative advocacy position. In
season one of Serial, Sarah Koenig is
very transparent about her process. She
takes us along in her investigation,
gives us insight into her phone
conversations and planning, and casts
doubt on her own biases.
Doing this, Koenig adopts an advocative
tone one that gives Adnan the benefit
of the doubt, but remains honest and self
reflexive for the most part. The
storytellers of Tiger King on the other
hand are largely invisible to the
audience. Like Koenig, they do take on
an authoritative position but they hide
behind their editing to get this across.
Although Carole Baskin was the target of
numerous death threats and other forms
of online harassment from Joe prior to
filming, the premiere of the show has
seen this number increase exponentially.
And the showrunners have dismissed her
outrage by saying that they had "no way
of knowing where the events of the show
would go." So to deflect responsibility
they use the pretense of being passive
and objective observers who simply
happened upon the events. But their
editing, which pushes an obvious agenda,
suggests otherwise. This is most clear in
episode 3, which takes a detour from the
main narrative to examine the case of
Carole Baskin's missing husband. Now
before I get crucified in the comment
section, let me say this: I will not
attempt to convince anyone about
Carole's innocence or guilt. The evidence
against her seems compelling and it's no
lie that she could be a hypocrite when
it comes to animal captivity. On top of
this she seems to be running some sort
of multi-level marketing scheme where
her workers have to put in an insane
amount of hours just to obtain a
different coloured t-shirt, and all the
while she refuses to pay them for their
dangerous and labor-intensive work. But
there are other programs that cover this
topic much more fairly - that consider all
the theories surrounding the cases and
give Carole the benefit of the doubt
that she is entitled to by law. I'll link an
episode of Murder Squad that deals with
this case in the description. It's
presented by Paul Holes, a retired
cold-case investigator, and Billy Jensen,
an investigative journalist. And if
you're looking for a more well-rounded
approach go give it a listen! What I want
to consider in this video is the
heavy-handed visual language in the show
that manipulates our unconscious
conclusions about Carole's guilt.
Manipulation of the audience occurs when
the editing significantly inflates what
is being said on the screen through the
use of music and out-of-
context material. Take this clip from
Shane Dawson's series on Jake Paul, another
show which purports to be a documentary:
 
 
 
 
 
So the problem here is that the
subject matter, what's supposed to be an
informative discussion about antisocial
personality disorder, is now a clip that
is meant to make people who have APD
seem frightening. Now compare this to a
clip from Tiger King:
Relative to most animal people, I would
characterize her as reasonably rational.
We met on November 1st in 2002 and in 2004 we got married.
My number-one goal in life is gonna be
to make this woman happy.
Here you have Carole's husband saying
that she is quote "reasonably rational"
which is immediately followed by an
image of the two of them wearing
costumes, with her husband pretending to
hit her with a bat. We then get a sound
bite of him saying "my number-one goal in
life is to make this woman happy"
followed by an image in which she has
him on a leash. What do these images in
conjunction with the music tell us?
Well they signal to the viewer that
Carole is domineering, that she and her
husband are not exactly rational, or that
"making this woman happy" actually means
bending to her will. Here, the use of
music and non-contextualized images work
together to send a certain message about
Carole, that would not necessarily be
derived from listening to the audio
alone. Sure the episode also includes
other testimonies and evidence that may
incriminate Carole, but it's all presented
within this sensational structure. Now
you can say - hey, Carole incriminates
herself in this episode just with her
body language and dismissive tone alone!
Yes, she is strangely flippant when she
talks about Don. But consider the
context. From what Carol knew, she was
participating in an animal-rights
documentary - what the showrunners called
"the Blackfish of big cats." So these
questions come as after thoughts. This
would significantly affect the tone of
the conversation, which is much more
sombre in the other interviews because
these testimonies are given with the
express purpose of talking about Don's
disappearance. So whether or not you
believe Carole is guilty, it's clear that
much of the animosity directed her way
was shaped by her sensationalized
portrayal in this episode. On the flip
side, the supposed "objective journalistic
tone" the showrunners are going for is
also compromised in their editing of Joe.
Many would tell you that the show's
characters are all so morally bankrupt
that there is no hero, but I disagree.
Tiger King is first and foremost a story
about Joe Exotic. It's his background
that we're given the most insight on, it's
his you that we follow day to day, and
it's he who is given the final words of
this documentary. And while we see
snippets of Joe's egregious actions, the
editing seems to constantly redeem him
in one way or another. Sure he neglects
the animals, but that's only because
these lawsuits are running him dry!
Sure he abuses his partners and staff,
but he's deeply lonely and yelling is
just one of his quirks. Sure he publicly
threatens to murder and rape Carole, but
she's always trying to shut his business
down, and besides she's a murderous
hypocrite! The most palpable example of
the show's attempt to redeem Joe is in
the final episode where all of our
previous insights into his reprehensible
behavior are thrown out the window in
favour of a more sympathetic version of
Joe. A Joe who is deeply flawed, but at
the end of the day has a good heart.
First the episode presents us with
circumstantial evidence that suggests
Jeff Lowe framed Joe. This is underscored
by clips of Doc Antle, who has nothing to
do with this case, describing Joe as a
quote "dolt" and "too stupid to pull this
off" when what we've seen of Joe in
previous episodes has given us reason to
believe that he can actually be quite
conniving - albeit with a lack of
forethought. We also have a new romantic
perspective on Joe's relationship with
Dillon Passage, with clips of their
supportive phone conversations and shots
of Dylan's wedding ring hanging around
his neck. When just two episodes prior
this relationship was framed as another
casualty of Joe's predatory tendencies.
To top this all off we see Joe lovingly
handing out soup (gravy) to children, we hear
sound bites of his teary and desperate
phone calls from prison, and we have Doc
Antle saying that Joe was locked up on
quote "20 silly ass charges". All of this
is by design to end the series on a
cautionary note: one that presents Joe as
a person who once cared for animals but
got swept up in the pursuit of Fame, and
whose blindness made him victim to
people who would stop at nothing to take
him down. And if you still don't believe
the show is edited in Joe's favor,
Rebecca Chaiklin recently revealed to
The Hollywood Reporter that Joe is a
categorical racist and that he said
things during filming that were quote
"very unsettling." Yet apparently these
comments were edited out because they
didn't have a context in the story. but
the extensive footage of Joe's music
videos somehow does? If Tiger King is
purporting to be a docu-series - one that
approaches its subjects with
journalistic integrity and honesty,
then it would do less legwork to
heighten Carole's wrongdoings and
downplay Joe's in the effort to make
them equally reprehensible. True crime is
not a perfect genre by any means, but
when it's well done it can be an
extraordinary tool for education and
empathy. Unfortunately Tiger King is
close to epitomizing the lowest, most
exploitative media that has plagued
this genre for years.
Unlike academic research, there are no
set rules guiding the ethics of
documentary filmmaking. This is all left
up to the moral choices of the
filmmakers. And it becomes clear after
watching Tiger King that the showrunners
were intent on creating an outrageous
voyeuristic spectacle, rather than an
honest and respectful documentary. It
handles its dark subject matter and
vulnerable participants with the grace
of a TLC special, yet it's neatly
packaged and presented to us in the form
of a Netflix prestige true crime drama.
It touches on, but never explores or
educates about: drug abuse, poverty, the
exploitation of former prisoners, suicide,
and grooming to name a few. And at the
end of the day, what did we learn from it?
Can you say you know anything about the
exotic animal trade? How they arrived in
the U.S, or the stakes for their
endangerment? Can you say you know
anything about animal rights activism
beyond the statements from Carole, whose
credibility is shot down in episode
three? When you think about it, the show
is guilty of the very thing it accuses
Joe of doing - abandoning its initial
cause for the spectacle.
 
 
