According to Merriam-Webster, to boycott is to “engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.” This form of peaceful protest originates from the Ireland Land War of the 1880s, when Irish tenant farmers protested against English landlord Charles Stewart Parnell’s unfair treatment and high rent prices. Over time, however, it has evolved to become one of the most powerful protest strategies for local, national and global issues. Especially in a digital age in which protests are widely advertised, students need to be more aware of the potential impacts of boycotting and avoid performative or ineffective protests.

Differences between company and consumer values have made boycotts against consumer goods companies prevalent today. This manner of protest is successful because it leverages both economic and social influence against an organization. By inflicting reductions in revenue, boycotts force businesses to reconsider company policies to mitigate further financial damage. However, not all of these boycotts impact a company’s sales revenue, since people may publicly denounce an institution but still purchase its products out of habit. Take the recent boycott efforts with Amazon, for instance. The company has been accused of tax avoidance, poor working conditions and unethical labor practices, and as a result of the “vote with your dollar” philosophy, many people have encouraged boycotting Amazon goods. But due to the near-monopoly Amazon has on the online marketplace and society’s dependence on their unparalleled fast delivery, reliability and variety, its stocks and overall market value faced little impact from this movement.

On the other hand, companies with many competitors are most impacted by boycotts, since customers can buy substitute goods more easily. Take beer brand Bud Light: According to the Associated Press, following the April 2023 controversy regarding transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, its year-over-year sales declined 25% to 30% for several months.

Boycotts may also be ineffective if the participants aren’t the company’s target consumer. For example, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ boycotting fast-food chain KFC has had little to no financial impact to the chain since PETA is not the main consumer demographic that restaurants like KFC cater to.

Nevertheless, boycotts can wield significant damage through negative media attention and reputational damages. In the digital age, social media figures with large platforms have the power to persuade millions of people. According to LendingTree, an online marketplace nonprofit, a poll that was sent out to company consumers in 2022 reported that friends and family influence 47% of boycott decisions, politicians impact 20%, and celebrities or influencers impact 19%. 34% of Generation Z boycotters said celebrities or influencers impacted their decision to participate in a boycott. One example of this media-driven phenomenon is the boycott on Starbucks: In the early stages of the Israel-Hamas war, Starbucks Workers United, unaffiliated with the official Starbucks corporation, posted the message, “Solidarity with Palestine” on their Twitter account. Unwilling to be associated with the workers union’s stance, Starbucks released a clarifying statement and filed a lawsuit against the workers for trademark infringement of the Starbucks logo. Even though Starbucks has stated that it doesn’t directly fund the State of Israel, many people believe this boycott is a way for people to align themselves with Palestine, support an anti-violence ideology and uphold a union’s ability to express themselves politically. According to The Economic Times, Starbucks has seen a loss of $11 billion due to the recent boycotts.

Generally, successful boycotts are those that generate the most social media attention because it spurs larger collective action and allows for activists to garner more support globally. In recent years, for example, collective criticism surrounding the unethical labor practices and negative environmental impacts of Shein — a large fast-fashion clothing company — has led many to stop purchasing from the vendor. Eventually, Shein even released a statement of investigation into unsafe work conditions in some of their supplier facilities. According to data analysis company Statista, Shein saw a sales growth decrease of 2.8% in the second quarter of 2023 compared to a 341.9% increase in the first quarter of 2021. According to media analytics company Commetric, 25% of boycotts receiving national media attention won concessions from the target company.

Even though boycotts through media advocacy can be effective, they should not be relied upon as the sole tool for advocacy. As polarization increases and media becomes more saturated with campaigns, the boycotts’ effect can become diluted and less effective. Instead, this method should be used in moderation and in conjunction with other forms of protest. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, for example, went beyond boycotts to economically pressure institutions that practiced segregation: mass demonstrations such as the Selma to Montgomery march, legal struggles like Brown v. Board of Education, grassroot organizations that mobilized local leaders and individuals, media campaigns, and coalition-building with groups from diverse backgrounds to garner support. It is not any of these events in singularity that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the power and conviction of millions of people who persisted in their beliefs.

Ultimately, a boycott alone, however effective, will not define a social movement or result in substantial, legislative change — even if it achieves considerable media attraction. It is important to remember, especially in a world that increasingly prioritizes speed and efficiency, that affecting true change is difficult: It requires tremendous effort, time, patience and faith in one’s beliefs despite setbacks, and most importantly, a willingness to fight.

According to psychology teacher Warren Collier, human beings are drawn to criminals due to certain morbid curiosity. Extreme characters fascinate people because although they cannot comprehend killers, they feel the need to understand what makes them tick. Perhaps the driving factor is an innate need to survive—humans feel the urge to understand the behaviors of serial killers in order to better avoid them. Another reason for society’s interest in serial killers may be the thrill-seeking aspects of human psychology that seek to obtain adrenaline caused by fear, but from a healthy distance.

Collier also explains the idea of transference in relation to the serial killer craze, in which strong feelings on a certain topic can be redirected onto a person. In literature and cinema, the trope of heroes versus villains is ever present. In our actual lives, however, serial killers break real laws that cause real harm. As a result, they seem to be storybook villains brought to life, eliciting a greater emotional reaction. And according to Collier, people are drawn to criminals because they give people a good target to measure irregularity. Because humans have always appreciated stories of good and evil and prefer to have clear-cut, black-and-white boundaries, it’s easy for them to see serial killers as the most depraved and wicked that a human can get.

True crime adaptations, which play on this interest, take advantage of traumatized victims and their families. While those affected may choose not to watch, it’s still difficult to ignore the subjection of their trauma to commentary and evaluation online. Family members of Dahmer’s victims have questioned Netflix’s motives in creating the show without seeking explicit permission, especially in the portrayal of Dahmer’s trial. Eric Perry, whose cousin Errol Lindsey was one of the victims characterized in the series, commented on Twitter that Netflix failed to inform the families of victims when producing the show. “It’s retraumatizing over and over again, and for what?” Perry tweeted. “How many movies/shows/documentaries do we need?”

Exploiting these tragic events simply for the purpose of making a profit is bad enough as it is, but that’s not where the damage ends. Although “Monster”’s director Ryan Murphy may not have intended for viewers of the show to sympathize with Dahmer, the usage of flashbacks highlighting his traumatic past leads viewers to feel a sense of empathy.
True crime often inspires TV shows such as “Monster” or “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile,” another one of Netflix’s original films, which center on prolific serial killers who have committed heinous acts such as murder, kidnapping or rape. When viewers feel empathy, they fail to realize that it is not solely directed toward the fictionalized characters shown on screen, but also the real-life killers they represent.

With the topic of serial killers, it’s difficult to avoid its relationship with mental illness. For example, according to forensic psychologist Dr. Stephen M. Raffle, Dahmer was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and suffered from brief psychotic episodes. The portrayal of serial killers’ mental disorders in media feeds into the stigma about people who struggle with their mental health. Given the misconceptions and beliefs that have become associated with mental illness, these popular shows or movies feel like a step backward for those who want to fight the stigma around the subject.

A recurring issue with the depiction of serial killers within the true crime genre is the casting of conventionally attractive actors or those with large fanbases. The castings of Evan Peters or Ross Lynch as Dahmer and Zac Efron as Ted Bundy make the actions of their characters more palatable on screen and give them a sense of appeal. These castings bias viewers toward idealizing the portrayed killers. Indeed, serial killers are known for their charisma, a weapon of psychological manipulation used to lure victims in. But in films, these actors portray it as almost romantic, a trait that only adds to the charm of the leading figure on screen.

Choosing well-established actors for film projects is a logical train of thought, as enough star power draws a willing audience. Sure, for actors who have grown accustomed to a career of playing the protagonist or the heartthrob, perhaps a role playing a killer is an exciting challenge. But casting these actors perpetuates the idea that serial killers deserve to be glorified on-screen, and puts more of an emphasis on their sex appeal over the threat they pose to society.

On social media platforms Twitter and TikTok, users have further expressed that the new Netflix series has led them to feel pity for Dahmer and believe that those around him failed to prevent his development as a psychopath. The appeal of serial killers has even risen to the point where they’ve gained a dedicated fanbase of accounts devoted to obsessing over a person— often a celebrity, but in this case, a psychopath. On TikTok, individuals have taken to creating romantic edits of serial killers set to trending music. Some edits even try to depict a relationship between serial killers and their victims in a positive light. Comments under these videos have proclaimed to root for their happy ending. Social media has only exacerbated the impacts of true crime, allowing people to form unhealthy attachments to individuals who are clearly dangerous. These idealizations enable behavior that minimizes victims as just an aspect of a tragic story, rather than actual people.

This romanticization of and obsession with serial killers isn’t anything new. Criminals behind bars have historically attracted admirers and received fan mail, and some more notorious killers such as Richard Ramirez or the Menendez brothers have even married some of these fans, despite serving life sentences. However, this behavior is more dangerous now due to the widespread nature of modern media.

Besides the moral issues inherent in the true crime genre, people must also consider the negative repercussions that they face while consuming this content. With more information about serial killer available on the internet, there’s no way to filter out the disturbing imagery or graphic details for younger users. Being exposed to a high volume of such horrendous content is also often taxing, leading to a decline in emotional health. Consumers of true crime should be careful to view it in measured doses and take breaks from content that may be too heavy.

However, the effects of true crime have had some positive results. It has led to the renewed interest in fields such as forensic psychology, and media coverage has inspired some to turn their fascination from their own TVs to actual cases in the field. Watching true crime entertainment or listening to podcasts on the topic can sometimes bring catharsis, allowing people to confront their fears from the safety of their own homes.

Human psychology makes people naturally inclined to find serial killers fascinating. True crime media often exploit this curiosity for profit, causing detrimental consequences on real-life victims and their families. While interest in notorious murderers and their crimes may not be entirely unwarranted, it is imperative for media and viewers alike to refrain from romanticizing or sensationalizing serial killers. Otherwise, they run the risk of trivializing killers’ actions and glorifying the harm they inflicted upon innocent people.

School districts should recognize the value of an uncensored student press, as it is recognized as a part of state law. In 1988, the Supreme Court decided to significantly decrease the First Amendment rights of student journalists in the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case. However, a group of states, including California, passed a law expanding students’ freedom of expression instead, refusing to recognize the Hazelwood laws. California Education Code 48907 declares that students are entitled to the same press freedoms as professional organizations. The code specifically states that “pupils of the
public schools including charter schools, shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press including, but not limited to… the right of ex- pression in official publications… except that expression shall be prohibited which is obscene, libelous, or slanderous.” Anti-Hazelwood laws in California grant student journalists many press freedoms unavailable to other student journalists across the country. As a result, PAUSD student publications have more opportunities to voice the opinions of the student body. Such opportunities should be celebrated and defended, not suppressed, by administrators.

Despite the fact that publications in PAUSD are protected by California laws, they still do not receive the respect and support from school officials and community members that they deserve. Actions like harassing student journalists, at- tempting to coerce students into publishing certain opinions and refusing to support school press freedoms do not align with the spirit of the fourth estate, also known as the media. For example, “Palo Alto Online” recently published a series of articles describing the harassment of a student on “The Campanile,” Palo Alto High School’s student newspaper, from a School Board candidate. By refusing to talk to or cooper- ate with publications, PAUSD School Board candidates and officials show that they are not interested in the opinions of their constituents. Taking student-run publications seriously is central to increasing students’ participation in important community decisions and winning the support and trust of students.

School officials should work to mend relations with reporters and publications in order to take full advantages of rights granted by the anti-Hazelwood laws. To many communities, school publications are a reliable source of school-related news. Therefore, school officials need to do more than just pay lip service to the press. It is especially important that administrative staff treat school publications like The Oracle with the same regard they would give a professional news organization. This uniformity is crucial, as it not only provides student journalists with valuable learn- ing experiences in journalistic ethics, but also helps them ensure that the most accurate information is being presented to their readers. Student journalists also have the responsibility of fostering cordial relationships with school officials. It is important for publications to have a thorough understanding of those involved in the PAUSD community—even if opinions may differ—due to a shared goal of improving the district. While the press is entitled to
print their opinions, they need to be held accountable for fact-checking their articles before printing and take ownership for any mistakes in their content. Additionally, printing the opinion of the staff should not include swaying the members of the paper to match the personal opinion of the teacher adviser. Without argument, advisers are a vital part of the publication process—they teach the journalistic style of writing, help edit articles, give guidelines for appropriate content and coordinate production. However, as a student-run publication, the opinions must come directly from the students, not the adviser. Ultimately, the content that is published is intended to be read primarily by students, and therefore, should be relatable for that demographic.

In today’s increasingly polarized political and social climate, the journalistic integrity of media organizations everywhere is being questioned. Authority figures and candidates today who seem more interested in avoiding controversy than serving the public continually attack and degrade the free press. While we recognize that student reporting is not always perfect, it still acts as an important conduit for student voice; now, more than ever, it is vital that school officials recognize that the First Amendment’s jurisdiction is not limited to those involved in professional publications. As the main student-run publication at Gunn, The Oracle staff stands with students and student journalists close to home
and across the country.

The Oracle staff attended the NorCal Media Conference, held by Journalism Education Association of Northern California, on Saturday.

Read our news brief on this Journalism Day for more information.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzND4wat-A]