The reality consumed with a bodily and popcorn. The confession of Irene Mourtzoukou, for the murder of four underage children, shook the Panhellenic and came to shed light on a world of television spectacle that, for weeks, turned into a public step out of outbreak, insult and public. A comment by Despina Tsokou on the transition from viral margin to social stigma.

Before proceeding with her unimaginable deposition, admitting responsibility for four childhood deaths, 25 -year -old Mourtzoukou had evolved into a reference point for the media. It was not the one who “wandered the canals” but, on the contrary, the demand for her presence dictated the flow of television shows itself. Her presenters gave her a step, encouraged her to express her freely, without restriction, creating an original mix of reality, farce and social thrill.

Her herself, realizing the dynamics of her case, reinforced her personal profile on social media while According to sourcesshe did not hesitate to ask for a remuneration for her interviews. Whether some have responded, remains an unanswered question. The only sure thing is that her every appearance gave more viewership, made the numbers launch, offering fresh, “consumable” content to the public. And we were all there, spectators.

You knew it. I knew it. And we were laughing.

Everything changed at the time of the confession. The audience who was having fun and commenting yesterday is outraged and condemned. Suddenly, Mourtzukou becomes the scapegoat. Social media is flooded with insults and threats, she is all cut off by her audience, and the process of demonization is running rapidly. The protagonist of an anonymous, constant reality contemporary atonementas if the audience sees her real face for the first time.

Spectacle reality and social stigmatization

Murjuko’s case brings to the memory of the famous “freak shows” of the 19th century. Then the crowd paid to see the different, the “foreign” and to feel superior to the object. Today, the ticket is replaced by Timelines and TV panels, while the “freak” is replaced by the margin man whose outbursts, anger, contradictions become a product for consumption. The more he sells, the more lights fall on him.

By the tragedy of victims, to the drama of the culprit

The attraction of society towards the shocking seems to go beyond the natural sense of compassion for victims. The “drama” of the culprit is now more interesting than the loss of dead children. This has also been shown in previous cases, such as that of “mother from Patras”, when gossip and the representation of daily life overshadowed the awakening of real tragedy.

The social conversion to Mourtzukou culminated in her appearance at the Achaia Court of Justice. There, despite the shock of revelations about the deaths of three infants and her sister, the crowd gathered not to mourn the victims, but to shout at the “monster”. Social media is also flooded with demands to restore the death penalty, reflecting the disposition of a society that until recently watched and commented on online appearances with “slum”.

The unanswered questions of society

Behind the spectacle, there are essential questions: Who is responsible for this ending? Was there warning signs we ignored? Would we have reacted differently if the protagonist did not belong to the sidelines? If there were no social stereotypes for gender, origin or sexual orientation? If the social status of the protagonists were different, would there be more alert from principles and services?

Questions that are difficult to answer – but we must as a society be raised. Why one is certain: Now, we’re not laughing.