Media and Crime
Introduction
Today, one can get all the information they need online at the click of the mouse. In this way, the internet has turned the world into a small global village. The internet is full of all kinds of information that one would wish to acquire (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004). Most people across the globe have access to the web through their laptops, iPads, and mobile phones. The internet qualifies as a media platform with the information it has getting fed in by human beings. There are other media platforms that relay information to the public and they include media houses such as television stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and journal companies. The media platform feeds the public with all kinds of information including crime; which happens to be the topic under discussion in this paper. There are various types of crimes and each has its consequences. The media displays crime in various forms and there are effects that come with such kind of display. The public perceives crime in different ways according to how they understand the same from the media. Some effects are negative while others help in keeping the public away from participating in criminal activities. However, the major concern is to find out the effects that media stereotyping can have on public perceptions of crime; be it negative or positive outcomes.
Mass Media and Crime
The media brings about the fear of violence to the public, thus preventing them from indulging in crime. In Western communities, the media acts as a helper to the citizens in understanding criminality and criminal justice (Dowler 2003). The citizens get this data from books, films, television broadcasts, journals, and magazines, among other sources. According to Dowler (2003), the public perception of crime and criminality is affected by the media’s portrayal of the same. The media builds various attitudes in people towards violence. On many occasions, reporters are always the first to arrive at a crime place and they display the information gathered on various platforms accessible to the people. In such a case, the media will have two interconnected effects. The first is whether the media creates fear among the people due to the violence shown and two whether the fear created’ influences criminal justice policy attitudes’ (Dowler, 2003, p. 109). A person can view repeated news on crime and they may create fear in them. According to Gerbner et al (1980), repeated viewing of violence leads to fear (cited by Dowler 2003). The fear created by the media at this point is positive as it keeps the public away from crime. Gerbner et al (1980) carried out research and found that the fear created by the heavy television view has some effects including; feeling of great threat from crime, the person understanding that crime is more prevalent than indicated by statistics and they are more careful to stay away from crime (cited by Dowler, 2003).
However, the fear created by the media with regard to crime could have adverse effects on the heavy television view. Findings from various studies show that heavy viewer reaches a point whereby they perceive crime displayed on social media to be more violent and dangerous than it is in reality (Dowler, 2003). Therefore the fear of crime by the public can directly be attributed to the media’s portrayal of the same. It is only logical that one would view a crime scene on television and wish to be in such a situation. However, the fear of crime depends on the message displayed and the audience receiving the same (Dowler, 2003). The two characteristics mentioned earlier determine the magnitude of the fear built by the media concerning criminality and attitude towards law enforcement (Wood and Viki, nd.). If a media house continually airs local violence and incidences of crime to viewers, then there is increased fear of crime among the larger community. However, if the local community watches news on non-local violence, they regard themselves as safer than the residents of other regions (Dowler, 2003). If a person is a victim of crime, they have more fear than the unaffected ones.
As seen earlier, the viewers of news on crime determine the extent of fear created by the reporters and journalists (Yanich, 2000). For example, people living in high-crime cities and viewing much of violent stories are more likely to have a fear of crime as compared to those in safer neighborhoods (Dowler, 2003). According to research, people who have characteristics that make them vulnerable to crime seem to fear crime more (Dowler, 2003). Gender plays a significant role in determining the amount of fear created among the public with regard to crime. According to Liska and Baccaglini (1990), females, whites, and the elderly are characterized to be heavy television viewers (Dowler, 2003). However, the groups of the population mentioned above are less likely to be vulnerable to crime, and thus their fear is less compared to that say, that of males. White females between the ages of 30 and 44 get to be heavy television viewers and it is displayed in the percentage rate of fear among these females (Dowler, 2003).
Crime can be classified into various groups and divisions. There are minor crimes and major crimes and they happen in different locations. The fear of crime built up by the media is in relation to sexual abuse, being knifed or shot, and being mugged or beaten up while at home (Dowler, 2003). The fear of crime was not in any way related to incidences such as car-jacking or being murdered while at home. The public’s attitude toward criminal justice policy can be influenced by the media’s portrayal of criminality (Yanich, 2000). When the media display crimes, they advocate for more police force and preventive measures, thus creating a positive attitude towards law enforcers (Dowler, 2003).
The media covers crime in various ways that in turn have impacts on public perceptions of the same. The media gets to over-present crime throughout the world (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004). The media covers crime in certain steps that could be said to be sequential. While the media can display a high rate of violence increment, the situation on the ground may be different, whereby crime is seen to be reducing (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004). For instance, between 1990 and 1998, the number of homicides declined by more than 30%, but this was not the same information that the reporters were given to the public (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004). At times the media instills unnecessary fear of crime in the public by giving out information that is unreal. The media concentrates on covering hard crimes and lives out white-collar crimes. The latter crimes do not create much fear as compared to violent and dangerous incidences. People rarely have any fear in relation to white-collar crimes as a result of the lack of coverage, but such crimes can cost the public a lot. According to Emanuelsson and Mele (2004), the public does not seem to get frightened by white-collar crimes.
Crimes such as murder and homicide are committed by persons who are known to the victim. In most cases, the media presents the criminal as a stranger, thus feeding the public with misleading information (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004). The public is led to believe that they cannot be harmed by those they are close with, yet it is not the truth. Other crimes such as rape are shown on the media to be committed by strangers waiting in darkness; somewhere behind a bush, while in the real sense, they take place in homes and are carried out by criminals known to the victims (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004).
Most people depend on the media to get data and news concerning crime and they trust in the information they get from these platforms. The public forms their opinion about criminal activities based on the news they watch and read from media sources (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004). According to Emanuelsson and Mele (2004), most people believe that violent crime is on the rise and that it is happening more than a white-collar crime; but the opposite is the reality. The majority of the audience is aware of the media’s biases but it all depends on how far they have been educated.
The theory that is used to describe the effects of exposure to various media information is known as cultivation theory and it was introduced by George Gerbner in the 1970s (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004). George argues that the period of exposure to the news on crime determines the attitude that the viewer is going to have toward the various media contents. Due to this prolonged exposure, most people are led to believe that there is more crime than it is in reality (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004). Various studies have been carried out to determine the extent to which the media affects or builds people’s attitudes toward various issues. Although the media is blamed for creating fear of crime in the public, the fear implicated is said to be minor (Emanuelsson and Mele, 2004).
The way the public views the police force in the United States can be said to be a result of media coverage (Brown, 2015). The media reports on issues concerning police brutality, racial discrimination, and self-defense, all of which are related to crime. Incidences such as burglaries and assaults happen every day and the media is fast to cover these stories. From the news, one can tell that cases of violent crimes are on the rise on American soil and it is no longer safe as it used to be back in the day (Brown, 2015). A large number of Americans amounting to 81% have access to the media and so they can get news concerning crime. The latter allows citizens to receive news after every minute and they make conclusions long before accurate data on crime could be released (Brown, 2015).
According to psychologists, human beings believe that familiar statements are true as compared to unfamiliar ones; a term known as ‘backfire effect’ (Brown, 2015). When one continually watches the news concerning crime, the picture remains in their head as it becomes a familiar story. Fear of crime is created as a result of this continued viewing and at the end, the audience makes conclusions at the mention of the word ‘crime’.
In most parts of the world, the media is the major source of information. According to research conducted by Judith Dubois, 95% of the interviewees revealed that they used the media to learn information concerning crime-related issues (Carli, 2008). As seen earlier, the effects of media stereotyping on public perception of crime could either be positive or negative. According to Carli (2008), media representation of crime-related issues can possibly influence the public negatively and also meddle with the implementation of strategies and policies meant for crime prevention. For instance, a given country’s government may be formulating strategies on how to reduce the crime rate but the media keeps interfering with the process, thus jeopardizing the whole process. Media representation of crime also makes the public believe that the government might be doing nothing towards preventing crime. Media representation can again lead to the giving of inaccurate and biased information on crime that could in turn promote harmful policies with regard to crime control (Carli, 2008). The issues caused by media misrepresentation of crime are a result of hiring media personalities who have little or no knowledge concerning crime and crime prevention.
The print media has also been known to give inaccurate information concerning crime (Carli, 2008). Newspapers, magazines, and other print media give exaggerated statistics concerning crime, leading to unrest among citizens. A newspaper will give a report reading that a given crime is on the rise whereas in reality, the crime is just at normal rates. According to research by Jeffrey et. al in 1975 the print media has an influence on the public’s opinion with regard to crime by giving or rather covering some crimes more than others (cited by Carli, 2008). The result of the above is that the public is made to believe that some crimes are not happening while they are actually occurring on the ground. The media is also accused of presenters acting on emotion rather than on facts.
Media coverage of crime has been found to increase victimization and the public’s feelings of insecurity (Carli, 2008). Dealings with illegal drugs, graffiti on walls and abandoned buildings are all forms of creating fear among urban dwellers. A lot of teenagers in the streets, vandalism, and public drunkenness are also forms of crime reported daily by the media houses. In reality, the presence of many teenagers on the streets does not mean that there is a crime; instead, it could be that the teenagers are just holding peaceful demonstrations. The image created in the minds of the public concerning the teenagers is one illustrating criminal activities whereas it is the opposite in reality. Public drunkenness does not necessarily mean that there are criminal activities taking place in that specific area; as the media would present it. People get drunk due to various reasons some including; as a way of relieving stress among others. The media should, therefore, analyze crime-related information before feeding it to the public, thus causing unnecessary fear.
Although the media has been blamed for creating fear of crime which in one way is a negative effect, it can be applauded for causing tough policies concerning criminal activities to be formulated (Carli, 2008). However, the tough policies could be a negative force as even minors get charged with minor crimes. According to Carli (2008), the media continuity of airing the same criminal activities leads to the formulation of tough policies, and the public is highly exposed to violence. When the latter happens, a punitive attitude is created and a misconception of crime occurs. The above-mentioned misconception of crime leads to harsher attitudes which in turn lead to formulation of the tough rules. For example in Canada, the adoption of the Youth Offenders Act came into being after the media continually covered youth crime and misrepresented these crimes (Carli, 2008). The Act now permits 16 and 17 years old to get charged in adult courts, an act that is not permissible and which could not be in practice were it not for the media (Carli, 2008).
The media has been found to contribute to the process of production of crime. However, the latter cannot conclusively be said to be true but according to various studies, there is a relationship between the media and crime production. Melanie Brown carried out some studies that showed that although there ‘is no direct link between media exposure and aggressive behavior, there is a complex relationship which identifies interacting variables’ (Carli 2008, pg.4). In other studies by WHO, media exposure of violence was seen to lead to a short-term rise in aggressive actions and behavior (Carli, 2008). People are different and so they act differently in a given situation. Whereas one person will fear indulging in crime after watching it on television, another would want to carry out some of the activities viewed. The media is responsible for both outcomes.
The media presentation of crime can lead to stigmatization of various groups such as (youths, indigenous people, cultural and ethnic communities) and various geographical set-ups and neighborhoods (Carli, 2008). As seen earlier, the media is known for laying much emphasis on certain crimes carried out by given groups while ignoring others. In the case of the youth, the media covers even the minor crimes performed by the said group leading to misinformed interpretation of the youths by the public (Dorfman and Vincent, 2001). Such coverage also leads to harmful policies that put the youths in jeopardy. Any youth is viewed as a criminal by the larger population because the media has convinced the public that people in the said group involve themselves in criminal activities. At this point, victimization and stigmatization set in and the youths cannot escape. According to research by the John Howard Society in 1998, although crimes performed by the youths remained stable in accordance with the national statistics, the media was reporting otherwise; showing a rise in crimes committed by the youth (Carli, 2008). A certain law professor from the University of California referred to the latter as the ‘juvenile crime storm’; a phenomenon in which the media exaggerates crimes committed by the youths and links this group with images of crime (Dorfman and Vincent, 2001).
Media stigmatization of various groups covers a wide area. According to Carli (2008), media portrayal of youths as criminals is false and it has resulted in stereotyping and racism. The public is also forced to have a low perception of the youth and the fear of the same group is increased among residents of a given area (Dixon and Azocar, 2007). Force representation leads to the formulation of race-related policies which could bring isolation and hatred among people of different races (Sacco, 2000). The media may cover news for example in the U.S. showing that black Americans are the ones undertaking criminal activities. The result of the latter is the formulation of policies that act tough on any black American which turns out to be an unfair practice. The media can therefore be said to create racism which in itself is a crime.
Formulation of policies that are race-related causes for support of punitive attitudes to crime (Gilliam and Iyengar, 2000, pg 560). The youths are not the only victims of media personification of crime, foreigners and refugees also receive the same treatment. In many cases, minority groups in a certain region are always at risk of getting associated with criminal activities (Werner, 2015). The punitive attitudes mentioned earlier lead to increased criminal penalization; ‘for example in Switzerland, there is legislation on the crime committed by foreigners; stating that any foreigner who undermines the security and public order will either be revoked or deported’ (Carli 2008, p. 4). The latter is unfair judgment as the foreigner could have been acting in a way of self-defense. The security of the citizens of the given nation could have been the ones at fault but due to the media’s representation of foreigners, the victim becomes the foreigner.
The media is the first platform that the public learns from on issues concerning terrorism and racism (Kulaszewicz, 2015). In America and Canada, acts of terrorism are highly blamed on Muslims and Arabs, thus leading to increased stereotyping of these two groups (Carli, 2008). The media is solely responsible for exhibiting the Muslims and Arabs as terrorists in that even though a terrorist is carried out by people outside the two mentioned groups, the media shall always find a way of implicating Muslims and Arabs. The rest of the public will then shun away their Muslim and Arabic brothers and sisters for fear of being killed. To avoid such hatred among human beings, the media should take time to do comprehensive research on such activities before airing such stories.
Due to the massive implication of Muslims and Arabs as terrorists in the U.S. and Canada, the two nations have both adopted Anti-Terrorism Acts which allow the governments to deport any person suspected to be a terrorist (Hackler, 2007). The deportation comes as an unfair judgment to the suspected individual, as the government has the power to carry out the deportation with no proper evidence that the said suspect is indeed a terrorist or in any way affiliated with a terrorist group. The laws applied by these governments are universally unacceptable by human rights groups’ activists and they also lead to the stigmatization of certain groups; and it is as a result of the media’s coverage of crime (Carli, 2008). Implicating and bestowing judgment on any person without evidence is a violation of human rights.
Media coverage of crime can be of positive effect. The coverage can be used as a strategy for crime prevention and as a tool for helping the public understand the social consequences associated with crime and criminal activities (Carli, 2008). The media can educate the public on the causes and sources of crime and the ways in which to prevent and stop crime. The media can achieve the above by organizing and mobilizing public education campaigns, committing crime prevention through joining hands with other organizations involved in crime prevention around the globe and advocating for a crime-free world. This way, the public will embrace the change and do their best in stopping crime. The media has successfully prevented crimes such as human trafficking, child abuse, and domestic violence among others, due to its widespread condemnation of these crimes (Carli, 2008).
The media exposed human trafficking in the 1990s and the results were positive. There was expansion of resources and more support for the women slaves who were being sexually abused (Alat, 2006). The women were being trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation and exposure of such crimes by the media led the governments of the world to come up with strategies to help these women and also put the responsible to justice. The media coverage triggered a worldwide response to slavery, human trafficking, and sexual harassment among women. The media has also helped the victims of crime by getting assistance from various support groups (Rentschler, 2007). Therefore, the media gets credit for the prevention of crime and the protection of victims of crime.
Conclusion
The media, be it print, broadcasting stations or social media serve as the major source of information for the public. Television houses cover all types of stories ranging from crime, athletics, political and economic stories among others. However, the media has effects on the public perception of the information presented and for this paper, crime. People perceive crime and criminal activities in various ways according to how the media presents them. From the discussion above, the effects could be positive and others negative. The media creates fear of crime among the public, an aspect that influences the public both positively and negatively. The media is also responsible for stigmatization and victimization. The groups susceptible to stigmatization include youths, foreigners, and ethnic and cultural groups (such as refugees, Muslims, and Arabs). Prevention of crime is a process whose success can be attributed to the media’s coverage of crimes such as human trafficking, child abuse, and sexual harassment among women and other crimes. It can be concluded that both the positive and negative effects of the media’s presentation of crime are of equal measure.
References
Alat Z. 2006. “News Coverage of Violence Against Women.” Feminist Media Studies 6.3 (2006): 295-314.
Brown B. 2015. ‘Is the Media Altering our Perceptions of Crime?’ International Policy Digest. [Online]. Carli V. 2008. ‘The Media, Crime Prevention and Urban Safety: A Brief Discussion on Media Influence and Areas for Further Exploration. International Centre for the prevention of crime.’ [Online]
Dixon, T. L. and Azocar L. C. (2007). “Priming Crime and Activating Blackness: Understanding the Psychological Impact of the Overrepresentation of Blacks as Lawbreakers on Television News.” Journal of Communication 57. 2 (2007): 229- 253.
Dorfman, L and Vincent S. 2001. “Off Balance: Youth, Race & Crime in the News.” [Online]
Dowler, K. (2003). ‘Media Consumption and Public Attitudes toward Crime and Justice: The Relationship between Fear of Crime, Punitive Attitudes, and Perceived Police Effectiveness.’ The Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10(2) (2003) pg 109-126. ISSN 1070-8286.
Emanuelsson A and Mele R. 2004. ‘Impact of media on fear of crime? The Mean World Syndrome.’ [Online] Gilliam Jr., Franklin D. and Shanto Iyengar. (2000), “Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public.” American Journal of Political Science 44:3 (2000):560.
Hackler, James. C. ‘Canadian Criminology. Strategies and Perspectives’. Fourth Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall: Toronto, 2007.
Kulaszewicz K.E. 2015. ‘Racism and the Media: A textual analysis.’ St. Catherine University; University of St. Thomas. [Online] Rentschler, C. A. (2007), “Victims' Rights and the Struggle over Crime in the Media.” Canadian Journal of Communication 32.2 (2007):219-239.
Sacco, V. F. 2000. “News that Counts: Newspaper Images of Crime and Victimization Statistic.” Criminology (2000) 33.1
Werner E. 2015. "Media Effects on Attitudes Towards the Criminal Justice System". Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 299. [Online]
Wood J and Viki, G. T. nd. ‘Public perceptions of crime and punishment.’ [Online]
Yanich D (2001). “Location, Location, Location: Urban and Suburban Crime on Local TV News.” Journal of Urban Affairs 23.3/4 (2001):221.
