Society is in continual need of being aware of what is going on around them. The most common and what is widely agreed to be the most useful source, is the media. Whether this medium gives a continuously fair representation of the world's events is a subject, which has been much debated, in the criminological sphere. Crime and Criminal Justice has been the main subject of the media for an extremely long time.Reiner et al. s historical study of two British newspapers since the Second World War found that homicide was by far the most common type of crime reported, accounting for about one-third of all crime news stories throughout the period.
Studies conducted in the 1990's continued to show the same pattern of over representation of violent and interpersonal (especially sex) crimes. (Chiricos et al, (1997) as cited in Oxford handbook of criminology p. 384 (2002). The media has a huge influential power therefore having the ability to control the way society thinks and perceives a given subject.
We are a media nation. The time spent watching television, films, video and audio recordings, radio program's, video games, the Internet, newspapers and magazines makes the media virtually unavoidable. Most places will have their own newspaper and some their own news. Families all round Britain sit down together and watch the headlines, these are more often than not about crime and justice.
Surveys conducted by the Canadian Sentencing Commission in 1987 reported that as many as 95% of the general population cite the mass media as their primary source of information about crime. Dominick 1978 p. 106 as cited in Surette, R (1998)) The way the media portrays many subjects has been recognised as being disproportional to reality.Recently people who are in an influential position have tried to express their feelings on this subject, most recently the Black Eyed Peas music group released some lyrics to a song that reached the number one spot: 'Wrong information always shown by the media, negative images is the main criteria, infecting these young minds faster than bacteria, kids wana act like what they see in the cinema.
This is a useful way of expressing the point of the media sensationalising certain criminal activities as it is heard through a variety of audiences. Also the converse argument could be that the media by themselves cannot turn a law-abiding person into a criminal. This may be true but again it could be fair to say that the media doesn't create criminals, but it can make criminals more creative. Adding to the complexity of the media relationship, many other sources either interact with the media or work alone to produce crime.
These sources range from individual biology to facets of our history and culture. The other influential factors that are non-media based are: neighbourhood and family conditions, genetic and physiological traits, social structure, race relations and economic conditions. (Surette, R p. 2 (1998)) I shall be looking at the way in which the media influences our reactions and thoughts and link it in to criminal behaviours we hear about, concentrating largely on the subject of paedophilia and its representation in the media.
When a new piece of crime is reported in the media and with the volume of coverage it may receive, there is then the possibility of a 'moral panic' arising. For example when a case of paedophilia is reported in the media repeatedly and with a strong sense of wrongful doing, the moral panic then, is characterised by the feeling, held by a substantial number of the members of a given society, that evildoers pose a threat to the society and to the moral order as a consequence of their behaviour and therefore 'something should be done' about them. (Goode, E, Ben-Yehuda, N p. 1 (1994)) The response to such threats is likely to be a demand for greater social regulation or control and a demand for a return to 'traditional values'.
(Thompson, K p. 8-9 (1998)) This may then cause people to create their own reality (social construction of reality) in which the world they believe exists, is based on their individual knowledge and from knowledge gained from social interactions with other people. People then act in accordance with their constructed views of society. Subjects such as paedophilia and sex crimes are covered regularly in the media.This is extremely apparent when the case involves a celebrity or someone in an authoritative position. These allegations then have the capability to essentially ruin someone's life or career as the media has such an influence over the nation.
'The over-representation of higher-status offenders is primarily confined to national news media. ' (Reiner, R p. 385 (2002)) A good example of this is the incident involving Matthew Kelly the host of such television program's as 'Stars in their eyes', the family show.He was accused of being a viewer of child pornography on the Internet and to have sexually abused a young boy. As soon as the accusations arose in the media there was a big uproar in society and it would be common to hear people say 'what is he doing hosting a family show' even before they had become aware of the facts and truths of the subject in hand. It was common belief and still is to some extent that the police and media were attempting a sort of 'witch-hunt' to expose celebrities.
When examining the BBC web-site on this subject I found a piece written on 15th January 2003, the day after Kelly was arrested: 'The police denied they were carrying out a witch hunt, amid reports other famous people were being investigated. ' Another example is that of Peter Townsend who actually admitted he contemplated committing suicide after his allegations of being the owner of child porn were made. It seems society wants it to be the truth that 'famous' people are to receive the same punishment as a regular citizen. For example if they do not receive a fair trial for or against them.
Similarly the scandals we read about with footballers being involved in alleged rapes or violent assaults. We will be shown the silhouettes of the players but the names will not be revealed. This then causes a mass wave of curiosity throughout the nation causing the story to be under further demand. Ultimately the media has the power to make individuals jump to conclusions, as they are quick to deem somebody 'evil' perhaps in an attempt to sell more copies of the given newspaper.
There have been major increases in the amount of reporting of sex crimes in the media.These reports are typically sensational and titillating, rather than serious accounts of these crimes. (Soothill, K, Walby S p. 3 (1991)) One of the most recent and commercial cases is the alleged incidents with Michael Jackson. He was accused of molesting a 12-year-old boy in November 2003.
I collected some of the mainstream papers on the 21st of November (the day after the allegations to Michael Jackson were made) and observed the way in which the newspapers had decided to cover the story, particularly the headlines. It is understandable that there is huge interest in the case.Michael Jackson's bizarre lifestyle has provided the media with news for many years. It is therefore understandable to see headlines about the allegations, what is important is the content of these headlines and what thoughts it may provoke in society. What must first be remembered is that these headlines were released before any facts about the case were.
The first newspaper I examined was The Sun, which, it would be fair to say, has a reputation for being a paper, which does not always include or maybe just distorts truths.The headline covering half a page read 'Jacko gives up to cops' this is implying that he has something to run from also that he is instantaneously guilty of the crime alleged against him. The writer of the article also used the term 'Wacko Jacko' on a regular basis, which may set in the mind of the reader leaving a feeling of doubt about his mental state and influencing the personal view on the case. The second paper I examined was the Daily Star, which has acquired a reputation similar to the aforementioned newspaper.The caption then reads 'Michael Jackson plied a 12 year old cancer victim with wine and sleeping pills before sexually abusing him, it was claimed last night. ' The wording is interesting here as it makes a statement which could be likely to lead the reader into believing it is a fact then covering itself by adding the words in smaller letters: 'it was claimed last night'.
By putting the headline out in big bold letters with what seems a blatant accusation entices the reader into negative thinking immediately.The third paper I looked at was the Daily Express, which had its headlines read 'Jacko facing 8 years in jail' which again makes the presumption that he is facing the sentence rather than it being a possibility if found innocent. The Independent also ran a story on the subject, yet it was not as seemingly provocative as some of the other papers appeared. Deborah Orr was the author of the article and rather than just mentioning all the allegations and supposed wrong doings of Michael Jackson she wrote intelligently about the impact the media coverage could have.There are still worries about the high profile, media-frenzy pursuit of the case so far.
One would imagine with a minor at the centre of the case, it would be investigated as quietly as possible. ' This would appear to be true as the media has the ability to cause a great deal of sociological and psychological harm. It was interesting to take note of the semiotics used in the papers. The pictures of Michael Jackson in the majority of the papers were of dark, almost haunting images. With a number of papers using a picture of him wearing a mask and having the image of almost a 'super villain'.Images such as this provoke negative images in the minds of society.
A special edition of the program 'Brass Eye' was released on channel 4 in 2001. Channel 4 received 1000 call in the 24 hours following the show being broadcast and the ITC had 600 calls of complaint about the show. Making it one of the most controversial pieces of television in history. Every individual is likely to have their own thoughts on this program if they have watched it; I personally think it is a very clever piece of satire with intelligent content and hidden meaning.
It is necessary to point out that Brass Eye was a parody, not of paedophilia, but of the low-grade investigative program's that seem to dominate evening television. For example Crime watch, News night etc. The kind where presenters set out to 'expose' someone or something, while knowing all the time that their appeal rests on the audiences interest in the matter.These program's scare people, in a sense getting them to 'lock up their doors'.
'Popular and with broad based support, these applications use the media to construct a social reality with less crime. (Surette, R. p. 157 (1998)) Programs such as Crime watch are difficult in that offering a reward for information has its problems. People who give tips for money are inherently suspect. People will take a suspicion and turn it into a fact.
I found some very useful information on this topic on the Guardian web site. Michael Jackson the head of Channel 4 defended his decision to screen Brass Eye. He said the program had a 'real sense of social purpose'. It had 'sought to challenge the inconsistencies in the way the media approaches and sensationalises paedophile crime'.Along with Chris Morris, David Quantick is a writer on Brass Eye.
He defends the program by explaining 'It wasn't a show mocking victims of paedophilia. It was a show about media attitudes to paedophilia and the way the media apparently exploits paedophilia. ' It must also be acknowledged that the station did in fact receive around 700 positive calls about the program. One woman who was sexually abused as a child had written to the culture secretary to convey her outrage at the negative reaction to brass eye.The woman said 'I loathe the clichi?? , the hysterical pressure groups, the uniformed celebrities, the portrayal of beautiful doe-eyed children, the prominence given to the convicted paedophiles when there are so many fathers diddling their daughters on the living room carpet while mum is at tesco. ' The show had essentially targeted the kind of media 'hypocrisy' which saw celebrities lending their names to campaigns without checking them out.
In the paedophilia episode many people, be it celebrities or those just in an authoritative position such as MP's are just re-emphasising the way these subjects can be mishandled.For example, well known DJ and current judge on the ITV program 'Pop Idol' Dr. Fox is quoted as saying: 'Genetically paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than with you and me. That is scientific fact, there is no real evidence for it but it is scientific fact. '!! This just emphasises the concern about the way serious subjects like paedophilia can get looked upon without proper contemplation of real facts. On the show there is an advertisement for a spoof TV show called 'Pedo-files', which is about an ex- paedophile taking a gun and killing all the paedophiles.
It is presented in the same fashion as the American shows we are so regularly given the option to watch (e. g. COPS! ) These shows sensationalise serious subjects like crime for the enjoyment of the viewer at home. Similarly it mentions another fake program called 'Paedophile Island' in which 100 kids and an ex-offender are left on an island full of cameras! This again is aiming to show how some television ideas are so distorted.
(E. g. police, camera, action! ). The show also mocks the way programs such as Crime watch and Watchdog.A picture of a paedophile is shown and as the presenters explain more about his abusiveness towards children the eyes on the picture get bigger whilst simultaneously playing 'evil music'. A similar clever tactic it employs is the use of spoof statistics, for example 'If you are to define a child as under 30 years of age then it is said up to 80% of us have been a victim of paedophilia at some stage in our lives.
'A similar example is an MP saying 'Listen to this music before you go to sleep, and behavioural psychologists tell us that when you wake up, you will be 17. 8% safer! That is clearly ridiculous and it just emphasises the unnecessary use of these statistics, that they are an attempt to intensify the mood of the program at hand. On Monday July 30, 2001 a spokesperson for No. 10 said 'it was important to ensure that broadcasting regulators were able to respond swiftly to alleged breaches of the boundaries of taste and decency. ' This is a fair comment as the show, albeit in my view humorous and intelligent, still may be found to be offensive to some viewers, especially those who may have had an experience with paedophilia in the past.
The spokesperson also added 'Satire is very important. It has a valuable role to play in highlighting issues and asking questions about how we as society deal with difficult issues. ' Being very interested in Brass Eye and the way it provokes thought I managed to get three of my fellow students to agree to a short discussion on the program. (See CD attached. ) I left all three-interview candidates (Nicholas Unsworth (20), Christopher Holland (20) and William Murray (21)) in a room to watch the Brass Eye Paedophile 2001 special.
When the program had finished I entered the room and recorded what they had to say about it. This was conducted in a discussion format, I had no influence over the answers the three people were giving, and I just added a question into the discussion when I felt necessary. I was very happy with the way the discussion went and the intelligent and mature answers I received. I started the discussion by simply asking 'any thoughts? ' Chris answered by saying 'it was original, quite dark humour but it was funny, some bits would probably offend some people'.When I asked 'what do you think was the point of the program? ' I received some interesting views. Chris said he thought it was 'a spoof of crime watch UK.
... it exposes the ignorance of some of the important members of society. ' Will added 'the format of it is authentic, if it wasn't for the jokes it looks kind of real, so it does make you think about what you see in the media and what you are told otherwise.
' I then asked about their previous experiences and views on the subject and have they differed at all by watching this program.Nick answered 'It's not really about paedophilia its about the media. ' Chris added 'you're not laughing at the topic you're laughing at the way its done. You cant laugh at paedophilia because its not funny. ' Will adds 'It does make you think how you are influenced when told about these sorts of crimes. ' I then proceeded in asking 'did you find the program offensive? ' The general response was that they were not personally offended but they could understand how people may be offended.
I then asked the question 'has it influenced your view at all on the subject of paedophilia? Nick answered saying 'it made you think a bit about the media coverage of the topic. ' Will said 'it does urge you to think past the headlines on the front page of a newspaper on a murder or something, and all the sensationalism surrounding it. ' Chris finished with 'My views haven't changed on paedophilia, I still think its bad! ' This was very interesting, as it seems all three were very aware of the objective of the program and the hidden meanings it attempts to portray to the viewer.They all seem aware of the way the media can distort and report disproportionately on some subjects. Because of the difficulties in rigorously establishing straightforward causal relationships between images and effects, some researchers tacitly imply that media images of crime do not have significant implications.
(Reiner, R p. 377 (2002)) The ultimate truth is society enjoys the media, and with deviance being the defining characteristic of what journalists regard as newsworthy it makes sense that it is largely represented in the media.We enjoy the excitement, the scandal and the escape from routines. We have a sort of sick curiosity about certain crimes and although we may see it as morally wrong we like to judge others. We enjoy solving puzzles, working out motives and seeing the 'baddies' get caught.
'Crime has been attractive to the entertainment media precisely because it is the prominent backstage behaiour. By nature and necessity most crime is private, secretive and hidden, and studiously concealed. ' (Surette, R. P25 (1998))
