Why Do We Glamorize Murder in the Media - Essay Example

?Why do we glamorize murder in the media? In America, watching television is the third top time-consuming activity. Occupying half of American people's free time, television has become the more consuming socializing agent as compared to school and church combined.1Television's influence is further reinforced by print, broadcast, web, and film media. Public surveys reveal that 95% of general population refer mass media as a primary source of their information about any crime.2 It implies that media and other people construct reality in a way or the other. Here, the question arises about the content media is disseminating about crime. Media is certainly not portraying the fact alone, but a combination of facts and fiction. It sensationalizes, dramatizes, and glamorizes what must be condemned and demeaned. This paper tries to explore people's fascination and media's glamorization of murder. Oscar Wild has identified American fascination with murder in 1982 when he said, "Americans certainly are great hero-worshipers, and always take their heroes from the criminal classes."3 Murder has become culturally accepted within today’s society. Phrases like “it’s a dog eat dog world”, “killing two birds with one stone” or simply “I could kill him” (when annoyed at a partner) are entwined into our everyday language. Though the meanings are not... Even television programs show murder as indifferent. The hero of the story can kill the bad guy, or commit murder and then do a heroic thing and the original wrong doing can be forgotten by all. In the Old Testament, Moses murdered an Egyptian slave-master, then supposedly went on to do many great things and became a corner stone for Islamic, Jewish and Christianity religions. How do we rationalize killing someone? Over 87% of a core group of surveyors said “justification” is the difference between killing and murder. We are happy to live our own lives excepting that people die at the hands of other as long as it is justified. In the face of brutal and hideous crimes society try to characterized the reasoning of such criminals. Often when no apparent conclusion can be established, the association with madness is almost immediate. It is a natural defence mechanism within our conscience that one wants to believe that the criminal had to be crazy otherwise the crime would never have been committed. People try to comprehend and explain something that if it were not justified by the madness would be too disturbing to think that a "rational" human being could execute such brutal and hideous crimes. Murders are considered bad or good based on the justification provided. Regardless of the horrors associated, murder remains coloured by perpetrator's subjectiveness in devising strong judgement to entitle his or her behaviour as radical. It is evident that media understand these judgements; therefore, they treat murder as an intense experience needing dramatization. Popular media sources engineer their presentations in a certain way that implies murder as an instant, convenient, and absolute solution to problem.4 Typically, we don't care much about murder, but what makes it really significant is: when the victim is well-known; the number of victims is shocking; murderer is exceptionally wealthy or attractive; or method of murder is horrifying and beyond our imaginations. The very moment such incident takes place people take notice and follow each step closely. The process starts with the reporting and revelation of crime details, more shocking the details more interest is piqued. With the revelation of crime evidence, we try to know from every media source possible. Media prolongs the coverage to arrest, trial, verdict, civil trials, and every bit of information behind crime. Even after the murderer's conviction and sentence, the story does not end, it takes several forms and major actors of the crime are casted in widely different stereotypical roles. As time passes, these shocking stories of crime are represented in the form of books, comics, fictional programs, documentaries, novels, and movies which dramatize the act, make the crime thrilling and criminal, a hero.5 Even the sickest murderers can be perceived as not only glamorous but romantic figures. In other case, if they are not as dashing, they are considered as brutish villains. Whilst the victim is completely innocent, the perceptions change when crime involves sex and women. The cops are either dedicated or corrupt flatfoots. The prosecutor is either a four square crime-busting DA, or a politically driven weasel. Similarly, either the defence attorney is a scumbag who uses even the smallest loophole in criminals' favour, or the counsellor proves to be a crusader for victim.6 "If it bleeds, it leads,"7 perfectly depicts media approach towards what needs coverage. Major motive behind media's sensationalism is capitalist mindset. Of course the more eye balls on their representations, more the hype, the more they will get advertising revenues. Media creates a feeling of fear, crisis, drama, and controversy to engage and adds glamour to entertain. The effects of this sensationalist media strategy are devastating. Three major players of crime, criminals, investigators (police), and general public derive their role models from media. Criminal learns the act, its potential targets, and the right time to use weapons. Other two are taught counter-violence as most effective strategy since law and police favour criminals.8 Most recently, fascination with murderers is once again manifested in an ITV drama documentary about Fred West and Rose-a couple who raped and killed 10 girls including their own daughters. Criminologist, David Wilson has expressed his concerns over super glamorous and famous star cast playing as criminals as it is highly unlikely that they can portray these criminals in the right light. No matter how carefully media deals with it, focus on criminal mind rather than victims' sufferings will present Britain's deadliest murderer as a hero. Victims are not represented as multidimensional and vulnerable personalities, rather as pawns in a mastermind's plot of doom. Nothing is represented from their perspective since the most dramatic and interesting is the killer.9 With its entertaining dimension of cruelty and victimization, murder also wraps a chunk of information in it-not obvious though. Murder nurtures information as a commercial product. The act of killing is exclusive since only few people will kill or be killed, thus it makes it newsworthy.10As the information market of murder prospers, media reacts to this market like any other entrepreneur.11In fact, individuals are consumers. As consumers, they are fascinated by murder as it communicates the intensity of drama; major character of a crime story; distant tragedy of a terrorist attack; and sarcastic humour of a "B" grade video. They don't consider murder a reality, but a tool of information as it is represented as a commercial (positive) product that is entertains them in several forms.12 There is no doubt about the marketability of murders, but what if we apply this formula in the same consumer spirit to assimilate this product –lethal calculation, isn't it.13Evidence suggests that "killing for camera" serves as a significant motivation behind actions of many serial killers. As the fame and celebrity status escalates, as frequent and horrific their crime becomes. Media may not solely creates serial killers, but once they are born, media packages (glamorize and sensationalize) them to further exacerbate the problem.14Monty Rissell, a murderer of five women admitted that his act was inspired by David Berkowitz's (serial killer) coverage. Ressler attributes media as a catalyst that serves for serial killers' need for acknowledgement and approval.15 Media identifies most emotional and vulnerable aspects of human psychology and exploits them for their objectives. Rather than objectively focusing on real issues, such as, racism, ethnic hatred, unemployment, poverty, segregations, poor schools, single parenthood, abuse, and addiction, media facilitates them.16 Media feeds people's hunger for violence. They serve as 'middleman' to package and deliver a glamorized criminal to an audience thirsty for blood. The relationship can be considered as circular which continues. These killers are nothing without their audience. We are audience because they created and fuelled the glamorization of these murderers.17Sensationalism, glamour, and shock sells, but who buys it. People must stop buying and media will stop selling murders. Reference List Associated Newspaper Ltd., 'Why do we glamorize serial killers yet forget their victims?',Mail Online,17 March 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1367069/Fred-Rose-West-TV-drama-Why-glamorise-serial-killers-forget-victims.html, (Assessed 5 March 2012). Carlie, M. 'Into the abyss: A personal journey into the world of street gangs,ch12', http://people.missouristate.edu/michaelcarlie/what_i_learned_about/media.htm, 2002, (Assessed 5 March 2012). Mayo,M., American Murder: Criminals, Crime, and the Media, Canton, Visible Ink Press LLC., 2008. Olivier,E.M.,Killing for camera?An investigation into the relationship between serial killers and the media, degree of Magister Artium, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, 2007. Surette, R.C., Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images and Realities, 2nd edn., West/Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1998. Wilson,W., Good murders and bad murders: A consumer's guide in the age of information, Maryland: University Press of America, 2006. Read More