Does the Media Distort the Reality of Crime in the UK - Essay Example

Does the media distort the reality of crime in the UK of the of the school] Introduction Contemorary world is filled with a great concern about crime that is subjectively reroduced in the media. One of the messages described with various oinions across UK's media is about eole committing crimes. The data resented in the media are not always true, the statistics is wrong. This is due to distortion of the media that this became ossible and as a result ublic is often subjected to falls information and oftentimes ersonal oinions as for the reasons of why eole committed crimes. This gives a different from the real image about the crime and we start to think about crime committers as of "them" who are not like "us". The common characteristic of UK media is to reinforce cultural fears of "otherness", the inclusion of criminals into the grou of "outsiders", "them", "deviant" as oosed to "insiders", "us" and "normal". Drawing on sychological and statistical ersectives, current aer resent analysis of UK national ress, newsaers and broadsheet materials in order to see to what extent the image of crime and criminality is distorted. The reflection of those issues in the media will ultimately influence the image of crime roblem that the ublic has. Besides, the ublic will be influenced by TV, Novels and movies that show criminals as cruel eole and "other" eole. An imortant art of the aer is devoted to the discussion of "moral anics" in the UK contemorary society. I. In what ways do the media distort our image of crime and criminality As it was mentioned in the introduction and as Becker (1963) ublished decades ago "the media assists in resenting stereotyes of the criminal and thus eretuates the notion that the criminal is an "outsider' " sychological view on distinguishing eole into the category of "others' is summed u as "scaegoating" in oular discourse and is exlained through the metahor of the "shadow" - an unconscious art of the ersonality that the conscious ego rejects or ignores (Maruna et al., 2004: 284). Self and shadow coexist in a conflict, struggling in a ersonality between good and evil. Maruna et al resents five following sychological reasons that eole distort the image of crime and criminality in contemorary media: 1. A sense of inferiority or shame at our own insignificance; 2. Sadistic imulses to humiliate others; 3. Guilt over our own role in the creation of the crime roblem; 4. Sublimated jealousy and admiration for the criminal's exloits; and 5. Guilt regarding our own sexual desires. These fears are oftentimes unconscious and later reinforced into distinguishing eole into the category of "otherness". Maruna et al.'s third exlanation for ublic unitiveness and further distortion in the media, a collective sense of guilt over ersonal role in the creation of the crime roblem, is reflected in the stigmatization of single mothers, truanting children, welfare reciients, and asylum seekers. Here authors rovide arguments in their articles to exlain society's resonses to situations in life related to fears about economic insecurity and social disintegration. At this stage author's true vision of the situation collide with generally acceted notion of otherness and are then reinforced in media reroducing divisions and inequalities (Minsky, 1998). Occasionally, such fears may become sublimated into jealousy and admiration for the criminal's exloits, Maruna et al.'s fourth exlanation. This suggestion is also described by Jock Young's (2003) who is saying that "many of the eole who think of themselves as "moral," and who take excetion to the immorality of deviants, actually have a grudging admiration--envy, even--for those seen to be "breaking the rules."" According to Young, if a erson lives by a strict code of conduct that forbids certain leasures and involves the deferring of gratification in certain areas, it is hardly surrising that they will react strongly against those whom they see to be taking "short cuts," by choosing to live off state benefits rather than working. A dee feeling of envy on the art of journalists and their audiences may artly exlain the distorted media coverage with Joyti De-Laurey on it, who was convicted of stealing 4.5 million ounds sterling from her bosses at Goldman-Sachs. The Daily Telegrah (Aril 21,2004) ublished that in the court the victims of the crime were reorted to be rich "to the oint that is really the stuff of fairy tales", unlike the convicted De-Laurey, who was aarently aid the relatively low annual salary of 38,000 ounds sterling. In the Guardian (Aril 22, 2004), the headline read, "Give That Woman a Medal." Other newsaers, by contrast reorted De-Laurey's "greed," "jealousy," and "crookedness." Furthermore, the women was deicted as a negative, otentially damaging erson. This is the icture that British media generally communicate to the ublic, based on the aearance, sexuality, and behavior of women. The icture of adult-child sex crime suggested by Oeration Ore contrasts strongly with the media coverage of eight-year-old Sarah ayne's abduction and murder by a convicted child sex offender in the summer of 2000 and the subsequent actions taken by residents of the aulsgrove estate in ortsmouth against susected edohiles and, in one notorious case of mistaken identity, a ediatrician (Wykes, 2001). aulsgrove, which too often is resented as tyical, is in fact one of only a few such examles of community vigilantism. Yet it does reresent an extreme exression of the unitive and vindictive sentiments toward child sex offenders that aear to be held by large sections of the ublic and are routinely exressed in media discourse. It might be suggested that ublic vilification of child sex offenders is so intense because, on some level, there exists a sense of guilt at the inaroriateness of living in a society that not merely tacitly sanctions, but actively commercializes and aggressively markets the sexualization of children. As Manning (2001) have observed, one of the best ways of defining what we are is by "ointing to what we are not." By demonizing and homogenizing child sex offenders--by claiming the greatest social distance, demonstrating the least tolerance, and advocating the harshest enalties--society is erhas seeking to mitigate a feeling of comlicity, which may in turn translate into media-fuelled contemt, vindictiveness, and, on occasion, community hostility and vigilante action. II. How does the ress define our image of the crime roblem Reresentation of crime in British media is distorted as we have seen in the revious section. In every way, the focus is on the unusual, creating a flawed image of the crime roblem and generating ublic fear of victimization which often is out of all roortion to their risk of becoming a victim of crime (British Crime Survey 2005/6). The tendency of inclusion and exclusion of eole to one or another category serves as one of the rimary reasons of distortions of media. When examined in relation to the oular media, it is notably the extent to which the five sychoanalytic exlanations of ublic unitiveness view the relationshi between media and audience as one of collusion. To ut it honestly, crime is constructed and consumed in such a way as to ermit the reader, viewer, or listener to sideste reality rather than confronting or "owning u" to it. Although many of the crimes celebre of recent years (esecially those involving violent and/or sexual crimes against children) have been described as the unthinkable and unknowable, it is erhas more accurate to suggest that they simly alert us to our collective unwillingness to think and to know (Jewkes, 2004). It is certainly the case that the crimes that adhere most clearly to journalistic ercetions of news worthiness elicit a dee cultural unease that we, as a society, can only confront if we detach ourselves from the eretrator(s) emotionally, morally, and hysically. Through a rocess of alienation and demonization, we establish the "otherness" of those who deviate and (re)assert our own innocence and normality (Blackman and Walkerdene, 2001). Yet the reulsion we exress (not least through the medium of mass communications) frequently denies the fact that those who commit crimes are not "others." They are "us," and are of our making. Furthermore, media reresentations of the least owerful sections of society eretuate sychic notions of otherness and frequently merge individuals from both ends of the sectrum of deviant imaginaries, luming together diverse identities and circumventing traditional notions of folk devilry in favor of homogenized grous of freaks, erverts, and monsters. Consequently, while the "absolute other" must have committed a crime or crimes so heinous that their comlete dislocation from the rest of society seems natural, even necessary, the "stigmatized other" need only fail to conform to cultural and economic norms to attract the scrutiny and criticism of the media. Frequently, then, the truly owerless, rather than the truly evil, are demonized and stigmatized in the oular media. III. How do the olice contribute to defining the ublic image of crime olice influences ublic oinion about crime and criminality in a way that it delivers the information to the media that reresents their organization from a ositive and always not a true way. Most research made on the issue of contributing the olice to the ublic image of crime concludes that the olice determine what is resented in the news, describing the news media as "conduits" for olice ideology (Hall et al., 1978). After interviewing Australian journalists, for examle, Greer, (2003) concluded that the olice is dominant in interaction with news media "and that, as is characteristic of all dominant relationshis, one arty (in this case the olice) fundamentally determines how the other arty acts." The way that olice influences the ublic oinion about crime and criminality is that it invest its own resources to assist distortion of media and assisting media organization in the roduction of news. The latter ultimately influence the criminal justice rocess and eole's oinion about "us" and "them" and defining "others" and "folk devils" of the society. olice deartment has a ower to categorize crimes in the way that romote and encourage ublic negative oinion about criminals. They decide when the information about the story should be released (obviously in a good time for them, when the justice is being made for examle and subtle information is crucial) and the extent of information to be delivered to the ublic. Besides, olice deartments assign officers to coordinate relationshis with reorters and guarantee the relevance of news content in the media. They even train sokesersons to generate an image that should be addressed thus actively submitting false message and creating distorted media. The reason why news organization agree to accet the "truth" is because for them it is cheaer, since the costs for news coverage are filled and the stories are rominently and timely laced. We can therefore conclude, that olice in contemorary British media heavily articiates in the creation of ublic oinion about crime and criminality. By creating the images consistent with their needs, olice deartments rovide events that are interesting to the reorters. News media trusts and benefits from such "news" and get free advertisement from mass media instead. IV. How are "moral anics" created and who are the new 'folk devils' of UK contemorary society. The term moral anic, as Sarks (1992: 65) has noted, can be overused to the extent that we risk reducing this eriod of late modernity to some universal, endlessly cyclical state of "anickyness." It would be theoretically inaccurate to concetualize media narratives chastising "stigmatized others" for their relatively minor examles of nonconformity in these terms. Moral anics are commonly conceived as events that haen out of the blue and rovoke an extreme reaction that, in turn, is usually understood as an exression of the limits to the amount of diversity that society can tolerate. In a ostmodern context in which diversity is often celebrated and an ever-exanding mass media offers more counter-definitions and rights to rely than at any time before, this roosition is troublesome. Rather, grous that occuy ositions at the margins are source of concern for conservative commentators and a constant bli on the moral radar of the oular ress. Unlike edohiles, terrorists, and murderous children--the "absolute others" or as they are also called "folk devils" who are ortrayed as the evil monsters in our midst--lone mothers, their offsring, welfare reciients, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, and travelers are less feared than loathed. Far from being volatile (Cohen, 2002), the underlying but ervasive contemt directed in media reresentations at these sections of society is striking in its consistency. However, an imortant characteristic of the sectrum of deviance is that grous and individuals that are ositioned at various stages along the continuum from "least serious" to "most serious" are, to some extent, free-floating. The boundaries searating different categories of deviance and dangerousness are not fixed and immutable, but fluid and ermeable; they constantly change as a function of shifting cultural sensibilities and ublic concern. Consequently, the deviant status of individuals or categories of individuals at the lower end of the sectrum may be elevated by a eriod of intense media attention that causes the whole grou or category to be viewed with renewed and intensified susicion, derision, and, at times, hostility. In short, while "stigmatized others" at the lower end of the sectrum are generally ortrayed as gradually but steadily corrosive of the fabric of society, rather than immediately and acutely threatening to the ersonal safety of its individual members, the ress is quick to caitalize on any chance to merge these two themes. More than this, on the basis of an isolated incident of violent or otherwise serious criminality, the erceived deviance of whole categories of individuals may be elevated considerably. That is, serious criminal incidents are frequently ortrayed not as excetional, but as tyical of a articular category of stigmatized other, and symtomatic of the wider roblem of social decline and moral decreitude. Through this rocess of mediated elevation, "stigmatized others" become "absolute others." Sometimes the deviance of "folk devils" is reflected in the most insidious levels. Consider, for examle, Susan Moore, who the tabloid ress recently ortrayed as "Britain's Laziest Woman." Describing her as a "bone idle skiver" who "hasn't done a day's work in her life," the 34-year-old from Burythore, North Yorkshire, was subjected by the Mirror to a vitriolic attack for the "crime" of "ocketing 30,000 [ounds sterling] in benefits," while the Sun felt moved to set u a "Suer Scrounger Hotline" to enable readers to track down "wasters" like Susan (February 21, 2004). The discovery that a woman had been living on 2,000 [ounds sterling] a year (or 40 [ounds sterling] a week --about $76.50 in the U.S.) for 16 years might have romted questions about the structures that deem this accetable in one of the richest ost-industrial nations in the world. Instead of emhasizing the stresses and strains of making ends meet in a destabilized job market and a climate of aggressive caitalist consumerism, the narrative stressed the immorality of this woman's actions and, by imlication, condemned the behavior of all those who are long-term unemloyed and welfare-deendent. Bibliograhy: 1. Becker, H.S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free ress of Glencoe. 2. Blackman, L. and V. Walkerdene 2001 Mass Hysteria: Critical sychology and Media Studies. Basingstoke: algrave. 3. Chibnall, S. (1997) Law and Order News (Tavistock) 4. Cohen, S. 2002 Folk Devils and Moral anics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University ress. 5. Ericson, R., . Baranekand, and J. Chan 1987 Visualising Deviance: A Study of News Organisation. Milton Keynes: Oen University ress. 6. Greer, C. (2003) Sex Crime and the Media (Willan) 7. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., and B. Roberts. 1978. olicing the Crisis: 8. Hancock, L. 2004 "Criminal Justice, ublic Oinion, Fear and oular olitics." J. Muncie and D. Wilson (eds.), The Cavendish Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology. London: Cavendish. 9. Hokins-Burke, R. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory (Willan) 10. Jewkes, Y. 2004 Media and Crime: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage. 11. Manning, . (2001) News and News Sources: A Critical Introduction (Sage) 12. Maruna, S., A. Matravers, and A. King 2004 "Disowning Our Shadow: A sychoanalytic Aroach to Understanding unitive ublic Attitudes." Deviant Behaviour 25: 277-299. 13. MCQuail, D. (2000) Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction (Sage), 4th edition 14. Minsky, R. 1998 sychoanalysis and Culture: Contemorary States of Mind. Cambridge: olity ress. 15. Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: Macmillan 16. S. Cohen and J. Young (eds) (1973) The Manafacture of News (Constable) 17. Sarks, R. 1995 "Entertaining the Crisis: Television and Moral Enterrise." D. Kidd-Hewitt and R. Osborne (eds.), Crime and the Media: The ost-Modern Sectacle. London: luto ress. 18. Tierney, J. (1996) Criminology: Theory and Context (Longman) 19. Walklate, S. (1998) Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates, (Oen University ress) 20. Wykes, M. (2001) News, Crime and Culture (luto) 21. Young, J. 2003 "Searching for a New Criminology of Everyday Life: A Review of the 'Culture of Control.'" British Journal of Criminology 43,1: 228-243. Read More