Media Misrepresentation of Crime Nature

Question 1. In what ways does the media misrepresent the nature of crime?

There is an expansive body of research between crime and media with how media is produced. This essay examines how the media plays a part in what we know or think about crime and what ways the media misinterprets the nature of crime. Four main arguments are presented demonstrating that media misrepresents the nature of crime. Firstly, this essay will discuss why media over reports crime (particularly violent crimes), besides how media impacts the public perception, the effects of media for profit and finally, what types of crime is determined newsworthy. All these issues support the argument that media misrepresents the nature of crime.

The strengths that unequivocally empowers or request in news media today displays a bias view of the social world. For instance, Greer (2005) reinforces the belief that media presents a picture that crime is on the rise, regardless of factual information. It is contended that the media tends to centre on a particular type of crime which is predominantly violent crimes, depicts as more of a commonplace and a more prominent danger to the community.

Evidence shows media overlooks property crime, white-collar crime and corporate crime which is the most occurring in society (Maguire 2002; Roberts & Stalans 2000). It is evident that violent crime is vital to the groups of audiences because it could be a genuine concern for the community than property or white-collar.

Media over reports violent crime as it has a major effect on the public’s perception of crime. A large body of research contends that the great sum of violent crime presented in mass media hoists the public’s fear of criminal victimization. It is well recorded that violent crime may be an articulated highlight of mass media and misshapes the reality of crime by excessively focusing on irregular violent crime (Reiner, 2007). Furthermore, media tends to overstate antisocial behaviour that can possibly lead to moral panics. Cohen (1972) depicted moral panics as when mass media predisposition happens, this causes a response of the population based on hyperbolical perceptions. It appears that the repeated publicity of violent crime within the media increases the fear of crime. (Cohen, 1972).

As a result of this, it has driven to expanded reliance on advertising income, a push towards programming that draws bigger audiences, a decrease in programming such as critical journalism or new that is not as profitable as other programs, and dependence on outside wire unused services (McChesney, 1999).

It is no shock that when media presents crime to their viewers it is selective. Majority of crime that is reported is considered “Newsworthy”. Media is predominantly the primary source of indirect knowledge of crime to most of society (Roberts & Stalans, 2000) thus, puts the media in a position of excessive impact around what individuals know and think they know around crime. News media is subject to the bias of reporters, editors and producers, conjointly holden to political and economic forces that serve to structure and shape media images of crime stories, offenders and victims make the news depend in portion on what researchers call their ‘newsworthiness’. There are eight news values that make a story newsworthy exist. These news values clarify in portion why stories are often inherently news-worthy, in this way stories that are more novel, contain greater conflict, are more prominent and have greater affect. In common, the most prevalent a crime, the less likely it is to be reported.

In conclusion, the primary source of indirect knowledge of crime can have a major impact in the way we think about crime. Media tends to focus on violent crimes and over looks other crimes such as property crime, white collar crime and corporate crime as these are less considered newsworthy. By having a large audience to the media this increases profitability to Fairfax and Newcrops organizations. The effects from these issues discussed in the essay impacts that crime is everywhere creating a sense of fear today. Therefore, media misrepresents that nature of crime the way crime is reported in the media.

References

Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of Mods and Rockers (MacGibbon and Kee, St Albans, Herts). Google Scholar.

Greer, C. (2009). Crime and media: understanding the connections. Criminology, 2, 177-203. . In C. Hale & K. Hayward & A. Wahidin & E. Wincup (Eds.), Criminology Oxford (pp. 157-158). Oxford University Press, Qxford.

Maguire, M. (2002). Crime statistics: The ‘data explosion’and its implications. The Oxford handbook of criminology, 3, 322-370. eds M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

McChesney, R. 1999, Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times,

McChesney, R. W. (2015). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New Press, The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Reiner, R. (2007). “Media Made Criminality: The Representation of Crime in the Mass Media.” in The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th edn, edited by M. Maguire, M. Morgan, and R. Reiner. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (2000). and Public Opinion. The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, 31. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Question 2: Violent crime can be a source of concern, but is it the most frequently occurring type of crime in society?

Violent crime can be a source of concern however, it is not the most frequently occurring type of crime in society. When crime is reported in the media it does not provide true crime statistics, therefore it may appear violent crime is more prevalent in society. In this essay inconsistences between what official research tell us and what is known as the dark figure of crime will be discussed along with measuring crime known as administration data and lastly victimization data will be examined on the variation in reporting across offence types.

The dark figure of crime is a term that is defined by crime specialist and the sociologists to demonstrate the number of committed crimes that are never reported or are never detected, this puts into question the adequacy and proficiency of the official crimes data. Non-reported crime is a major issue not only for the victim but also the criminal justice system. Reported crime is a key detriment in shaping the statistics recorded by public and also provides a broader understanding of how crime impacts on different individualist communities and neighbourhoods (Tarlin & Morris, 2010).

Moreover, cases that go to trial victims are often expose to, humiliating cross-examination, victimization, doubt, and these are apparent as shown by the country in cases such as rape. This can lead to disappointment and disillusionment with the failure of the criminal justice system. It is however argued that victims are still better off reporting these crimes. (Fohring, 2014).

Crime statistics known as administrative data only measures detected, reported and recorded of offences. This data is not a measure of the ‘true level’ of crime in the community. According to Graycar and Grabosky, (2002) towards the end of the twentieth century Australia was a less violent society than the end of the 19th or 18th centuries, in spite of the fact that today’s rates of property crime appear significant higher. However, public perception of crime rates and crime trends do not match with police statics of recorded crime or surveys on victimization rates despite this decline (Rex & Tonry, 2002; Roberts & Indermaur, 2009).

Furthermore, evidence from the Australian Bureau of statistics (2013) shows crime reported to police in Australia in 2012 recorded property crime is made up a much larger percentage of crime approx. 80% than violent crimes approx. 20%. Murder that is considered the worse crime is only accounted for 0.05% of offences compared with less harmful volume crimes such as other theft including shoplifting at 51.58%. By comparing crime by the type or category permits us to recognize imperative contrast, which in this case property crime is more prevalent.

There is evidence to support that the population in Australia incorrectly believe crime rates are increasing when in fact, they are stable or declining (Weatherburn & Indermaur, 2004). Analytical data appears women, older people and more poorly educated people hold less accurate perceptions of actual crime rates than those who are male, younger and more highly educated (Indermaur & Roberts, 2005).

According to Grant, David and Cook, (2002) the fear of crime show that majority of people are afraid of unpredictable strangers oppose to their own family members. In addition to this, studies of homicide and assault discovered the risk of victimization is most prominent within the home or residential setting inside of on the street. A study conducted in 2004 by the Australian survey, questions people about their perception of safety and risk of victimization.

It was discovered that most individuals felt either exceptionally secure or fairly secure in their local neighbourhood after dark. However, men and women show differences in the way they perceive security. Males were more likely to feel exceptionally secure (44%) or fairly secure (42%) walking alone after dark than females (21% and 38% respectively) Women 39% were much more likely to feel unsafe walking along after dark than men (13%). There are also age contrasts in discernments of security for people. Individuals that are 60 and over were more likely to report feeling unsafe when walking alone after dark in their neighborhood oppose to those in other age categories. Yet the risk of victimization among this group is lower than other age groups (James & Graycar, 2002).

As shown in this essay, there is an underlying issue with the relationship between what is being reported and what is not reflected in statistical data. One of the major issues that contribute to the inconsistences of data is the dark figure of crime for victimology. It has been highlighted to be a concern to not only the victim but the criminal justice system. It has been concluded that violent crimes are not the most frequently occurring type of crime in society.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008). Recorded crime—victims, 2007. cat. no. 4510.0. Canberra: ABS.

Australia Bureau of Statistics (2013), Recorded Crime – Victims, Australia, 2012, cat. no. 4530.0, Australia Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

Australian Institute of Criminology (2013), Australian Crime: Facts & Figures 2004, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

Fohring, S. (2014). Putting a face on the dark figure: Describing victims who don’t report crime. Temida, 17(4), 3-18.

Graycar, A., & Grabosky, P. (Eds.). (2002). The Cambridge handbook of Australian criminology. Cambridge University Press.

Graycar, A., & Grabosky, P. (2002). Trends in Australian crime and criminal justice. The Cambridge Handbook of Australian Criminology, 7-26.

Roberts, L. D., & Indermaur, D. (2005). Predicting punitive attitudes in Australia. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Perception of crime and justice Australian social attitudes: The first report. Sydney: UNSW Press 14(1), 56-65.

Graycar, A., & Grabosky, P. (Eds.). (2002). The Cambridge handbook of Australian criminology. Cambridge University Press.

Rex S & Tonry M (2002). Reform and punishment: The future of sentencing. Cullompton: Willan Publishing

Tarling, R., & Morris, K. (2010). Reporting crime to the police. The British journal of criminology, 50(3), 474-490.

Weatherburn, D., & Indermaur, D. (2004). Public perceptions of crime trends in New South Wales and Western Australia. BOCSAR NSW Crime and Justice Bulletins, 8.