An Objective inquiry by Dr.

Ignatius Gwanmesia into the importance of the influence

of the mass media on our attitude to crime.

Introduction

The British crime phobia “in part generated by sensationalist media coverage”, Kirsta
(2001, p. 5); the corresponding prioritisation of crime-related debates in most party
manifestos, Brand and Price, (2000, p. i); the reciprocal investigations into the impact
of media messages on crime attitudes are justified on the reality that “every seconds
somewhere in Britain a crime is being committed, and popular newspapers outbid one
another to present ever more sensationally lurid coverage of muggings, murders and
rapes” Kirsta, (1988, p. 4). While prevailing circumstances may give the impression of
a crime epidemic partly due to mass media influence, pinions about direct correlates
are not only polarised but problematic in validity and reliability. In analysing the mass
media influence on public attitude to crime, I will start by defining ‘mass media’ and
‘crime’. Then, using the television, the newspapers and films as my mass media
typologies, I will concurrently critically analyse prevailing opinions on how they impact
on public attitude to crime. While the appraisal will evaluate prevailing debates, the
conclusion will be a résumé of dialogues developed exclusively within the essay.
Based on the Harvard model, the bibliography will alphabetically credit citations made
within the discourse.

Definition

Mass media denotes, “the methods and organization used by special social groups to
convey messages to large, socially mixed and widely dispersed audiences” Trowler,
(2001, p. 1). The television, newspapers, radio, cinema, mobile phones, films etc are
mass media instruments employed in encoding and disseminating messages. Crime
denotes “an action or omission which constitute an offence and is punishable by law”
Pearsall, (1998, p. 434).
The Mass media attitude-influencing debate
1
With television as the typology, Allen, (1994, p. 37) cites the hitherto belief that “the
camera never lies” to emphasise the trust or reality that majority of the public attaches
to mass media messages. From a semiotic and structural perspective, Robert Allen
goes on to emphasise that while mass media information are “partial, motivated,
conventional and biased” (p. 38), people simply receive them as ”pure information, as
an unmediated signifier”. While this tendency and the lack of media literacy may
collude to accord consensus to “the power-wielding ability of the press to instigate
public hysteria on crime”, Banks, (2001, p. 17); Trowler, (2001), the correlate between
the mass media messages and crime is not only highly contentious but is a factor of a
myriad of variables; age, Gunter, (1987); social class, Gray, (1992); gender, Gunter,
(1995); race and ethnicity, Gillespie, (1995) and media literacy, Buckingham, (1993b).
With television, the newspapers and films as typologies, the medical model perceives
the mass media as the syringe, the message as what is injected and the audience as
the patient. Accordingly, the influence of the media on our attitudes to crime is a factor
of dosage, (the quantity, frequency and extent of exposure to mass media
socialisation, Allen, (1994, p. 37); and the resilience, (audience’s selective ability rather
than passive attitude to media messages). However, irrespective of our resilience,
“prolonged exposure to biased media message will eventually impact on our attitudes
to crime.” Lazarsfeld et al., (1948). Some sociologists assert that, “the hypnotic power
of the mass media deprives us of the capacity for critical thought.” Marcuse, (1972).
This is acute within contemporary techno-globalised society where audiences are
incessantly bombarded with crime details or crime-explicit films. Regarding films, the
murder of James Bulger was attributed to “re-enactment of scenes from ‘Child’s play
111.” Ford, (1994). Similarly, critics argue that the television, news papers and cinema
have socialised audiences into stereotyping crime so that medical conditions like
mental illness are being criminalised. For example society is more predisposed to
prejudge innocent mental patients culpable solely by reason of their circumstance
compared to affluent criminals. Similarly, the allegation that British society is
“intrinsically racist”, Donald and Rattansi, (1992, p. 4) is exemplified in media reporting
that visibly seem to socialised audiences into criminalising ‘Blackness’. Here,
subsequent to a fatal assault, a tabloid caption read, “Chelsea Law-abiding white male
lawyer murdered by two black ‘hoodies.’” The Sun, (2007). The resulting public
hysteria and outraged evoked was indicative of the extent to which placid readers had
been socialised through minds and thoughts manipulation into passive and
2
stereotypical consumers of bias media messages. Here, the media relegated the
actual criminal act of murder into insignificance while readers were manipulated into
using ‘blackness’ with implications of racism as primary criteria in their evaluation of
the crime. Similarly, the Telegraph headline of December 14th 1985; “Black Brixton
Looters jailed” Trowler, (2001, p. 210) is typical of mass media attitude manipulation so
that ‘blackness’ is perceived as synonymous with criminality. Furthermore, the
newspapers and television’s preoccupation with technical efficiency at the expense of
empathetic concern have socialised audience into making stars of criminals while
crime victims are either negated or re-victimised. Kirsta, (1988, p.105). For example,
the social worker was isolated and vilified in the Victoria Climbé trails, thanks to media-
audience manipulation. The media’s influence here was to manipulate the audience to
scapegoat the less credential social worker as opposed to the learned consultant. As
in most criminal investigations, the media became the reporter, prosecutor, judge and
executioner while the audience passively consented to the media propaganda.
Society’s stereotypical perception of social workers “as indecisive wimps who fail to
protect children from death, or as authoritarian bullies who unjustifiably snatch children
from their parent” Banks, (2001, p. 17) persist today thanks to media influence.
Ultimately, until a herculean revolution is affected to change the way mass media
messages are encoded and disseminated, attitudes to crime will always reciprocate
and satisfy the mass media’s mind manipulation and socialisation processes.

Appraisal

While conservatives of the Mary Whitehouse school vilify the mass media for
encouraging and “desensitizing the audience to crime and violence and other forms of
deviance”, Trowler, (2001, p. 112), advocates uphold them not only as the primary
means of informing the public but argue that audiences “are complicated filter
mechanism that are selective in their interpretation and application of mass media
messages. Fiske, (1986). Similarly, while this argument may provide plausible reasons
to argue that the selective consumption of media messages serves to mitigate the
alleged domineering influence of the mass media on public crime attitudes, Robert
Allen (1994, p. 6) stressed that “despite the seemingly self-evident manner in which
we are able to make sense of television, that ability is in fact a result of our having
learned the convention of television reading.” Furthermore, although Robert Allen,
3
(1994, p.14) says “early mass communication scholars were impressed by
broadcasting’s direct, immediate and drastic effects on behaviours and attitudes”,(p.
14), in qualifying his statement, he emphasised that “the media did not tell people what
to think so much as they told people what to think about.” (p. 14). Crime-wise, the
debate would then be whether the mass media implicitly drives some people into
committing crime or does it rather set the agenda for public discourse on crime? If as a
result of the latter, mass media audiences are instigated to undertake dialogue as a
result thereof, then, this must be indicative of attitudes that are the result of mass
media sensitisation about crime, or counter response to media crime representations.
Whatever the case, a comprehensive appraisal of the power of the mass media on
crime attitude is inherently problematic since this “is an under-research phenomenon”
Boyd-Barrett and Newbold, (2001, p. 118) which “operates by conventions rather than
by hard-and-fast rules.” Allen, (1994, p. 49). Moreover, McQuail, (1994, p. 327) noted
that “there is little agreement on the nature and extent of these assumed effects.”
Nonetheless, while it is generally presumed that the mass media influence audience’s
attitudes to crime and “that television cultivates people’s beliefs” Gerbner and Larry
(1976), counter argument asserts that “an individual’s attitude or predisposition can
modify or sometimes completely distort the meaning of a given mass media message”
Boyd-Barrett and Newbold, (2001, p. 127). Furthermore, from an entertainment or
escapist perspective, it is argued that television “is not supposed to be taken
seriously.” Allen, (1994, p. 4). The issue here is the proportion of mass media audience
that are objective enough to discern facts from fiction. Nevertheless, the reality with
mass media dependency as our primary source of information or entertainment is that,
our attitudes to crime will always mirror some of the shortcomings of the media’s
encoding and dissemination processes. Bearing in mind the fact that being a capitalist
society where profit-making supersedes ethical and moral values, the various attitudes
to crime are factors of vested interest as well as one’s social class within the prevailing
economic structure. Research-wise the media’s quest to galvanise readership by
stressing the scale rather than the true extent of crime “is neither ethically acceptable
nor logical.” Ennew, (1996, p. 12).

Conclusion.
4
In the contemporary techno-globalised world where audiences are not only mass
media-dependent for information, Banks, (2001); Trowler, (2001), but are incessantly
bombarded with crime minutiae, there is consensus that our attitudes to crime will
reciprocate these realities. Banks, (2001); Brand and Price, (2000). However, the
extent to which these attitudes are a consequence of media socialisation and
manipulation is dependent on a myriad of inter-related variables; age, Gunter, (1987);
social class, Gray, (1992); gender, Gunter, (1995); race and ethnicity, Gillespie, (1995)
and media literacy, Buckingham, (1993b); There is also consensus that the public’s
habitual moral panic and knee-jerk attitudes of indignation, detestation, and
sometimes mass hysteria to emotive crime-reporting are usually instigated by
sensational reporting “to increase readership rather than transmit facts.) Kirsta, (1988).
Nonetheless some critics argue that “the mass media, rather than changing attitudes,
serves to confirm those attitudes already held by audience.” Trowler, (2001, p. 64).
Furthermore, the apparent media’s influence on crime attitude is mitigated on the
assumption that majority of the public are rationally selective in their consumption of
media messages. Fiske, (1986). Holistically, “the lack of systematic researches into
the exact impact of the mass media on our attitudes to crime”, Boyd-Barrett and
Newbold, (2001, p. 118), is colluding with other factors to render it necessary to
question the reliability and validity of prevailing opinions. Allen, (1994). Thus, until the
relevant mechanism is established to address this deficiency, related analysis will
forever be shrouded in relativities?

Bibliography

5
Allen, R. (1994) Channels of Discourse, Reassembled: television and contemporary
criticism 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
Banks, S. (2001) Ethics and Values in Social Work. Hampshire: Palgrave.
Boyd-Barrett, O. and Newbold, C. (2001) Approaches to Media: A Reader. Tunbridge
Wells: Gray Publishing.
Brand, S. and Price, R. (2000) The Economic and Social Cost of Crime. London:
Home Office Research Study. 217.
Buckingham, D. (1993b) Reading Audiences: Young People and the Media.
Manchester: UP
Ennew et al, (1996) Children and Prostitution: How Can we Measure and Monitor the
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children? Literature Review and Annotated
Bibliography. New York: UNICEF.
Fiske, J. (1986) Television: polysemy and popularity, Critical Studies in Mass
Communication. Vol, 3.
Ford, M. (1994). Sight and Sound. London: BFI.

Gerbner, G. And Larry, G. (1976) Living with Television: The Violence Profile. Journal
of Communication, Vol. 26, No. 2.

Gillespie, M. (1995) Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change. London: Routledge.

Grays, A. (1992) Video Playtime. London: Routledge.

Gunter, B. (1997) Children and the fear of crime. London: Libbey.

Gunter, B. (11995) Television and Gender: Representation. London: John Libbey.

Katz, E. (1979) On Conceptualising Media Effects. Leuven: Catholic University.

Kirsta, A. (1988) Victims: Surviving the aftermath of violent crime. London: Hutchison
Ltd.
Klapper, J. T (1960) The Effect of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press.
Lazarsfeld, P. F. Et al. (1948) The People’s Choice. Columbia: Columbia University
Press.
Marcuse, H. (1972) The One Dimensional Man. London: Abacus.
McQuail, D. (1994) Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction, 3rd edn. London:
Sage.
Pearsall, J. (1998). The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
The Sun, (2007). Chelsea Law-abiding white male lawyer murdered by two black
‘hoodies.’ London: The Sun Newspaper.

Trowler, P. (1998) Investigating Mass Media. London: Collins Educational.