To what extent to the news media reflect the "reality of crime"? Select and example and discuss in relation to deviancy amplification and moral panic.
To what extent to the news media reflect the "reality of crime"? Select and example and discuss in relation to deviancy amplification and moral panic.
A moral panic is as defined by Stan Cohen as "a threat to societal values and interests". According to Cohen, society is often subject to such "instances and periods of moral panic" (Cohen 1972); the cycle of moral panics begins as suggested with a deviant or criminal act, which is generally considered to be a threat to the fabric of society. The media identify and exaggerate the deviancy in simplified terms, occasionally even deliberately instigating events in the pursuit of headlines.
The deviants are as a result stigmatised and acknowledged as outcasts from mainstream society - being misrepresented by the media. In turn those involved may gradually identify with this role, further increasing the likelihood of deviant behaviour. Following the media frenzy; public fears and indignation are aroused and agitated, there are calls for action to be taken and for "something to be done", whereby there is a tendency for those figures such as politicians, the police force, magistrates and religious leaders amongst others, to man the 'moral barricades' and pronounce judgment.
This is followed by a response from public, which in turn further concentrates focus and concern by the public at large, this is known as deviancy amplification. The result of the panic can then; quickly die out, is forgotten by the media and therefore by the public, or there is an outcry and the aforementioned public figures have to take action such as incorporation into legislation and social policy, as can be seen by the introduction of the National Sex Offenders Register (Paedophile Register) in the late 1990s, in response to the growing concern and panic over child sex offences (Cohen 1972).
The moral panic is not a new phenomenon. Every decade brings a new panic from the media in a range of topics, from the so called increase in youth crime (yobs and such), to drugs and sex, each considered a threat to the moral fibre of society at that particular time. As Furedi points out, "newspaper headlines continually warn of some new danger which threatens our health and happiness". Whereas in the past it may have been the 'drug culture' of the fifties and sixties, or the disruptive behaviour of the Mods and Rockers, in the sixties, today ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The moral panic is not a new phenomenon. Every decade brings a new panic from the media in a range of topics, from the so called increase in youth crime (yobs and such), to drugs and sex, each considered a threat to the moral fibre of society at that particular time. As Furedi points out, "newspaper headlines continually warn of some new danger which threatens our health and happiness". Whereas in the past it may have been the 'drug culture' of the fifties and sixties, or the disruptive behaviour of the Mods and Rockers, in the sixties, today we face panics over 'children who kill other children', Child obesity 'timebomb' alert The dangers within school ,and perhaps one of the more prominent panics at present, the 'paedophile'. The issues to be considered, when trying to establish how a panic comes about and how we are responsive to them are: how does a panic occur and take hold; what are the indicators; and who is involved?
In order to demonstrate this point, the example of the James Bulger murder in the early 1990s and the 'paedophile scare' can be taken, as this incident was covered extensively by the news media, and is still called upon as an example to society today. As Ann Bradley comments, there is little wonder why the murder of toddler James Bulger by two fellow children, dominated newspaper headlines and created a panic. As she explains, 'many commentators tried to depict the murder of James Bulger as a gruesome act which of was somehow characteristic modern British society', despite the fact that various figures show that such murders are extremely rare. In fact it was not so much that this murder was a 'symbol of nineties Britain'; but that the media reaction to it was (Bradley 1994).
The point that this case made was not that this was a first of its kind, for children in the past have killed other children, but was the media's reaction to such a crime and the ongoing public reaction to it. The murder was portrayed by the media as a horrific act, which symbolized the degeneration of modern British society, the media suggested the increase of public indifference, lowering family values and increasing isolation, generating massive public guilt and predicting a breakdown in the cohesive fabric of society itself, 'why did 'we' as a society allow this to happen?'; 'if society had been more vigilant this crime would never have happened'; 'what happened to the active citizen?' (The Guardian). All of which are key factors in a moral panic, especially the identification of public guilt, which will result in a public outcry and changes made to society to prevent such a thing happening again. The use of the language in the articles covering the crime the time, made "folk devils" out of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, saying "that the two were evil and fixated on killing" and James Bulger as "innocent, a lovely little boy. He was so beautiful", emotive language which provokes reactions from the general public. (Guardian, 25/9/1993)
Public opinion demanded stricter authoritarian controls and even censorship as the deviancy situation was amplified. There was little public opposition to the government proposal to install more CCTV cameras to control crime, after all, surveillance cameras proved instrumental in the identification of James Bulger's killers, however, they had also served another purpose, and that was to make the public feel more involved with the tragedy, conveying highly emotional images which will probably be never forgotten by those who saw them, images of a small boy being led away to his death. Nor could anyone who followed the case developments, argue against the call for stricter controls on violent films, when the belief was that the video Child's Play III (which was thought to have been watched by one of the killers), acted as the inspiration for the crime (Bradley 1994), despite the fact that there was no evidence that the killers had been influenced by such a film (this was perceived as irrelevant by the media and pursued only in the sense that there is possible prevention for these sorts of crimes).
In an article in the Guardian, December 1997, Owen Boycott discusses the growing visibility of paedophilia. He suggests that while police and social services were reluctant to recognise the scale of paedophilia in the 1970s and 1980s, in the 1990s 'as one local authority home after another has been exposed as a target for calculating child abusers, paedophilia has taken on the characteristics of a menace to society'. He offers figures from the Home Office that estimate that up to 110,000 people in Britain have been convicted of sex offences against children. Statistics such as these may only serve to illustrate the role the press has in the orchestration of a panic within society, its very presentation implying that paedophiles are everywhere and could be anyone. But perhaps this is only the tip of the iceberg; to follow the path of this 'moral panic' it is necessary to look further at the coverage awarded by the press to the paedophilia panic, and the central role they played in it.
In an article in the Guardian in August 1997 by Alan Travis (Home Affairs Editor), it was reported "Newspaper campaigns 'outing' paedophiles are likely to end under new Home Office guidelines on the disclosure of information from the National Sex Offenders Register which comes into force next month..." from the medias attention to paedophiles being "everywhere and anyone" resulting in individuals being wrongly identified as paedophiles, with tragic consequences. For example, in the same article it was reported that 'the unofficial Child Protection Unit formed by angry dads in Teignmouth, Devon, has 'savagely beaten' a convicted sex offender and threatens more attacks, claiming that only physical action can protect their children'. (Guardian 12/07/1997).
For as Decca Aitkenhead makes clear is 'the new discovery is the scale of child abuse going on in the home, yet the new panic is about the stranger in the park'. It would appear that it is easier to heavily invest in the menace of the stranger, as abuse within the home and our families is too difficult to confront. (Guardian 9 January 1998).
Using this, and the other examples, it is perhaps clear to see how a panic was generated and why. There is little doubt that a concern did exist, yet one must question whether the panic in question was more to do with society finding a way of dealing with an issue that was too difficult to confront, and whether this concern was capitalised on by the media to orchestrate a new panic, media amplification of a situation results in the public being manipulated by the media into following the same views as is expected of a nation. Yet it is perhaps futile to think that there are any ready-made solutions to the problem of moral panics, especially as we seem to be living in a time that is prepared to replace one moral panic for another, as quickly as the old one subsides.
