Take Home Exam
1013CCJ Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice
Course Conveyor – Dr. Myesa Mahoney
Alex Blinkov Bliad 1701
In what ways the media misinterpret the nature of crime?
We live in the world where mass media is influencing on us from different ways for example: on TV, on the Internet, on a radio, daily newspapers etc. A title on the front page of newspaper or first news you can hear on a radio or see on a TV is considered to be criminal. The same criminal news can be examined in different ways. Teece & Makkai (2000) found that in one of the sources the main constituent crime can be omitted, where in the other source the main consistent of crime can be embellished with unnecessary or even questionable information. This essay explains in what ways the media misinterpret the nature of crime.
The media is increasingly invading into our lives. A study of how social media interferes in Australia by Alcorn (2016) showed that 61% engage with social media every day, where in 2015 it was 59%. This kind of observation can be seen in all age groups. The information disseminated by the media increasingly influences the behavior of people, often determining their actions. It has an impact on an unlimited number of individuals, on the entire population, on criminals, victims, law enforcement officials and judges. As well it has an impact on adults and minors. At the same time, the same media information has an impact on different people exerts a different influence: on some, it is beneficial, even psychotherapeutic, on others – negative or even provocative, causing any sudden reaction, including criminal (Brown, 1996). Moreover, mass media actively participate in the formation of public opinion, the attitude of the population towards the rule of law, the activities of law enforcement bodies and courts, are capable of provoking tolerance or, on the contrary, intolerance of all kinds of offenses, thus providing criminal or preventive influence on the criminological situation.
It is very noticeable in some countries, for example Russia, how mass media actively participate in the formation of public opinion, the attitude of the population towards the rule of law, the activities of law enforcement bodies and courts, are capable of provoking tolerance or, on the contrary, intolerance of all kinds of offenses, thus providing criminal or preventive influence on the criminological situation.
The media’s investigating wrongdoing is regularly misleadingly strong of police or a law implementation organization however is negative towards courts. This is because of the media depending to a great extent on restricted, effortlessly available sources – frequently experts, for example, police, and accordingly exhibits an uneven picture (Teece ; Makkai, 2000). Police are advantaged sources to the media and in this way the police-media relationship is commonly remunerating as it creates a viable and effective picture for the police, and also giving data to the media about wrongdoing. This substantiates the grounds of the help gave to law requirement offices by the media. Moreover, as already confirmed, the way that the media pushes its own particular plan and subsequently the general visibility as to condemning is that condemning is excessively indulgent confirmations the way that the media debilitate the courts. Along these lines, the media mutilates the idea of wrongdoing displayed to our general public and leads society to acquire high trust in administrations gave by police and negligible help towards courts.
Brutal crimes that initiate sentiments of outrage and madness in the general population are the main sorts of crimes that the media present to us and are accounted for such that they appear the most well-known kinds of crimes conferred in the public arena. Open tension about crimes can be raised to such a degree that it can prompt an ethical madness about a specific crime, particularly brutal crime. The presumption that a substantial extent of crimes include brutality is one of the fundamental contentions progressed by society. In any case, investigate reliably finds that in western nations the media over-reports rough violations, particularly kill, rape and ambush (Hayes ; Prenzler, 2009).
This essay discussed some of the ways how media misinterprets the crime. The idea of crime in public is not exactly introduced by the media. The proof is evident that the media is society’s essential wellspring of information about crime most media organizations are working for benefit, writing about crimes that are considered newsworthy, adjusting to news standards. Media has the ability to raise a fear of crime by concentrating on a specific crime. Therefore, it is obvious that the idea of crime in public isn’t exactly exhibited by the media as it has persuaded different myths.
Alcorn N., Buchanan L., Smith J ; Lasalarie G. (2016). Media Consumer Survey. Australian media and digital preferences, (5), 34-35. Retrieved from http://landing.deloitte.com.au/rs/761-IBL-328/images/Media_Consumer_Survey_Report.pdfBrown, M. (1996). The portrayal of violence in the media: impacts and implications for policy. Trends ; Issues In Crime And Criminal Justice, (55). Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi55Hayes, H. Prenzler, T. (2009). Introduction to crime and criminology 2nd edition. Australia: Pearson Australia Group.
Teece, M. ; Makkai, T. (2000). Print Media Reporting on Drugs and Crime, 1995 – 1998. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (158). Retrieved from