As a university student that happens to be
studying Criminology as well as the media, I have to admit ashamedly, my
consumption of the media hardly consists of fictional news. I rarely seek news
from the media in traditional outlets. That is, unless it finds itself to me
through a secondary source such as social media platforms, mostly facebook,
through friends or uni.
The continuation of this course however,
has allowed me to engage in the media much more actively. It has also
encouraged me to question information I have been fed & what I should be
taking in. This is probably due to the fact that most stories we are presented,
and do hear about, have been greatly sensationalized and seem to generate huge
public responses. It is only after hearing about a particular story, and it
capturing my attention, do I then attempt to investigate it further.
It probably
isn’t too surprising that before studying criminology, I did not question the
media and it’s portrayals as much as I should have. The fact that ¾ of the
public form their opinions about crime from what they see or read in the news
(Marsh & Melville 2009:1) should be surprising. It has brought to my
attention that the media seems to represent very one-sided views in most cases.
Cases that are mostly represented in the media usually contain an agenda, one
that usually consists of only presenting stories that sell. This is executed so
well by the media that the public is given, and believe false general
information about crime. This course has also taught me that the portrayal of crime
has been quantitatively and qualitatively more serious then proven by official
statistics. Yet other offences, such as property offences, are greatly
underplayed.
These are the
facts about the media & it’s representation of crime, I as a member of
society believe more should be educated about the fact that most of what we are
fed as a society, are sensationalized. That or the media should use less final
and definite terms, especially when presenting facts that have not been
completely confirmed as they provide people with false information. This has
been evident in the ‘Jamie Gao’ case. An on-going media spectacle about a
student that was feared missing or kidnapped yet the media had already jumped
to conclusions about him being murdered. More importantly, media also jumped to
conclusions suggesting Jamie Gao was a police informant. This was not the case
and as a result, the media then had to re-state that police actually denied
that he was a police informant. News.com stated in an article that police had
to deny the assumptions stated by Channel 10.
‘In the light of the incorrect assertions in the media
in relation to Mr Gao and growing public speculation, I am taking the unusual
step of confirming that Mr Gao was not an informant for the Australian Crime
Commission,” the statement said. Senior Officers in both NSW police and NSW
Crime commission have also said the young man was not working for either
organization.’
A regrettable
move by Channel 10 as this has reduced its credibility in my eyes. The fact
that the media makes such assumptions & presents them to society without
doing their research has now made me doubt the details in most media stories.
My consumption
of the news is now much more guarded then it used to be as it has gone from
listening & taking in what I have been told, to questioning certain aspects
or considering them more thoroughly before completely and blindingly believing
them.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment