The Media's Effect on Crime & Incarceration

The votes that a politician actively seeks out don't generally belong to the voters who are concerned with prisoner's rights or prison reform. Even though the prison industry and its increasing drain on taxpayer funds greatly affect the lives of all Americans, most of us don't care. Even worse than not caring, many believe that our increasing harshness on criminals is not only fair it's also necessary. When reliable research sources are reporting back steadily decreasing rates of violent crime, where is this fear coming from? A recent study argued that 95% of Americans shape their impression of crime from mass media (Dyer 53). Television is often accepted as a form of unbiased education and information, with children being encouraged to watch the news and stay up to date on what's going on in the world. By the time a child graduates high school, they will have spent more time watching television than any other activity besides sleeping (Dyer 57).

The heavy impact that media has on shaping public opinion is indisputable, and important because of how interconnected influential systems are in affecting prisons. The media convinces citizens they should be afraid and then when public opinion polls indicate that voters are seeking more crime legislation, politicians step up and oblige them. The role of political consultants and "right hand men" enhances the power of public opinion polls, because the consultants back this survey information as fact (Dyer 120). It is dangerous when public opinion is interpreted as fact, because of how uneducated the public is and how heavily influenced they are by the biased, money driven media. Politicians are also benefiting from this falsely rooted fear by building their campaigns around being "tough on crime", which drives them to encourage the current state of affairs. One West Virginia politician in a small town was elected while speaking out against violent crime, and townspeople rooted him on even though their town had virtually no violent crime itself. They were basing their decisions off of the constant barrage of violent images that mass media is pouring into our homes (Dyer 97).

Violent crimes make up between 40% and 50% of crime coverage, while they make up less than 3% of crimes committed. Furthermore, news channels and newspapers exacerbate the severity of this impact by completely ignoring the context and motives surrounding these crimes. This heightens the fear of viewers who imagine themselves as being the next possible victims even if they are far left of the victim profile (Dyer 64). Television channels are also inundated with "cop shows", where violence against police officers is blown out of proportion (Dyer 107). These shows thrive off of real life violence, which is chosen from hours of footage and normal nights. This programming feeds the fear of the public, and boosts ratings all while shaping more opinions about prisons and crime.

The media is aware of their power, and are either apathetic, more interested in profits, or don't see it as a conflict of interests. The role of journalism is being altered by these attitudes, and one reporter was quoted as saying the role of journalism as "It is no longer to serve the public by reporting the news but rather to create emotion through drama, which increases the audience for the advertiser" (Dyer 112). This attitude is also driven by profits, and the money made off of sensationalized news is much higher than other genres. The concept of 'shareholder primacy' underlines capitalism and our corporate culture puts more emphasis on this than journalistic freedom. Therefore, CEOs of corporations are required to consider stock prices as more important than the content of what they produce (Dyer 58)

Advertisers also play into this cycle, which becomes more important as the time allotted for ads constantly increases, which in turn increases advertiser's power (Dyer 62). Advertisers have admitted to putting pressure on media companies to censor what news they run, and when only nine corporations control the majority of popular media this becomes a major monopoly on what 95% of Americans internalize to form their ideas of crime, and consequently the prison system's purpose (Dyer 71). The web of profits and converging interests is further complicated when one considers that the media corporations, and other financially invested groups fund the new legislation that is "tough" on crime and keeps prison populations increasing (Dyer 145). A related example of conflicting interests; Governor Frank Keating stepped in when a dispute between CCA and Oklahoma government ensued; defending CCA and stopping the threats (Dyer 148). It was no coincidence that CCA had contributed generously to Keating's campaign fund, and in this case the media benefited the public by highlighting the connection. However one or two examples of where the media has upheld its greater purpose to free press and its public are not enough and it's safe to assume that even this educational story of corruption was probably sandwiched in between gory stories of murder from a couple states over.

Mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes, three-strikes legislation, and "truth in sentencing" are three major policy issues that are harming our country. Our increasing reliance on prisons is expensive, and irrational. We are perpetuating racial and socioeconomic disparities, and then taking away the ex-prisoner's right to vote and change the system (Welch 180). Those who do have a vote, hold a distorted view of crime and prisons due to the media and its goals. Using Welch's example of California, over 75% of inmates report drug or alcohol problems while only 6% of them receive treatment. Only 33% or less are offered job or education programs while imprisoned, and then the state consequently spends massive amounts of money on re-imprisoning parole violators (164). Prisons should be for rehabilitating offenders, not used as punishment or storage dock for corporations and politicians to reap profits from. Why do these media images of crime matter? Because in the end, we all pay for their results and the increasing incarceration trends have to stop at some point.

These reading sections are focused on how the media transmits image from the inner prison system to the outer public, all of the influencing factors, and resulting consequences. With so many late night shows "documenting" prison life and talk shows featuring insider interviews with violent prisoners, I think that it's important to recognize how the media affects the prisoners themselves as well. I went in search of how the media influences prisoners on a more personal, individual level and how this plays into the larger picture. I found that the media tries to directly connect with prisoners for two reasons; either to showcase how prisons are operating and what the conditions are, or to access specific high profile or tear jerker stories from the inmates themselves (Tindel). Often high security prisons are required to provide videos of their protocol because visitors aren't allowed in and inspectors aren't thrilled about entering close quarters with dangerous inmates. This use of media can lead to improved living conditions, and less chance of brutality or abuse.

On a less productive aspect, the angle of getting "inside a killer's head" drives many popular shows and movie franchises. With the almighty dollar always being the bottom line and following 'shareholder primacy' rules, media outlets rejoice in high profile interviews or videotapes that are ethically controversial. These interviews can have enormous traumatic impact on the unpublicized victims: "Doris Tate often asked why prison officials allowed Charles Manson, the man who was convicted of murdering her daughter, Sharon, and seven others, to appear on television talk shows where he could influence vulnerable young people. Another woman complained that she felt re-victimized every time she saw the man who stalked and stabbed her appear on television" (Tindel). It is insensitive, and debatably ethical of legislators to allow these glorified interviews to take place for the media's monetary benefit.

There have been laws put into place to regulate how the media can access prisoners and prisons: The Supreme Court passed a 1974 ruling, Pell v. Procunier, that "the right of media access is no greater than that of the general public". In Pell and in Turner v. Safley (1987), U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled that "prison administrators must show that a prison regulation impinging on inmates' constitutional rights is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest". One of the court's motivating factors was the belief that media attention glamorized inmates' crimes, and deterred from them taking accountability from their actions as well as inhibiting rehabilitation (Tindel). These legal precedents are steps in a productive direction towards enforcing positive media influences in regards to the prison system as opposed to endorsing exploitation.

Here's how American Journal pitched Charles Manson for an interview: "This is a chance for the nation to hear your message! Your plan! Our program will deliver your message to the nation" (Tindel). Does our nation really need to hear Charles Manson's message? Dyer wrote about how the media defended its actions regarding excessive crime stories by saying that it was merely providing the public with what it wanted. How far can this go? It's obvious that the media could work in a positive fashion to raise awareness about issues in prison, highlight exploitations and transgressions, as well as protect victim's rights and inform the public. Plaintively claiming innocence and raking in dollar bills isn't enough, and their role in shaping public perceptions and affecting prisoners needs to change.

Works Cited

Dyer, Joel. 2001. The Perpetual Prisoner Machine. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Kindel, Tip. "Media Access: Where Should You Draw the Line?" Corrections Today 60 (1998): 22-25. 10 Feb. 2007 .