|
By Roshni Mapara
A heated debate began between a complete stranger and me on Saturday night, over Declan Curry’s Facebook status. With knife crime and crime generally becoming more of a public interest in the last six month, can the journalists be blamed for sensationalism and even creating moral panics? Questions of media motives and the journalist’s responsibility towards society were called into question. These are just a few of the things I was asked by the man on the other side of the screen …
How would you change public opinion / fear about knife crime? Statistically of course, there is nothing to worry about - it is still much more dangerous to get behind the wheel of a car.....
I don’t want to ‘change public opinion’ as you say; I want to educate the public away from this false sense of fear of violent teenagers that the media has bred into them. I don’t think that it’s the media’s fault, I think as a source of information, people do have the right to know but it has become more and more of an issue over the last six months than ever before, and statistically speaking, the actual problem isn’t much worse – people just like to think it is. Also, it acts as a pressure on the government to do something to change this, another example of the power of the media.
Given your comment about the BBC (which may or may not be right), where would you suggest I go for a more balanced news update?
I couldn’t possibly say. That is a matter of opinion, each news organisation presents news in its own way. My advice would be to read more or watch a variety for your news sources, rather than one institution alone. I did not mean to imply that the BBC is corrupt or anything of that nature!
Yes, I agree that these types of crime have been around a long, long time and that the massive power of modern media has of course not been around so long. Certainly the growth of communications in the last 10 years has contributed to virtual media over load. Everyone talks as if they are an expert on everything now because of the ease with which information can be obtained.
Firstly I would like to say that I don’t agree with your point about ‘everyone talking as if they are an expert’. Although information is much more easily obtained it is more to do with if people know how to access this information and what they can do with it. Information alone is useless without the knowledge and understanding to interpret and be critical. This would require a well educated audience to take some things with a pinch of salt. Also the fact that people feel so reliant and dependant of the news and other forms of media that they forget that this critical eye is needed.
So why is it then, than this power is used to generally present such a negative message?
Regardless of the power of the media, the images and the information they show is never going to completely positive. It is not going to be of interest to people knowing that Mrs. Barnes’ son got a promotion at work and is now earning enough to get a mortgage. It is more interesting to know that Mrs. Barnes’ son got shot in the head by a gangster.
This ‘power’ that you are referring to isn’t one to purposely feed the audience with fear through negative images, it is bringing the information that they believe will be useful in knowing. My point about people believing it blindly is that they forget the last line of the report that said it happened in a council estate on the other side of the neighbourhood, not next door. (Although I do accept that it would be next door to someone but a very small percentage of the audience who are likely to know the situation already.)
Would Northern Rock have pulled through without the media generating hysteria (and the eventual run) that speeded up its downfall for example?
It’s hard to say. I am not an economist but I’m sure this would have been taken into account in the reporting of the story. In a situation like this, the media are forced to turn to officials and economists and rely on them to reassure the public that they won’t lost their money – or whatever it was they said to calm the hype at the time. It is impossible to say if the outcome would have been different if the situation was reported on from a different angle. It was extremely worrying for so many people at the time and it was difficult for anyone – media and various institutions to control it. I don’t think in this particular instance the media was to blame for ‘speeding up’ it’s downfall, I think this was because each individual out there felt that they needed to do what was necessary to protect their money, regardless of what the media told them.
If the media told the public that the economy was on the mend, would it encourage ordinary shoppers to spend again and therefore speed up the recovery?
That would almost certainly be lying. I think people aren’t spending because they genuinely don’t have enough money, not because the media are telling them that they can’t afford things.
Who would have thought that a simple comment about Declan's update would have meant actually using my brain on a Saturday night?
Certainly not me.
Thanks to John Kitchener who provided the topic of debate.
|
