Media
Ethics and Criminal Justice
The
Media in the Criminal Justice system plays the role of a watcher. Media agencies are typically privately owned
and funded by their commercial sponsors which may make them biased to whom they
would select to air on their television channels or internet websites. Some agencies seem to support some sides of
an argument while others support the other side. The Media is held far less accountable than
the government whenever a blunder occurs and typically is not sued for their
mistakes or slander (Dickie, 1992).
Since
Media agencies compete for ratings, viewers or hits on their websites they need
to provide the best information possible and more importantly, the sooner the
better. Since the constant pressure is
on for new news and better stories media agencies will post stories as fast as
they can even if facts are limited or even misleading. Since media outlets are often the only source
of information for most Americans this lack of information or misleading
information can drive popular opinion in the wrong direction and force
Americans to think a different thing than what is actual truth. Some media outlets correct their information
when it’s updated while others may find the side of the story they want in
order to support and argument or perspective that they support (Dickie, 1992).
Misinformation
is everywhere. In cases that involve
trials or court hearings or long term criminal justice proceedings the media
can play a major role. A man, who is
involved in an unfortunate shooting may have the information pertaining to that
event skewed and intentional changed in order to demonize him so a media agency
can capture better ratings and put a spin on a story that isn’t actually
there. This rarely results in law suits
but in some cases it does.
I’d like to hear everyone’s
thoughts on intentional media misinformation, especially if it pertains to
George Zimmerman.
Dickie,
P. (1992). The Media's Role in The Criminal Justice System. Social
Alternatives, 11(3), 26-28.
Ian,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you bring out George Zimmerman. The media definitely took advantage of him in several ways. They also did the same with Trayvon Martin. For instance, in my post, I questioned whether it was ethical or not for the media to display a mugshot of Zimmerman when he was 25 years old that had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. The media also broadcasted a photo of Trayvon Martin as a young kid. Posting the photos for the world to see was definitely misinformation. Neither individual looked as the photos depicted. I'm sure the photos were posted to increase the number of times a viewer would actually see the pictures. Consequently, by doing so, the ratings the ratings of every television network and news media outlet increased tremenduously.
Ian, this is an excellent blog posting. Professor Taylor
ReplyDeleteThe media is a business that survives on information, true or false. The Trayvon Martin case was one of those stories that the media set upon like a feeding frenzy. Facts were not known to the public and information on the events that night were already being reported as fact and frankly, aimed at blaming George Zimmerman for being a ruthless vigilante. I remember specifically refraining from forming an opinion on what happened until solid evidence came to light i.e. the official autopsy report and George Zimmerman's police walk through on what happened, taken days after the incident. After hearing the factual side of the story, it seemed to me that George wasn't as bad a guy as everyone had made hime out to be. Unfortunately, he wont be the last either in this age of 24hour news channels and billion dollar corporations banking news channels. The country is not only split on what political party you fall into but also what news channel you prefer. Its all a matter of perspective.
ReplyDelete