The Media Coverage of John Hinckley - Case Study Example

The Media Coverage of John Hinckley’s Case The Media Coverage of John Hinckley’s Case Introduction John Hinckley’s criminal case(U.S. v. Hinckley (1982) remains one of most famous trials in the history of the United States. Following his attempt to assassinate the U.S President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981, John Warnock Hinckley Jnr. was arrested and subsequently put to trial. However, to the surprise of many, Hinckley was later acquitted of the criminal charges and was instead committed to a psychiatric facility after the jury found him not liable for his criminal actions due to insanity based on the psychiatric reports that suggested John Hinckley had mental illness. Not only did his attempt to kill President Reagan result in wide spread and extensive mass media coverage on radio, print and television, but the portrayal of the case also revealed selective and biased tendency of the media in terms of the choice of words, the information that was emphasized, neglected details and the attitudes revealed throughout the media coverage. According to many experts, the case was unusually prominent within public discourse due to the aggressive media coverage it received (Caplan, 1984). For example, following the incidence, newspapers ran headlines about Hinckley’s and radio stations and TV sets also provided also dedicated much space to cover the events relating to the story. This paper critically analyzes the media coverage of John Hinckley’s case which particular emphasis on the portrayal of his crime, media’s misrepresentation of the facts regarding the case as well as the emphasis and de-emphasis of certain aspects and details by various mass media outlets. Media Sensationalisation of John Hinckley’s Case In an attempt to make the story more interesting and advance their profit motives for economic gain, many media outlets adopted a largely sensational approach in their coverage of the case as was evidenced by selective and uncompromising biased tendency of the media in terms of the choice of words, the information that was emphasized, neglected details and the sensational attitudes revealed throughout the media coverage. In their rush to provide an easy explanation of the events leading to and after the attempt to assassinate President Reagan, many reporters intentionally choose to neglect some details while at the same time overstressing some facts to the extent of distorting the truth regarding John Hinckley’s case. For example, throughout the articles, there are a number of instances of inaccurate media reportage that seemed to glorify the case by excluding or sometimes de-emphasizing Hinckley’s proven criminal insanity as the real cause of his actions (Ann, 1985). This may largely be attributed to the belief that tabloidization and sensationalization enhances the sales of media content. In this regard, the many cases of unsubstantiated reporting of Hinckley’s case can be explained by the profit motive of the media industry. Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate President Reagan was captured on video by a number of cameras including those owned by The Big Three Television Networks. The three networks all issued reports about Brady’s death out of the scene though this was never the case. Whereas the Cable News Network never had its own camera during the shooting scene, it was in a position to utilize NBC-owned pool feed. Through their stay on the story for about 48 hours, this network that was less than a year old developed a reputation for consciousness. The video-captured information saw a number of the Americans assemble around television sets within homes and shopping centers. Besides, newspapers printed additional additions while using gigantic deadlines. The manner of exaggeration that surrounded the mode of presentation of information by the media utilities portrayed John Hinckley as a mental dishonor to the nation. Based on these facts, it is widely believed that the results of the sensational media reportage of Hinckley’s insanity trial contributed to a massive public outcry by making mockery of the court’s verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity and implying that the ruling was wrong. This particularly culminated in significant policy shifts with regard to the application plea in the contemporary criminal justice system. For example, following the jury’s verdict on Hinckley’s case, the Congress as well as several American states undertaken several reforms that sought to restrict and limit the use of insanity as a legal defense. The public outcry concerning the verdict resulted into formulation of the Insanity Defense Reform Act in 1984, a move that altered the role of mental illnesses in the context of the court proceedings. Misrepresentation of Evidence The media’s misrepresentation of the facts regarding Hinckley’s case was largely characterized by emphasis on some information that was unnecessary and omitting de-emphasis of certain details was important in the case. For example, although the media attention primarily focused on the Hinckley and the possibility that politics may have played a role in his action, it soon became apparent that he absolutely had no political motivation and was rather merely trying to impress a female actress known as Jodie Foster (Robert, 1982). With regard to word choices, Hinckley’s insanity defense is chronicled as a legal defense that has basis on claims that pertain to mental incapacity or illness. This manner of defense has received a lot of heed from the media like television shows and movies that high point practice of this defense as a common place thing during hearing sessions. However, the concept was rarely adopted in typical hearing sessions. Before Hinckley’s case, the U.S-based courts used insanity defense in 2% of all the felony cases, and the very concept had failed in almost 75% of the trials that had tried adopting it (Fersch, 2005). On the other hand, one of the details that are often included by the media houses concerning Hinckley’s assassination attempt is his obsession with Jodie Foster. It is explained that the criminal got romantically inclined to Jodie Foster and out of failure to meet her he resorted to acts like committing suicide and aircraft hijacking in her presence just to win her attention. It is further mentioned that it is this level of obsession that made him resort to assassinating the president. However, the media basically disregarded a discussion centered on the exact way in which the insanity defense applied in practice or the implications that would befall an individual found not guilty based on insanity ground. Another issue that the media was not clear about is the occurrence at the hospital. While at St Elizabeth Hospital, Hinckley says that he wishes to be in a position to give interviews to given media representatives that he can trust; yet, this was against the norms of the hospital to permit interviewers into the premises of the hospital. This makes it quite plain that the hospital formulated the restrictions regarding visitations to his premises just to favor Hinckley. At one point, he even mentioned that he is the most famous patient that the media houses care about and wish to interview (Spragens, 2003). In addition, the media version of the assassination attempt attributes Hinckley’s action to his obsession with Jodie Foster, who he was in love with. However, no media channel made mention of the criminal’s movement to Los Angeles 5 days prior to the assassination date. Instead, the media houses falsely report that Hinckley boarded a bus that was destined for Denver in order to reach Washington, DC. CNN, for instance tried revising history by issuing reports that never flied to Los Angeles but left for Denver. This plain lie gives more conviction that the government wishes to conceal the issues that underlie the criminal’s movement to Los Angeles prior to the assassination attempt. Finally, the media coverage did portray the insanity defense as a symbol and a cause of social dangers and ills associated with a society. In taking this dimension, the media in some way lead people to having an inward fear that a murder such as Hinckley would be released into a community in case the insanity defense carries the day. Fear has higher chances of making people vote for conviction in spite of their view on whether the victim satisfied all the legal standards that pertain to the insanity. Such publicized opinions had the potential of increasing hostility towards insanity defense and pressurize jurors to vote for conviction. On the same note, the opponents of the bills uttered that the media coverage revolving around John W. Hinckley overstated the issue of insanity defense, which according to them is rarely used. Conclusion In conclusion, the misrepresentation of facts and the sensational nature that characterized the media coverage of Hinckley’s case is both dangerous and unethical due to the media’s ability to sway public opinion. This is particularly evidenced by the fact that the nature media coverage of the case may have contributed to a huge public outcry and dismay after the court’s verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. References Ann, J. (1985). Hinckley: A mothers horrible discovery breaking points Mother discovers her son has shot the President. Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file); May 19, 1985. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Chicago Tribune (1849-1990) Breo, D. L.(1982). Was John Hinckley insane?: Yes. Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file); Jul 11, 1982. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Chicago Tribune (1849-1990) pg. A1 Caplan, L. (1984). The insanity defense and the trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. Boston, M.A: Godine. Robert L.J. (1982). Hinckley Insane, Jury Decides: Acquitted in Shooting of President. Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File); Jun 22, 1982; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881-1990) Read More