Policing and the Media - Research Paper Example

U.S. Bureau of Labour and Statistics (2009) determined that watching TV is still the most popular leisure activities of individuals and groups like families. By the average, everyone that is 15 years old and above spends a minimum of two and half hours everyday watching TV. However, TV is turned almost eight hours everyday even when no one is watching (Papazian 1988; Roper Organization 1983). With almost every household in the U.S. owning at least one TV set and almost every person is exposed to TV from birth, there is a huge possibility we are underestimating the psychological and sociological effects of TV on a person’s make-up in spite of the countless studies that have already been conducted (Oskamp 1984). Along with the continuous growth of viewership is the continuous effort of studios to come up with new concepts and new format that would keep the interest of the viewing public. The range has naturally expanded to deal with issues and subjects considered to be critical such as science and law enforcement. With the level of the public’s exposure to TV, it is inevitable for these shows to influence the image formation of law enforcement. Unrealistic Expectations Although never intended for education, television has influenced how viewers perceive reality in relation to the subject of the shows they watch (Altheide 1985; Gerbner and Gross 1976; Gerbner 1993). Considering that majority of the viewers have had very limited direct interaction with law enforcement, many have relied, however unconsciously, on television to learn about laws, their rights, obligations of the police, and the dynamics between the uniformed and the civilians (Surette 1992). This kind of causation is indirectly contributing to the regression of the roles of family and school as the authority on the lives of young people (Giddens 1981; Laywood 1985). Even when shows like Dexter, a serial killer/law enforcement employee, show crime being freely committed, there is an effort to portray the evil of a crime by making Dexter kill only those that are considered menace to the society. Other shows are more explicit in their effort to portray how law enforcement always prevails over crimes (Carlson 1985). Much as it may help boost the image of law enforcement, there is also the possibility of making the public believe that law enforcement is capable of more than it can actually accomplish. A study was conducted in 2008 by Monica Robbers that attested to how TV shows is causing people to expect from law enforcement the same proficiency that is being portrayed by cops on TV. According to this study Jurors nowadays are taking longer to deliberate on studies. It is never , for example, are taking longer to deliberate because they examine evidence and reports according to what they perceive it is supposed to present based on the conclusions they draw from law enforcement shows. Another study by Durnal (2010) cited an example of a murder case where a bloody coat was presented as evidence. The jurors pointed out to the judge that the coat was not tested for DNA. The judge acknowledged that cop shows helped in allow the jurors understand certain aspects of procedures but also acknowledged that cop shows do little to contextualized what procedure is necessary on specific aspects of a case. In fact, as high as 69% of the judges agree that cop shows affect the expectations of the public on law enforcement (Robbers 2008). It is natural for TV shows to portray the lawful ones to always thwart the bad guys (Lichter and Lichter 1983). Carlson (1985) credits this portrayal in convincing the public to abide by the law. He states that three messages stand out: a very clear line between crime and law obedience, how a criminal act comes back to offender, and how efficient law enforcement is in beating the crime. However, humans, science, procedures, political conditions, and even the law draws limitations that do not make it possible for cops to do what is being portrayed on TV. Cops, for example, cannot always protect a crime a scene to allow forensics to collect evidence that a hundred percent accurate. When cops are called to scene to stop a crime, run after a suspect, or apprehend a suspect, their primary concern is exactly to stop a crime from happening, catch or apprehend the suspect. This often leaves crime scenes compromised. Fingerprints of cops can get mixed with others’ and expert say that there is only one in billions of chance that a match will be found if someone else, other than the suspect, leaves it (Durnal 2010). It seems that it renders the cops inefficient when it is simply the reality of the situation. Crime resolutions are always dramatized on TV (Gerbner 1972; Dominick 1973) with the cops seeing a certain case all the way through the suspect being put behind bars all in a matter of hours when in fact, this is not always the case. Filing a report takes time, investigation takes time, and forensics take even more time. A cop doesn’t always see the suspect until their court testimony if that. On TV, cops rarely get the wrong guy and even rarer are bad guys that get away, almost no crime goes unsolved. If there is any, you can be assured that it will be in the later part of the season. Such portrayals encourage the public to expect the same thing from real life cops (Acuri 1977, p. 240). To a degree, these shows that it is the cops, not the law, that catches the criminals. It is the cops, not the law that is superior (Katsh 1983). Instant PR This distortion of reality is the very same method that works in boosting the image of the police. It is important to point out that TV, much like films, build the characters to make it relatable to the audience. Cop shows build a very negative background for criminals with the cops the only one seeing the motivation behind the crime. These motivations are often related to family, desperation and traumatic past. It is the ability of the cop to see and understand that portrays them as heroes with big hearts and a lawful spirit whenever they choose to follow the law. This situation clearly defines cops as authority that can be trusted (Gerbner 1993). Even the physical appearance does a lot to build the image. Most cops are attractive, attractive enough to pass auditions and build a fanbase. Most are in their early twenties to late 30s. Their roles and capacity are often expanded to delve into investigation and routine police work are converted high energy chase scenes, physical brawl, and close range shoot-out encounters. They are made to become glamorous who remain made up even when bloodied, witty in their come-backs, and with access to technology, contacts, and other resources at their disposal. More importantly, they are honest, even at the face tremendous difficulty in their imperfect personal life (Haney and Manzolati 1980; Acuri 1977; Dominick 1973). Griswold (1994) stated that these models are used by the society to connect reality to the ideal images. Such dramatization is used as social evidence, a construct that reflects reality instead of a narrative created to entertain. Viewers carry the drama to their real life and portray the information back to the world (Surette 1992). Catwali (1976) said that characters need to be flawed for it to be relatable to the audience and that is how TV portrays police officers through their, often times, personal struggles. However, TV explores these conflicts and juxtaposes it with the strength they portray on their job (Tulloch, 1990). Their ability to save others even when in personal pain makes them heroes and with their regular and consistent portrayals, they become bigger heroes (Fishman 1999). Based on this, society form their opinions based on what they watch and that includes their opinions on law enforcement officers. They see cops beyond the authority of their uniform. Cops are becoming just like them, with struggles too heavy to bear in their personal life but heroes in that they choose to protect the public even when they have problems of their own. Cops get shot, they bleed, they put their life in danger everyday so that public can live safely everyday. In other words, TV puts cops in the shoes of a hero. TV as Law Enforcement Classroom Gunther (1971) stated that there have been millions of people who learned of the Miranda rights from watching shows and have, in fact, used it to get out of cases. The American Civil Liberties Union also promoted the ability of the television to educate the public of their rights and of how cops are supposed to do their job. Many people are now aware that when they see a crime scene, they are not supposed to touch anything and they know that it is natural procedure for the cops to question them because the first witness is always the first suspect (Carlson 1985). Although television does shed light on some issues, it cannot be denied that there are also some distortions and inaccuracies. TV puts catching the criminal as the front and center of each episode. There have been numerous situations when the police would see the act of the crime being committed which gives the cop direct knowledge of the case. In reality, even when cops have direct knowledge of the case, it still goes through due process which could take time. In the dramatized world of TV, it makes illegal searches an acceptable act especially when important pieces of evidence are collected that will convict the criminal (Carlson 1985). That situation is two-pronged, it educates the public of the due process and communicates the unpleasant consequence of having such a process especially for the victims (Surette 1992). With the cops, not the law, in front and in center, such an activity becomes acceptable (Haney and Manzolati 1980). There is also the dramatization of the process where a case starts with apprehension, evidence collection, deliberation, presentation to court when the suspect will have no way of denying the crime because physical evidence points to the proper conclusion, and the eventual confession (Alpert 1985). TV is useful in communication the process but not what happens after the scope of a police officer ends. Very rarely are confessions obtained and there are cases that go unresolved (Carlson 1985; Daley 1972; Lewis 1974; Winick and Winick 1974; Drucker 1989). The Other Side The effect also extends to those who commit crime. Criminals are being more aware of the process by which cases are solved. They are learning how they are tracked through DNA, hair samples, prints, and others. This knowledge is making them evolved and they are adjusting the way they do crime to lessen the possibility of being caught (McNeely 1995). It is important to note that TV ground their narrative to some truth however unclear or vague the explanations are (Katsh 1983). When cops are unable to put a criminal behind bars because bleach destroyed evidence, it tells real life criminals that they can now actually use bleach to destroy evidence. Cops use often put in a situation where they can’t shoot because the suspects are not shooting at them. It tells criminals that as long as they don’t do anything to post danger, cops can’t shoot at them (McNeely 1995). TV also shed light to the most common form of crime which is murder followed by robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated assault (Lichter and Lichter 1983) and along with these crimes are stereotypes. Carlson (1985) said that criminals are mostly calculating that can commit any violent crime at any given moment with no warning but even more scary is the most common victims in terms of ethnicity and character. Victims are usually females and non-whites (Gerbner et al. 1978, 1979; Dominick 1973). It can project females as easier victims. Conclusion TV is a form of entertainment but studies have been conducted and re-verified through more studies that its influence is now beyond its original intention. Like everything else, it can work both ways. In the case of cop shows, it does help portray cops as heroes. TV helps build their credence. Considering their job requires that public trust them, it’s a big PR boost. However, there might also be danger in the public being unable to demarcate between what is real and what is drama. As of now it is causing the public to expect too much from the cops with no regard to the limitations imposed by the system and the law. This research intends to find out : how NSW police made TV shows like “The Recruit”, “RBT”, “The Force”, and others portray law enforcement, social order, criminal justice, and victimization what the viewers are learning or forming based on what they watch References Acuri, A.F. 1977. You cant take fingerprints off water: Police officers views toward cop television shows. Human Relations, 30 (Summer): 237-247. Alpert, G.P. 1985. The American criminal justice system. Beverly Hills: Sage. Altheide, D.L. 1987. Reflection: Ethnographic Content Analysis in Race, Ethnicity, and Content analysis of the Sports Media: A Critical Reflection. Los Angeles: Sage Publication Carlson, J.M. 1985. Prime time law enforcement. New York: Praeger. Connie L. McNeely, C.L. (1995) Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 3(1) (1995) 1-20 Dominick, J.R. 1973. Crime and law enforcement on prime time television. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(Spring): 241-250. Drucker, S. 1989. The televised mediated trial: Formal and substantive characteristics. Communication Quarterly, 37(4): 305-318 Durnal, E. 2010. Crime scene investigation (as seen on TV) Forensic Science International DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.015 Gerbner, G. (1972). "Violence and television drama: Trends and symbolic functions." In G.A. Comstock & E.A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Content and Control (Television and Social Behavior, Vol. 1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office Gerbner, G. 1993. Women and minorities on television: A study in casting and fate. Report to the American Federation of Television and Radio Actors. Gerbner, G., & L. Gross. 1976a. Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(Spring): 172-199. Gerbner, G., & L. Gross. 1976b. "The scary world of TVs heavy viewer." Psychology Today, (April): 89-91. Giddens, A. 1981. A contemporary critique of historical materialism. London: Macmillan. Gunther, M. 1971. "You have the right to remain silent." TV Guide, (December 18): 7-9. Haney, C., & J. Manzolati. (1980). "Television criminology: Network illusions of criminal justice realities." In E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the Social Animal. San Francisco: Freeman. Katsh, E. 1983. Is television anti-law?: An inquiry into the relationship between law and the media. Alsa Forum, 7: 26-40. Laywood, C. 1985. The effects of television on social interaction. Reflections, 53 (April). Lewis, W.H. 1974. Witness for the prosecution. TV Guide, (November 30): 5-7 Lichter, L.S., & S.R. Lichter. 1983. Prime time crime. Washington, D.C.: Media Institute. Oskamp, S. 1984. Applied social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Papazian, E. (Ed). 1988. TV Dimensions 88. New York: Media Dynamics. Roberts, J.V., & Doob, A. 1990. News media influences on public views of sentencing. Law and Human Behavior, 14(5): 451-468. Roper Organization. (1983). Trends in attitudes toward television and other media: A twenty-four year review. New York: Television Information Office. Surette, R. 1992. Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images and realities. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. Winick, C., & M. Winick. 1974. Courtroom drama on television. Journal of Communication, 24: 67-73. Read More