Honoring Core Values in Crime Coverage

Kaylie Harden

Kh423915@ohio.edu

It’s no secret that the influence of media in our society has granted journalists the ability to set our societies agenda based on the stories they cover. 

We often see this during political cycles and coverage of controversial policy decisions. While truth remains the highest value in nearly every code of journalist ethics, there is still bias that permeates through to every medium of news and subliminally persuades the opinions of the audience. Because of this, it is not only important for journalists to be especially cognizant of the events they cover, but also HOW they are covering them. 

Maintaining a credible record of delivering the truth while balancing the urge to deliver what people want is an ethical dilemma journalists face every day. The pressure to publish stories that will gain the most impressions has manifested in web news outlets as more and more readers turn to social media for their daily rundown. Even if such stories are true, the question of if they should really be considered “news” is ignored at the expense of the subjects that they shame. Hunter Pauli addressed this conflict in his experience covering crime in a small town in Montana. In Pauli’s experience, writing on crime for a small town became more focused on entertaining readers with petty crimes, rather than reporting on less entertaining, more violent offenses. Under these circumstances, the misdemeanor offenders have their minor indiscretions permanently published to the internet, which can negatively limit their opportunities in the future. Keeping non-violent criminals anonymous would eliminate the negative impact that an article could have on their lives and also satisfy the goal of minimizing harm.

(Photo by Undark Magazine)

Meanwhile, in reporting violent crimes, there are even more ways of identifying and characterizing subjects that can be problematic. One particularly delicate subject matter is mass shootings. Coverage of these incidents not only tends to sensationalize the frequency of such violence, it also portrays a misleading connotation of mass shooters and their motivations. The hysteria stemming from the spike of mass shootings and gun violence has been informed by traditional media, and has contributed to the exaggerated risk of gun violence that is perceived by the public. Furthermore, the diction of coverage surrounding mass shootings often neglects to consider the impact that such publications can have on the public, witnesses, and victims. For example, by calling a homicidal individual that resorts to suicide as a means to an end as a “suicide attacker” minimizes the violent nature of that individual towards others. Using the adjective “homicidal” is more accurate since it recognizes a violent nature towards others.  Additionally, the media will seek to assign a motive to a crime in an effort to explain the unfolding of horrific events to their audiences. In mass shootings specifically, mental health problems are used as an easy scapegoat to explain the sudden violent nature of a subject. This victimizes the perpetrator as a mentally ill patient, while ignoring the other factors that could have equally contributed to their crimes. Reporters should study alternative frames for narrating violent events that aren’t disrespectful to victims of mass attacks and people suffering from mental illnesses.

Regardless of personal opinion or emotional reaction towards a story, it is paramount that journalists evaluate the ways to make stories as accurate and beneficial to the public as possible.