MEDIA CONSTRUCTION OF CRIME REVISITED: MEDIA TYPES, CONSUMER CONTEXTS, AND FRAMES OF CRIME AND JUSTICE*

• Author: KEVIN M. DRAKULICH,ANDREW J. BARANAUSKAS
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• Date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12189

MEDIA CONSTRUCTION OF CRIME REVISITED:

MEDIA TYPES, CONSUMER CONTEXTS, AND

FRAMES OF CRIME AND JUSTICE∗

ANDREW J. BARANAUSKAS and KEVIN M. DRAKULICH

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University

KEYWORDS: media, perceptions of crime, policy opinion, racial context

Through this study, we shed new light on a key line of inquiry for criminologists: the

way the media influence the public’s understanding of crime and justice. We argue for

expanding the lens of studies on the media’s construction of crime, moving away from

one-dimensional reactions to crime to an integrated set of frames about crime and jus-

tice policy while considering the potential influence of a diverse array of media forms

and content. Most critically, this social construction process must be placed in context,

specifically, the racial composition in which people consume media. By using two na-

tionally representative surveys matched with contextual data, we identify two forms of

media consumption that seem important to understandings of crime: local television

news and TV crime dramas. Interestingly, local news seems more important than na-

tional news even to perceptions of national crime trends, whereas news consumed over

the Internet is not relevant, nor are 24-hour cable news channels once political views

are taken into account. Television news viewers are also more likely to support tougher

crime policies. Importantly, context matters: The influence of television news and crime

dramas on perceptions of crime is strongest among White respondents who live near

larger numbers of Black neighbors.

Public opinion about crime and justice—the way we understand the problem and its

potential solutions—is important. It is the key to understanding political initiatives about

crime as well as to understanding resulting crime policies (Beckett and Sasson, 2004). It

also has consequences for individuals: The views people have about crime play a role in

determinations of how to act and where to live, work, and shop (e.g., Ferraro, 1995; Liska,

Sanchirico, and Reed, 1988; Rader, May, and Goodrum, 2007).

Despite this importance, the sources of public opinion about crime are not always clear.

Most people do not have direct, first-hand experience with serious crime, so it is perhaps

not surprising that in prior work, researchers have frequently identified inconsistencies

∗Additional supporting information can be found in the listing for this article in the Wiley Online

Library at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crim.2018.56.issue-3/issuetoc.

The authors would like to thank the American National Election Studies for providing access to

the geographic identifiers for these surveys, as well as the editor and reviewers for their helpful

guidance and feedback. This research was made possible by support from a W.E.B. Du Bois Fel-

lowship from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ-2014-3763).

Direct correspondence to Andrew J. Baranauskas, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice,

Northeastern University, 204 Churchill Hall, 360 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115 (e-mail:

a.baranauskas@neu.edu).

C2018 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12189

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 56 Number 4 679–714 2018 679

680 BARANAUSKAS & DRAKULICH

between perceptions and the realities of crime (Eisen and Roeder, 2015; Gramlich, 2016;

Quillian and Pager, 2001). When directly asked where they get information about crime,

most people report that the media serve as their main source (Roberts et al., 2003; Surette,

2015). Nevertheless, research findings on how the media influence public opinion is decid-

edly mixed. A long history of work has been focused on the association between television

news consumption and fear of crime, with results that have not always revealed a strong

link between the two (e.g., Ditton et al., 2004). Given the potential importance of public

opinion about crime, it is critical to better understand its sources.

We seek to contribute to an understanding of the social construction of public opinion

about crime in two ways. First, by drawing on a wide variety of different lines of recent

research, we seek to expand the lens of work on media effects on perceptions of crime.

Specifically, we look to expand on both the kinds of perceptions that may be relevant,

developing expectations about a linked set of interrelated perceptions, and to consider a

broader range of media forms and content that may matter to these perceptions.

A large proportion of prior work on how the media influence people has been focused

on fear, which is an affective reaction to crime (e.g., Chiricos, Padgett, and Gertz, 2000;

Eschholz, Chiricos, and Gertz, 2003; Liska and Baccaglini, 1990; Winkel and Vrij, 1990).

In a smaller body of work, researchers have sought to move beyond fear to consider

the connection between media consumption and several nonaffective reactions to crime,

including ratings of crime seriousness (Gebotys, Roberts, and DasGupta, 1988), assess-

ments of the potential for victimization (Callanan, 2012), the perception that crime is

rising (Pfeiffer, Windzio, and Kleimann, 2005), and support for various crime policies

(Britto and Noga-Styron, 2014; Grabe and Drew, 2007; Holbert, Shah, and Kwak, 2004;

Kleck and Jackson, 2017; Kort-Butler and Sittner Hartshorn, 2011). In building on this

work, we examine the potential influence of the media on the framing of crime as a social

problem (e.g., Drakulich, 2015a). In particular, we consider a set of interrelated frames,

including both perceptions of crime trends and associated support for particular solutions

to crime, related to what media researchers refer to as “interpretive packages” (Gamson,

1988; Gamson and Modigliani, 1989).

Additionally, although research has historically been focused on the influence of local

television news, viewership for this type of news has declined substantially in recent years

(Mitchell and Holcomb, 2016). By following the example of Roche, Pickett, and Gertz

(2016), we explore the role of a variety of media sources, including “new” sources such

as the Internet. Furthermore, the news media may not be the sole media source of infor-

mation about crime. In building on prior work by Lichter, Lichter, and Rothman (1994)

as well as by Rhineberger-Dunn, Rader, and Williams (2008), we also explore the pos-

sibility that fictional (and seemingly ubiquitous) representations of crime on TV dramas

influence the framing of crime as a social problem.

The second way we seek to contribute to an understanding of the social construction of

public opinion about crime involves drawing on a different body of work about percep-

tions. Although most people identify the media as their primary source of information

about crime (Roberts et al., 2003; Surette, 2015), they may simply not be consciously

aware of other influences on their perceptions. Specifically, several scholars have pointed

to the importance of local racial context as a critical source of information about crime—

in particular that people tend to overestimate crime when they live near larger numbers

of African American neighbors (Drakulich, 2012; Drakulich and Siller, 2015; Pickett

et al., 2012; Quillian and Pager, 2001). In addition to having a potential direct influence on

MEDIA CONSTRUCTION OF CRIME REVISITED 681

perceptions of crime, the racial context may also influence how other pieces of informa-

tion are interpreted (e.g., Drakulich and Siller, 2015), including information gained from

the media, which is often highly racialized (Barlow, 1998; Gilliam and Iyengar, 2000).

In sum, through this study, we seek to add to our understanding of an important ques-

tion: How do the media influence perceptions of crime? By using two nationally repre-

sentative data sets, we seek to determine the association between media consumption and

perceptions of local and national crime trends as well as support for policy measures. We

examine a variety of media, simultaneously narrowing down and broadening the poten-

tially relevant forms and content of the media. Most importantly, we situate the consump-

tion of all of these media within the racial context in which people live, asking whether

those who live near larger numbers of African American neighbors are more likely to be

affected by media representations of crime.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Most people’s main source of information about crime is the “distorted reality” of-

fered by the mass media (Dorfman and Schiraldi, 2001; Dowler, Fleming, and Muzzatti,

2006; Quinney, 1970; Roberts et al., 2003; Sacco, 1995; Surette, 2015). Given this distorted

knowledge base, it is important to consider questions of why and how the media socially

construct crime as well as how this affects our understandings of crime and justice. In re-

gard to the why question, the answer is simply a difference in goals. Unlike criminologists,

the media do not aim to construct an objective, scientific reality of crime. Put simply, the

goal of the media in a capitalist society is to sell stories (Quinney, 1970). They do this by

reporting crime incidents that are most likely to grab the attention of their target audi-

ences. Organizational considerations also influence the stories that journalists choose to

report, such as deadlines, the availability of information, and the cost in time and money

to cover a story (Beckett and Sasson, 2004; Jewkes, 2015). The result is a reality of crime

constructed by the media that often consists of sensational stories at odds with more gen-

eral crime patterns and trends (Graber, 1980; Jewkes, 2015; Potter and Kappeler, 1998;

Reiner, 2002).

As to the question of how the media construct a distorted reality of crime, the an-

swer mainly lies within the ways the media frame crime events. Erving Goffman (1974)

described frames as condensed packages of information that assist individuals in both

classifying the wealth of information to which they are exposed and interpreting this in-

formation in a meaningful way. In this conceptualization, individuals use frames to make

sense of the world and create meaning for themselves. Frames can also be used to help

create meaning in communication with others. Although frames are regularly communi-

cated interpersonally by individuals, the mass media also have the ability to communicate

frames of issues to large numbers of people simultaneously. In particular, the media use

frames to condense information into convenient packages that are easy for the audience

to interpret (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989; Scheufele, 1999; Tuchman, 1978).

The ways that the media frame crime and crime issues have real effects on the ways

that people understand crime and what is to be done about crime. Robert M. Entman

(1993: 52) wrote, “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them

more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem

definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation.”

The framing process bundles information in “interpretive packages” that simultaneously