From sound bites to sound policy: reclaiming the high ground in criminal justice policy-making.

• Author: Thompson, Anthony C.

Introduction I. Media Informs and Distorts Public Perceptions of Crime A. Distorting Effect of Extensive Media Coverage of Crime 1. Public Policy as an Expression of Powerlessness and Outrage 2.Media's Influence on the Perceptions of Leniency B. Understanding the Theories Underlying Media Influence 1. Cultivation Theory 2. Social Network Theory II. Media Informs Public Perceptions of Race A. Media Influences Public Perception of Who Commits Crimes 1. Over-Reporting Crime Frequency in Eras of Declining Crime 2.Public Perception of Race Exacerbates Crime Issue B. Politicians Capitalize on Timing and Media Focus 1. A Closer Look at Legislation 2. "Tough on Crime" Political Stance is Fueled by Media and Fear III. Why Does This Happen? A. State of the News Media Field 1. Crime is Easy and Cheap to Cover a. Financial Pressures, Marketing, and Televised News b. Financial Pressures, Marketing, and Newspapers 2. Journalists, Like the Public, Embrace and Perpetuate Stereotypes and Misperceptions 3. Bias May Flow From Where the News Media Get Their Information B. A Need for Oversight Conclusion INTRODUCTION

It is now axiomatic that the media informs and shapes the public's opinion about crime and criminal justice. The catch phrase "if it bleeds, it leads" continues to embody and animate the sentiment that guides much of the editorial judgment about the stories that newspapers should report on their front pages or that local and national television news should feature. Indeed, the media's fascination--and even obsession--with crime has garnered considerable scholarly attention and commentary. (1) Studies have demonstrated the strong correlation between the amount of media coverage on a particular topic with public knowledge and interest on that topic. When it comes to crime coverage, television programming not only tends to suggest that crime happens at greater frequency than it does, but it also exaggerates the amount of violent crime in the world relative to property crime. (2) The exaggeration effect of this coverage is that the public perceives the world as a much more violent and personally dangerous place than actual crime statistics would support.

So-called "reality shows" only add to the perception of ever-present danger. These shows often tantalize viewers with actual footage of police crime investigations or dramatic reenactments of the real-life experiences of police officers, suspects, and EMT workers. Even crime dramas that do not purport to be reality shows adhere to the proven marketing gimmick that they are only slightly fictionalized versions of what actually happens on our streets. As in any dramatic presentation, the overriding goal of these shows is to create a dramatic effect rather than an accurate portrayal. But by offering the viewing public an "insider's" look at the gritty reality of law enforcement, the public understandably believes it is glimpsing a reality over which they have little control and much to fear. More often than not, these narratives adopt the perspective of law enforcement (3) and depict crime as both random and the result of individual pathology rather than larger social ills such as poverty, racism, and unemployment. (4) The goal of both reality and real-life crime dramas is to create a visceral impact on the public, but the unintended effect is that these dramatic renderings at once affect and shape public perceptions of actual crime and fuel the public's belief that tough legislative responses offer the public its only opportunity to gain control over an environment in which crime runs rampant. (5) Thus, unless the general public has access to strong countervailing sources of information on crime, their perceptions will be influenced perhaps subconsciously by these skewed inputs.

Not only traditional media informs the public's views. Studies have documented that more than two hundred million people in the United States consider themselves regular users of the Internet. (6) As the public gravitates away from traditional media toward newer media (7)--websites, blogs, YouTube--we see that these outlets continue to reflect a public fascination with crime. The problem is that whether one focuses on traditional or newer media, the public tends toward news media that confirms rather than challenges their views. (8)

Why should we care? Apart from a general concern about the quality of information on which the public relies, the more specific concern is that media affects not only public opinion but public policy. As the public's principal exposure to--and information about--crime either comes from media sound bites or downloads from selected Internet sources that mirror and amplify existing views, (9) the difficulty of separating fact from hype becomes all the more challenging and all the more acute. Informed public policy demands at a minimum rigorous debate and ideas driven by evidence rather than heat. Criminal justice policy without a grounded evidentiary basis holds serious implications for both the public perception of effective public policy, and the administration of criminal justice policy. Comments by the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, indicating that we "need to get smart on crime" (10) suggest that we need to move from "criminal justice policy" (11) focused on sound-bites to a greater focus on evidence-based practices that have statistically proven track records.

This Article responds to that call for action. Part I demonstrates the ways the media drives and shapes legislation and exposes some of the implications of sound bite public policy-making in criminal justice. Part II takes an in-depth look at the process of shaping public perceptions of crime. This Part will explore the ways that conceptions of crime are formed and influenced. It will then examine ways that the media influences legislation. Part III discusses the need for oversight of the media and legislature in addressing the concerns of excessive media influence in policy-making. Ultimately, the introduction of social media and its impact may provide some of the answers.

1. MEDIA INFORMS AND DISTORTS PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME

   The news media remains one of the most important and influential secondhand sources of public information. At the same time, it serves as a major contributor to public misperception and anxiety about crime. In one national survey, eighty-one percent of respondents reported that their perception of crime as a social problem derived from what they had seen in the news. (12) And as the media draws the public's attention to crime, it also fuels the public's fear of crime. Studies demonstrate that media coverage can lead the public into a "moral panic"--an episode of "sharply increased public anxiety about the threat some group or condition poses to society's values and well being." (13) Unjustified panic should be a sufficient cause for alarm. But when that increased fear of crime makes citizens more willing to accept and insist on extremely harsh criminal justice policies to satisfy their desire to strike out against the problem over which they believe they have too little control, the media's subtle yet pervasive influence becomes more troubling.

   Spikes and variations in public perception of crime over time can also be traced to the media. (14) In the 1990s, for example, Gallup poll results indicated a sharp increase in the salience of crime in the public discourse. (15) From March 1992 to August 1994, the number of respondents who named crime as the most important national problem increased from a mere five percent to more than fifty percent, with numbers remaining high for the remainder of the decade. (16) On the basis of FBI crime statistics and analyses of television news variables (including the length of crime stories, mean story rank, and the number of stories), researchers calculated that the latter data "accounted for almost four times more variance in public perceptions of crime as the MIP [most important problem] than did actual crime rates." (17) While the magnitude of the results may not be generalizable (the researchers acknowledge a potentially distortive "O.J. effect" (18) in the wake of comprehensive coverage of one of the most well-publicized criminal trials in recent memory), the underlying premise is sound. The amount of screen time devoted to crime, rather than length of individual stories or their order of presentation, appears to be of primary importance. (19)

   While there is considerable academic disagreement on the primary mechanism of crime perception formation, the "agenda-setting" influence of media exposure--i.e., its ability to "tell people what to think about" (20)--is well documented. Local television is still the primary source of news for most Americans.:I It is a medium subject to frequent research, usually through self-reporting or experimental manipulations. A few recent analyses are illustrative. A national survey conducted in 1997 found that local news broadcasts "raise[] the perceived risk of crime above other risks also covered in the media." (22) Similarly, a localized survey of Philadelphia residents the next year found that the more respondents watched television news, the more likely they were to report crime as a problem in their city. (23) Taken in tandem, these results suggest that local news viewing correlates with increased concern about crime, regardless of local crime rates and with many personal characteristics held constant. (24) This last finding is important, as certain demographics are more likely to express concern about crime, notwithstanding external factors. (25)

   1. Distorting Effect of Extensive Media Coverage of Crime

      Where actual crimes occur, we see the media's coverage and corresponding influence in sharp relief. Media will choose which crimes to cover, and, thereby, determine which incidents to highlight and expose to the public and policy makers. The choice to cover a crime at all...