Media

Most people would agree that in their coverage of crime and criminal justice, the news media have an important role to play as a public watchdog. But how effective are they? The question can be answered in three general areas: the presentation of crime in the news media, the authorities and officials who shape the presentation of crime news, and the significance of sensational cases and moral panics.

One of the unfortunate characteristics of formal processing of offenders in the United States is that many of the criminal justice system's decisions—and more important, its decision-making processes—are invisible. The police are the system's primary public agent, patrolling neighborhoods and answering frequent calls for service. Responding to violations of the law is central to the police mandate, but how the police respond is generally handled outside the public's view. An offender may be arrested in public, but interrogation procedures, police processing decisions, and investigative strategies are not accessible to the public. Police decisions to not enforce the law are hard to explain, because discretion is not formally documented. Court decision making is even less accessible. Many court procedures are open to the public, but most decisions happen outside of court as defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges informally negotiate resolutions. The public has access to the end products of court decision making, but is unable to fully understand the influence of a court's legal culture. Probably the most significant symbolic institution of the criminal justice system is the prison. Prisons are powerful reminders of the authority and legitimacy of the state, but the public must admire these institutions vicariously. It has limited access to the prison culture in any direct way, relying instead on myths, rumors, fictional representations, and a few scholarly publications when an academic or an investigative commission achieves significant access.

Because criminal justice decision-making processes are invisible, it is important for the public to be represented by a surrogate who can monitor and critique the decisions made behind closed doors. The criminal justice system is not without checks and balances, but the organizations that comprise this system are often ineffective, and inquiries are narrowly focused because resources are far outpaced by needs. For example, investigations of police corruption typically focus on one event or series of events, but broader internal inquires are rare and are usually only the result of action by external forces. Academics often critique the criminal justice system or criminal justice policy, but the pace of research is often too slow and cumbersome for academics to be effective agents of change.

The news media certainly have the potential to be an important external watchdog for several reasons. First, they have a vital role in providing information and ideas for public conversation. Because of the omnipresence of the news, it can significantly shape what issues get discussed and how. Second, news media have the opportunity to monitor public bureau-cracies because—thanks mainly to the Freedom of Information Act—they can see documents, policy [Page 1041]memoranda, and internal working processes that are not visible to the public. Third, the news media have inherited an expectation that they will be the public's watchdog, operating on its behalf and in its best interests. The public may want to be entertained by the news, but it is also expects that the media will help monitor, expose, and reform public agencies.

...