5.5 The Media and the Victim: Examining Accuracy and Ethics

A true fact central to any discussion of the relationship between the news media and victims of crime is, the news media are businesses which are profit-oriented. Whether it comes from regular subscribers to newspapers or online editions, one-off impulse buyers at a newsstand, or hotel/motel chains who provide complimentary newspapers to overnight guests, the newspaper industry relies upon the development and nurturing of a broad population of readers. The circulation size and scope determines the volume and level of fees which commercial advertisers are willing to commit to when negotiating with the media outlet. When considering television, a Nielsen rating system is used. The television networks rely on programming productions which will interest and attract viewers. The popularity is measured by a rating system which measures the media’s delivery of populations to commercials. The ratings, then, determine the size and number of commercial contracts, as well as the level of fees that are charged to the advertisers.

A significant amount of the television network day is devoted to the reporting of news. In most markets, news may account for one-fourth of the production day, and if the channel is one exclusively devoted to news reporting, it can be as high as continuous, 24-hour news production. Considering the news, a key component is the coverage of crime. Unfortunately, the degree to which a news story involving crime is sensational, or even shocking or unusual, often determines whether the story will attract a wider audience (O’Hear, 2020).

When decisions are made concerning what will be covered in the news on any given day, editors will be presented with many news choices. As a result of this selectivity process, news editors tend to pick out those situations in which the crime, the perpetrator, or the victim are “unusual, unexpected, strange, or perverse” in some way (Karmen, 2007, pp. 31-33). If an incident of victimization is sensational in nature, it will likely be selected as a feature to be covered. Conversely, when the incident is commonplace or typical, it likely will not be selected for coverage. The victimologist, then, should carefully review the role of the media and journalistic needs in terms of the treatment of crime victims, in order to prevent further victimization and mental trauma as a result of the processes surrounding media reporting.

Whenever interviewing victims, witnesses, and when reporting, journalists and editors must be clearly focused on whether or not the names, family members, addresses, places of employment, and other identifying information is to be revealed (Seymour & Bucqueroux, 2009). To do so can place victims into a position of vulnerability. Further, reporting with accuracy, especially when facing time constraints, is critical. If a reporter relies solely on rumor or conjecture, they run the risk of being wrong, harming both the reporter and the media outlet’s credibility. Working under time constraints also creates an atmosphere of superficial coverage, which often leads to inaccuracies and biases. If a reporter “cuts corners,” it is possible that complex issues become oversimplified or even trivialized. Profiling and stereotyping of individuals and groups can result from this reporting conduct, and may lead to serious harm in the form of embarrassment to the victim and any witnesses to the crime.

Of particular concern in journalistic responsibility to victims of crime is reporting ethics. Since the media interests have a profit motive in order to sustain reader subscriptions and viewership, reporters may embrace the tactics of sensationalism, or focus on the unusual, in order to increase the numbers of their viewer/reader patrons. In doing so, the reporter may lose sight of the sensitivity surrounding crime victims, families, and witnesses to criminal acts. Examples of the outcomes of insensitivity can include invasion of privacy, unlawful trespass, including insensitive photo images in their reports, and other acts which may exploit, injure, or retraumatize victims (Morrell, 2021; Yahr, 2019). Even further, do members of the media, intentionally or inadvertently, frame some of the community’s views of crime and victims from time to time? This can occur through downplaying the “newsworthiness” by reporters of major crimes in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods (White et al., 2021).

We have discussed rather general examples of how crime victims, families, witnesses, close friends, and even communities can be adversely treated, even injured, through acts of insensitivity, poor timing, and conjecture when reporting and publishing stories on crime.

E. C. Viano, a victimologist who attempted to point out the fine line between providing timely and accurate information – risking violation of privacy rights and acting with insensitivity when reporting – created what is known as the Viano Model for Journalistic Mistreatment of Crime Victims (1992). Elements of the Viano Model include:

• Publicizing victimizations prior to notification of the victims’ families
• Printing the victims’ names and addresses, particularly when the offenders are still at large.
• Graphically describing female victims and survivors.
• Interviewing victims and/or survivors at inappropriate times.
• Chasing victims and survivors into hospital rooms, police stations, etc.
• Choosing unflattering or inaccurate terms to describe victims, often sensationalizing the event.
• Glamorizing offenders.
• Inappropriately delving into the victims’ pasts.
• Behaving aggressively toward victims, survivors, and their advocates.
• Ignoring the victims’ and survivors’ wishes regarding how and when they wish to deal with the media.
• Filming, photographing, and prominently broadcasting and pointing scenes with bodies and body bags.
• Reporting unconfirmed innuendoes.
• Searching for and stressing the “negative” about victims.
• Interviewing and photographing child victims or child relatives of victims.
• Interfering with police investigations.
• Publishing reports on the progress of investigations and negotiations that may reveal critical information and endanger the identity of the victims of kidnapping and terrorism over the objections of authorities or of the families of the victims.
• Intimidating or misleading victims by claiming to have rights that the media actually do not have (e.g., to be able to be on private property, to interview them, etc.)
• Improperly using police “cover” and support to gain access to victims and to confidential information about them (e.g., diaries, letters, etc.).