4.5 The Media and the Victim: Examining Accuracy and Ethics

A fact central to any discussion of the relationship between the news media and crime victims is that the news media are profit-oriented businesses. Whether from regular subscribers to paper newspapers or online editions, one-off impulse buyers at a newsstand, or hotel and motel chains that provide complimentary newspapers to overnight guests, the newspaper industry relies on the development and nurturing of a broad population of readers. The circulation size and scope determine the volume and dollar amount of fees that commercial advertisers are willing to commit to when negotiating with a media outlet. The Nielsen rating system is used with television. Television networks rely on programming productions that will interest and attract viewers. The popularity of a program is determined by a rating system that 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; if the channel is exclusively devoted to news reporting, it can be as high as a continuous 24-hour news production. A key component of the news 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).

News editors are presented with myriad news choices when deciding what will be covered on any given day. As a result of this selectivity process, editors tend to choose 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 covered feature. Conversely, when the incident is commonplace or typical, it likely will not be chosen. Thus, the victimologist should carefully review the role of the media and journalistic needs in terms of the treatment of crime victims to prevent further victimization and mental trauma as a result of media reporting.

When interviewing victims or witnesses, journalists and editors must be clearly focused on whether the names, family members, addresses, places of employment, and other identifying information is to be revealed (Seymour & Bucqueroux, 2009). Disclosing such information can place victims in 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 individuals and groups can result from this reporting conduct and may lead to serious harm in the form of embarrassment to the victim and witnesses.

Of particular concern in journalistic responsibility to crime victims is reporting ethics. Since the media interests have a profit motive to sustain reader subscriptions and viewership, reporters may embrace the tactics of sensationalism, or focus on the unusual, to increase the numbers of their viewers and readers. In doing so, the reporter may lose sight of the sensitivity surrounding crime victims, families, and witnesses. The outcomes of such insensitivity can include invasion of privacy, unlawful trespass, insensitive photo images in their reports, and other acts that may exploit, injure, or retraumatize victims (Morrell, 2021; Yahr, 2019). Some members of the media may intentionally or inadvertently frame some of the community’s views of crime and victims from time to time. This can occur when reporters downplay the newsworthiness 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, by media acts of insensitivity, poor timing, and conjecture when reporting and publishing stories on crime. Victimologist E. C. Viano, whose goal was to show the fine line between providing timely and accurate information with the risk of  violating privacy rights and acting with insensitivity when reporting, created what is known as the Viano Model for Journalistic Mistreatment of Crime Victims (1992). Specific elements of the Viano model include:

• Publicizing victimizations prior to notifying 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 or survivors at inappropriate times
• Chasing victims and survivors into hospital rooms, police stations, and the like
• 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 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 the families of the victims
• Intimidating or misleading victims by claiming to have rights that the media actually do not have (e.g., right to be on private property)
• Improperly using police “cover” and support to gain access to victims and to confidential information about them (e.g., diaries or letters)