Media, Discourse & Crime – Lecture Notes

Chat function problems: sign into Microsoft 365 first -> Moodle -> Teams; report back to tech support if still failing.
Slide error: Essay 1 due Wednesday $20\,\text{August}$ , 5 pm not June 13/20.
Lecture PDFs: majority prefer “2 big slides per page, no lined notes” – will implement.
Study group exists (contact via Facebook link in chat).
Quiz 1 closes today 5 pm; auto-release grades.

Mentimeter poll: most students in the middle ("some understanding"); key feedback = lecturer talks too fast.
Request for specific concepts needing clarification – use Menti during break.

Media, discourse & crime: critical understanding of media.
Key constructs: news frames; objectivity; media consolidation; discourse; racialisation of crime.
Two main themes when analysing portrayal of crime:
1. What crime do we see?
2. How media racialises crime.

Menti poll: class split ~50 : 50 on whether crime is increasing.
Nationally most Kiwis think crime is rising; long-term stats show gradual decline.
Peak crime $1992:1322\text{ crimes per }10,000$ ; now < half.
Media portrayal = distorted image; counting crime already difficult (under-reporting, survey bias, coding).

Public obtains majority of crime knowledge from news media.
Crime news shapes fear, opinion, policy, policing, law.
Reliance on limited sources (mainly police) → little scrutiny of CJS.
Quantity, content & sourcing create elevated fear → supports law-and-order politics.

Crime saturates media for 500 + yrs; over-represented relative to statistics.
Violent/sensational events dominate (street crime of poor/powerless).
Structural causes (poverty, colonisation, policy) seldom discussed; focus on individual pathology.
Haven (1991) newspaper study: “random senseless violence” sells papers & aids govts keen to deflect from socio-economic policy harms.

Gatekeepers: editors, journalists, official spokespeople, algorithms, state censors – decide what enters public sphere.
News values frame crime so audience will endorse tough responses.

A frame = sandbox holding the story; conveys:
1. What is the issue/problem?
2. Who/what is responsible?
3. Proposed solution.
Example: Infant bitten by rats – Version 1 blames teen mother (individual); Version 2 blames social conditions & cutbacks (structural).

Clip of Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith.
• Issue: retail crime escalation.
• Responsibility: violent individual offenders.
• Solution: expand citizens’ arrest, reasonable force.
One News framing added doubts (danger/vigilantism) yet kept same issue/responsibility → maintains fear narrative.

Right realism = criminological theory: crime is rational choice; deter via harsher policing/sentencing.
Penal populism = political strategy using right-realist ideas to win votes (“tough on crime”).
Media frames supply emotional fuel → public support → political payoff.

Evidence: $60.6\%$ prison releases reconvicted within 2 yrs; NZ 2nd highest OECD incarceration yet no crime drop; community programmes outperform prison.

Mass media: small group produces content → huge audience; needs resources & publicity.
Social media expands public sphere, enables counter-publics but can also fuel hate & is hard to regulate (free speech vs surveillance).
Consolidation: US dropped from $50\to6$ major owners (1983-2003); NZ print/radio/TV similarly concentrated; fewer viewpoints.

Ownership, profit-drive & elite sourcing shape content.
Media makes ruling-class interests appear “common-sense” (manufactures consent).
Key term: Hegemony – indirect control via consent; ideas naturalised, physical force unnecessary.

Journalists rely on police press releases; police gain positive image → reinforces state definitions.
Case: NZ Police barred gang researcher Dr Gilbert from data; later apologised after media outcry → shows control attempts.

More than conversation: system of ideas/knowledge that constructs reality.
Media crucial in producing discourse on crime: “violent, rising, individual, needs police/prison”.

Mechanism = race-tagging (naming ethnicity for Māori/Pasifika offenders, rarely for Pākehā).
Coverage of Māori often only when crime/gangs/protest involved → embeds “criminal Māori” discourse.
Studies:
• 1950s & 1990s surveys: ethnic labels used 3-4 × more for non-Pākehā.
• Tuohy et al. (2020) Police Ten 7: Māori/Pasifika over-shown as violent suspects; Pākehā over-shown as harmless.
Political example: David Seymour tweet using “subhuman/uncivilised” dog-whistles – ethnicity implied, not named, yet audience fills gap.
Feedback loop: public more likely to report Māori; police allocate resources; more Māori arrests → reinforces stereotype.

Distorted media → distorted public perception → votes for punitive policy → high imprisonment without reducing harm.
True democratic public sphere requires:
• Contextual crime reporting (include why, not just what/how).
• Diverse sources (academics, community, victims, offenders).
• Proportionate coverage reflecting statistics.
• Challenge myths & racial stereotypes.