Going Beyond ‘If It Bleeds, It Leads’ — News Media Coverage of Crime and Justice in 2022

CRIMINAL JUSTICE JOURNALISTS

Annual discussion reviewing news media coverage of criminal justice over the previous year (2022-23)

Published April 2, 2023

Ted Gest, Criminal Justice Journalists, moderator

James Alan Fox, Northeastern University

William Freivogel, Southern Illinois University/Gateway Journalism Review

Marea Mannion, Pennsylvania State University

Dan Shelley, Radio Television Digital News Association

Brandt Williams, Minnesota Public Radio

Ted Gest: Let’s first discuss coverage of crime rates. Homicide totals in the U.S. increased dramatically in the first year of the pandemic, but many in the media have used that as a proxy for saying that violent crime keeps rising everywhere. How have the media done in covering the overall picture?

Dan Shelley: The media have done well, with qualifications. Journalists are doing a generally good job of placing violent crime coverage into some context. Still, too many news organizations practice “if it bleeds, it leads.” That is unfortunate.

In January, my organization co-sponsored a conference that I’ll discuss later that used the title “Beyond ‘if it bleeds it leads.’ We discussed the idea that journalists must do a better job, collectively, of providing context, meaning, and other information that helps the community understand why the violent crime story is important.”

James Alan Fox: The homicide increase in 2020 was real, but there has been a tendency for the media to say it was the beginning of an awful trend that is going to continue. The first rule of crime statistics is that what goes up usually comes down. The second rule is that the more it goes up, the more likely that it will go down.

In 2020, the homicide total was outrageously high. It has declined since, and the decline probably will continue to some extent. There  is a tendency to look at data just from one year to the next, and when crime goes up, to see things from a doomsday perspective.

William Freivogel: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch did a story about a proposal in the Missouri state legislature to allow a special prosecutor to take over the handling of violent crime cases from the chief St. Louis prosecutor, Kim Gardner. The measure is based on the idea that crime is out of control. To its credit, the newspaper included in the story that crime had not gone up in St. Louis. Not to its credit, the information was about 30 paragraphs down.

Fox: The national crime numbers are not so alarming as they were in the bad old days of the 1990s. Much of the problem with media reporting is that it is usually based on the FBI’s summaries of changes in crime totals from one year to the next.

Marea Mannion: Context is an important word here. People as we know,

often focus on high profile incidents they read or see in media reports

rather than the actual numbers. Take the stabbing murders of four

University of Idaho students. Around some college campuses, including

mine, people immediately concluded that “This could happen here. This is

horrible. Students here are vulnerable.” Then the story fades away.

It’s also easy to say we need more context and follow-up reports, but

It’s sometimes challenging for busy news organizations and smaller staffs.

But again, some of the public concern about violence seems to focus on

these high-profile homicides despite the fact that they are a small part of overall violent crime. People don’t understand the reality, versus one or two

stories in the news cycle that make them say, “Oh my god, what is

happening in my world?”

Fox: There may be 15 or 20 homicides on college campuses each year, mostly involving roommates or girlfriends, out of 20 million students. These things do happen but colleges are safe places.

Gest: In last year’s midterm elections, Republicans ran tough-on-crime campaigns, although they were not universally successful. Did the media cover this well?

Shelley: No. When you get beyond the coverage of the horse race, polling and superficial issues, there was much coverage of violent crime. Many people attribute the relative lack of Republican success in the midterms not to the crime issue but because so many people were focused on Roe v. Wade.

Crime did resonate with voters in some areas, particularly in New York State. Many Democrats underestimated the impact of Republican attacks on candidates they called soft on crime, especially in metropolitan areas.

Fox: For the most part, crime is a local issue. What matters the most is what the governor and mayor thinks, not Congress.

Shelley: When we had the peak in the homicide rate in 2020, there was little talk about crime in national races because presidents have very little impact on crime.

Gest: How can the media do better at covering crime in the political context?

Shelley: We can ask people who are running what would they do differently, be specific. The supposed lack of time and space in broadcasting and newspapers is increasingly irrelevant. Anyone can use their bandwidth on issues like crime.

One problem with coverage is that some visual images are too good to ignore, like the videos of people shoplifting – wantonly walking into drug stores and putting things into bags. Nobody called the police because they thought that police and prosecutor wouldn’t do anything and they were handcuffed, no pun intended, by bail reform.

Journalists must go beyond salacious videos and clickbait and cover stories with context and meaning, not just what will attract the most eyeballs. Any story, no matter how complicated, can be told in a way that resonates with the audience. Consumers will care about the issue if the story is done in a way that will resonate. Broadcast stations must make a commitment to cover crime with depth.

Fox: Broadcast news reporters often will talk to crime victims, who may not have a special insight just because they are victims. It is fine to talk to victims about their experience, but they don’t know what to do about crime.

Many news stories talk only about one particular case, which may create an emotional response. The story may not get into the nuts and bolts about the hard facts of a case. We may get only the emotional story of one victim.

Freivogel: The bail process is complicated to explain. Often one person who is released on bail and commits a violent crime gets all the attention, not the dozens who are behind bars because they cannot afford cash bail. It’s hard to get that story out beyond the one guy who gets out and commits a murder.

Gest. Moving to the coverage of mass shootings, the Columbia Journalism Review did a critique that the media cover these like a “fill in the blank” story, then interviewing people pro and con about gun control and waiting for the next shooting. Is there a better way?

Shelley: Journalists are doing a better job than they used to, not just covering a mass shooting and moving on. Shimon Prokupecz of CNN practically moved to central Texas to follow the story of the Uvalde school shootings from as many angles as he is able to cover.

By and large, journalists are doing a much better job of staying with all of the issues that are involved.

Another trend is the debate over whether to name the shooter. Victims and families have repeatedly told news organizations that they are glorifying shooters and creating the possibility of copycats.

When the gunman who killed people at a Walmart in El Paso was sentenced, most stories did not show his picture.

Fox: Lots of white supremacists applauded what the El Paso shooter did but they don’t know his name and wouldn’t be able to pick him out of a lineup. What is important to them is the act, not the actor. The act is what should be covered.

Very few iconic mass killers are household names, except maybe those who committed the 1999 Columbine school shooting.

We’re not creating copycats. The idea of not naming shooters doesn’t make much sense.

Mannion: Some news organizations surely struggle with the level of focus

on the shooter versus the victims. And after each incident there

are discussions about standards or updated guidelines for news

organizations to follow. Obviously, part of that debate focuses on how or

when to name, talk about the shooter, and also report on their background

to possibly help audiences better understand a motive.

Some, such as NPR, have worked on evolving standards that include minimizing a shooter’s name to only when it’s news, and sparingly. Depending on the circumstance, many news organizations appear to focus more on the victims. Of course, what goes out over social media is a completely different discussion.

Shelley: The reason many newsrooms have decided to stop naming shooters unless it is absolutely necessary Is to heed requests of victims who say they are traumatized when the shooter is named, not for fear of creating copycats.

Fox: We put names of all sorts of criminals in newspapers, except juveniles. It doesn’t make sense not to name them. They should be named but not glorified.

Freivogel. People want to know the names and the motive, but there is no reason to mention the name in all subsequent stories. The shooter doesn’t need to have the notoriety of Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby.

Fox: Another issue is the definitions of mass shootings. There were reports of six mass shootings in California in January. By some counts there were 40 mass shootings in a few weeks. The reports often confused mass shootings with mass killings, which increases the level of fear by exaggerating the numbers.

Gest: Many mass shootings involve domestic violence or gang disputes. Do they deserve less coverage because they may not happen in public places?

Fox: In those cases, people don’t think it will happen to them. When shootings happen in places like restaurants, the public may fear that it could happen to anyone. Also, in about half of mass shootings, as defined by the Gun Violence Archive, no one dies.

Gest: On the issue of policing, we seem to have an endless series of police brutality incidents, such as the killing of Tyre Nichols in Memphis. Are police hurting in the public eye by the media portraying them as mostly bad people?

Shelley: The epidemic I see is of law enforcement agencies trying to shroud themselves in secrecy and protect themselves from public scrutiny. Many agencies are using leftover COVID relief aid to encrypt their police dispatch radios. That is a terrible phenomenon.

It leads to a further lack of transparency and erodes public trust in law enforcement. The trend denies the public the vital information they need to know about what is happening in their neighborhoods.

In a few situations, people can get information from police radios that may help them commit crimes or avoid capture, but police can protect their officers from that kind of thing. There is no problem with encrypting information about ongoing standoffs or health information protected by HIPPA.

Overall, we do have a problem with a lack of transparency on the part of law enforcement, which is getting worse and worse.

There is a growing lack of information from police public information officers. One Florida department said it sPIOs would work only Monday through Friday 9 to 5 absent a mass event. A severe crime might happen on the Friday night of a long weekend, and you wouldn’t find out until Tuesday. That is wrong.

Police and journalists serve the same communities. There needs to be transparency serving the community.

Freivogel: About 32 states keep records of police misconduct secret. Several states do provide access to police records, but a majority have closed them. There was more trust in police when reporters worked in police departments. We get way less information from police departments than we used to, despite freedom of information and “sunshine” laws, which have many exceptions.

Mannion: The fallout over the Memphis case might make that worse, even

though Memphis police acted quickly. That police bodycam video was hard

to watch, but millions of viewers could see what happened and form their

own opinions. I mention watch, because obviously the presence of video

plays a major role in some of these high-profile cases whether it be

bystander video of the George Floyd case, or bodycam images in

Memphis.

Meanwhile, the Rodney King case in Los Angeles three decades ago, came to light because of an amateur video. There were calls

then and renewed ones today for police reform, changes in culture, and

transparency.

I agree that the diminished daily reporter presence in police departments has sometimes resulted in less trust and information to the public. Although

police say it’s hard for the public to understand the immense responsibility

which comes with wearing the badge, some also agree they could do better

in showing who they are, what they do, and why.

Shelley: Memphis immediately fired the officers involved, to avoid civil unrest, and that was the right thing to do. But the department’s initial press release was not very factual. Neither was the Minneapolis police press release after the killing of George Floyd.

Fox: In the coverage of Memphis, there was at least one good article about the city’s changes in its personnel practices, such as removing the requirement of college credits and requiring only two years of work experience, even at McDonald’s. Cities are having trouble getting good police applicants. That is a big problem.

Shelley: Another huge issue is qualified immunity for police officers, which hampers journalists’ ability to uncover misconduct.

Gest: Are the media losing the reporting battle, covering big cases but not necessarily major policing issues?

Freivogel: Some relatively new news outlets are doing good coverage, such as ProPublica and The Marshall Project, which are doing local reporting in St. Louis and elsewhere.

Gest: Dan, can you describe your group’s program for local television journalists on criminal justice?

Shelley: With the National Press Foundation (NPF), we had 80 local TV news directors in January to sessions in San Diego, some from competing markets. They heard about crime statistics, mass shootings, various kinds of violent crimes. They heard from victims and people involved in racial inequities.

We had a session solely on the impact of mental health issues on journalists, such as PTSD. It was one of the best sessions I’ve ever heard – very relevant and helpful.

Every news director left San Diego with a commitment to follow criminal cases from beginning to end, so there are no more crime stories that lead the 6 p.m news and then disappear forever.

The news directors also agreed to devote more resources to the context and meaning of perpetrators, victims, the effect of crimes on communities, poverty, and the socio-economic status of alleged criminals and victims. It was a deep dive into virtually every area of crime coverage. I’ve been in this business for 40 years, and I learned a lot.

[Six RTDNA-NPF posts on programs in the conference can be seen here.]

Freivogel: I hope that doesn’t mean we’ll have lots more crime coverage on local television.

Shelley: No. It means we’ll cover the context, meaning, and community impact of crime and not just let it drop. If it’s important enough to cover a crime, it’s important to cover the adjudication process and sentencing. We hope San Diego was the start of changing the trend.

Gest: Are any changes in store on the radio side?

Williams: For the past month, Minnesota Public Radio news editors have been discussing our crime coverage. We’ve revisited some old guidelines and made some changes. Like many newsrooms, we’re also debating how to cover police-involved killings and when it is and when it is not appropriate to broadcast police body camera footage of an incident. The discussions have been helpful and we’ve come up with a draft version of a best practices guide for covering in custody deaths/police-involved killings.

The issue of police reform in the wake of the Tyre Nichols case in Memphis has also been on our minds here. I asked one of my reporters to write up a story that explores how the race of the officers who kill civilians tends to matter less than the race of the person who was the recipient of lethal force. The incident highlighted the challenges in reforming police cultures that foster violent policing. And it shows that often just diversifying a police force doesn’t mean citizens of color will benefit from unbiased policing. We’ve also done at least one call-in show featuring Black law enforcement leaders responding to the Nichols killing.