Benvenuti 1 Timothy Benvenuti Professor Jessica Camargo English 1102 26 March 2014 The Media and Their Unfair

Coverage of Criminals Imagine you are in a media control room. Your boss is breathing down your neck and telling you to do what will be profitable and good for ratings. You on the other hand, feel that as a journalist you should report the facts and let the people know the truth. What do you do? This is a question that journalist used to ask themselves, but now this isnt even something that passes through a journalists mind. Now, everything is all about money and how much of it you can make. The media does not inform the general public correctly and distorts/shows bias in their reporting, especially in relation to criminal cases and forces serial killers into infamy. Marlise Simons, A lady who writes for the New York Times and since 1996 has covered proceedings before many international courts, says These days reporters are lazier than ever, especially when it comes to tribunals. Nowadays it is easier than ever to report factual information, but journalists simply do not do it (Simons). I conducted a survey at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte randomly surveying forty people anonymously and asking them seven questions. I first asked How often do you watch/read the news? and I was surprised to find out the majority watches/reads the news sometimes during the week (Benvenuti). This was good because I now know people are decently informed. Then I asked Do you often keep track of major criminal trials? and I was happy to

Benvenuti 2 hear the most common answer was sometimes (Benvenuti). This is good because my audience was at least somewhat aware of criminal news. The third question was Do you or have you ever sympathized with the victim in a criminal case? and the majority said sometimes (Benvenuti). This means that the media has evoked some emotion in these people and made them care one way or another about something they had no idea about prior to being informed by the media. Now someone could argue it is natural to side with the victim in the case, but it is also natural to question. This is where the trend begins and shows the medias influence. My fourth question asked Do you or have you ever sympathized with the person on trial in a criminal case? and the majority said sometimes with a tie between yes and no (Benvenuti). This majority is very interesting because it shows how people have felt both sympathy and no sympathy toward the person on trial. The person on trial should however, deserve sympathy because they are innocent until proven guilty and everyone knows some people are wrongly accused, but people still feel no sympathy regardless of that. This is probably because of some influence. Continuing with my survey, in my fifth question I asked Do you tend to pick a side in a major criminal case? and the most common of the answers was yes (Benvenuti). I find it odd how we as humans automatically choose a side when given some information. Who is to say that the information we are given is correct or parts of it are possibly wrong, unless it is accepted commonly and presented in a way that captivates us like the media does. Moving onward though, in my sixth question I asked Do you feel the need to get involved when criminal trials are publicized (i.e. talking about it, protesting, debating about it, etc.)? and the majority answered no (Benvenuti). This leads me to believe that people may not discuss something, but it still bothers them and they are just avoiding a controversial topic which may lead to personal argument. This point ties in with my next question. In my final question I asked Have you ever

Benvenuti 3 gotten upset over the verdict of a criminal case? and the majority by a substantial amount said yes (Benvenuti). My inference is proven by this because even though these people arent being outward and involved by the criminal case, they are still typically being upset by the final verdict. For anyone who would like I organized my common answer data (see table 1). All this ties into how the media embraces a case and how they choose to pick a side and say we are right and that is the only way to be. Table 1 Most common answer choice for each question Most Common Answer Choices Question 1 A 2nd Question 2 A 3rd Question 3 A 1st Question 4 A and B Tied for 2nd Question 5 A 1st Question 6 A 3rd B 1st B and C Tied for 2nd C 2nd B 1st B 2nd B 3rd C 3rd C 1st C 2nd C 1st D 4th

Benvenuti 4 Question 7 A 1st B 2nd

Source: Timothy Benvenuti, The Serial Survey, (2 February 2014). Jeffrey Dahmer, the American serial killer and sex offender. Dahmer murdered seventeen males using rape, dismemberment, necrophilia, and cannibalism in his murders (Jeffrey Dahmer, Crime Museum). Dahmer was and still is infamous and has become one of the most notable serial killers of all time. Jeffrey Dahmers father, Lionel Dahmer, made a point to Larry King that Jeff was a normal boy and the only sign of his odd nature was his extreme quietness to the point of extreme social anxiety (What Went Wrong?). Dahmer was not your usual serial killer and was found guilty in court and not declared insane. Dahmer made a point to declare himself guilty, but due to insanity so he would not tarnish his familys name because he very much loved his parents (Jeffery Dahmer Trial). Dahmers trial was a good example of how the American court system handles serial killers. Below you can see Jeffrey Dahmer in his mug shot (see fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Jeffrey Dahmer's mug shot taken in 1991 when he was arrested.

Jeffrey Dahmers trial was like a

modern day hanging. It was put on like a show, televised, and seemed like its main purpose was

Benvenuti 5 to be closure for the victims families and for everyone who watched to know what Dahmer had done. Everyone who read Dahmers crimes seem to make a point to go into vivid detail about what he had done to the point of it being disturbing (Trial). The news seemed to make sure to play on peoples heart strings by showing images of the victims families crying. It was also shown in the trial, a victims sister brutally yelling at Dahmer and almost physically attacking him before four police officers stepped in and stopped her (Trial). The whole trial just seemed like a major bashing to Dahmer as if they were saying You are a monster for harming these people and you deserve to pay which is understandable since he is guilty, but it was just done in such a harsh manner. In the trial they made a point to have photos of the victims up and then saying Never forget (victim name) who died at the hand of the defendant and they also read his gruesome story nine times and his verdict fifteen times (Trial). I feel this is overdone, especially since Dahmer knew what crimes he had committed and pleaded guilty; he only wanted to be charged insane and sent to a mental institution for help. Now I am not arguing that Dahmer is a good man or that I feel sorry for him, but he was glorified by the press coverage of the whole trial which is wrong because we should not care to remember him, but remember the victims and their families who were harmed by his actions. Some trials are very open and publicized like Dahmers trial, but others are kept in secret on purpose. Simons mentions in her article, Judges put themselves on an unreachable pedestal, they purposely make reporters ignorant of situations occurring in the court room (Simons). It is terrible how they do this because it doesnt allow the media fair reporting which in turn causes cases that should be important to gain no recognition and be ignored by major news media. Now when a judge isnt secretive like in Dahmers case it can cause a ripple effect of problems for people. In the Larry King interview Dahmers parents say, We are proud of our last name

Benvenuti 6 Dahmer. It does however cause us some issues when we go out into the public. We have to give restaurants a different name to avoid getting looks when called over or for people asking us questions about Jeff (What Went Wrong?). Dahmers parents did no harm to anyone yet they are still to this day feeling the effects of how the public views their son and in turn views them as the parents of a monster. I do not believe the media and the lies they spill out. The media is very biased as you can see, and glorifies people that dont deserve it like serial killers or pushes a verdict that isnt actually truthful. It is important for us as loyal citizens to always question and be sure that when we are informed we double check information and make sure it is factual. I would have loved to interview someone who has or is currently working for a major news station like Fox News and see what they have to say about all this. I would encourage anyone who would like to continue this research to do so and try and see what people on the inside think and have to say.

Benvenuti 7 Works Cited Benvenuti, Timothy. The Serial Survey. Survey. 2 February 2014. "Jeffrey Dahmer." Crime Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2014. <http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/jeffrey-dahmer>. Jeffrey Dahmer Mug shot. 1991. The Crime Museum, Milwaukee. Crime Museum. Web. 3 Mar. 2014. <http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/jeffrey-dahmer>. "Jeffrey Dahmer Trial." YouTube. YouTube, 05 Dec. 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2014. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnuSl8PNYqc>. Simons, Marlise. International Criminal Tribunals and the Media 7.1 (n.d.): 83-88. Journal of International Criminal Justice. Web. 6 Mar. 2014. "What Went Wrong?" Interview by Larry King. Larry King Live. CNN. 17 June 2004. Television.