The Class system at work?

[Karma168]

Anyone in the UK who has seen the news in the past few weeks will have undoubtedly have heard the story of Joanna Yeates, the young woman killed in somerset.

the BBC news channels' internal watchdog has received several complaints about the coverage of this story as the murder has been given a high level of publicity whereas similar cases involving people of a 'lower social class' have only received minor mention on local news with no national mention.

to compare two victims:

joanna yeates - white, middle class, university graduate, good job - (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12084756)

Sylvester Akapalara - black, working class, bad neighbourhood, teenager, possible gang links in case - (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12101587)

while i have no idea about the specifics of the 2nd case, this actually helps my argument as i hadn't heard anything about it in any of major media coverage.

The disparity in coverage has been compared to the coverage of Madeleine McCann - a 3y.o who was kidnapped almost 4 years ago and who has never been found - around the same time a child from an ethnic background went missing but hardly received any mention in major news shows.

So what do you think? Are we still stuck with a media that has a 'heart string criteria' to determine how important a story is?

To people in other countries; do you have a similar problem where you live?

 

[tigermilk]

While class is a major factor there are other reasons for the extensive coverage. As you mentioned ethnicity, also the fact she is young blonde and attractive from a centralised location with easy access to family members who can make appeals on TV.

Criminologists and media theorists have created lists of between 8 and 12 criteria for why a crime is deemed "newsworthy".

 

[Oh That Dude]

Are we still stuck with a media that has a 'heart string criteria' to determine how important a story is?

Yes, essentially. The majority of the media is there to sell stories primarily. Even the Beeb will get caught up and go along with mainstream media: they don't want to look out of touch, and that means sacrificing stories just as important but less well covered by other sections of the media.

 

[Karma168]

Criminologists and media theorists have created lists of between 8 and 12 criteria for why a crime is deemed "newsworthy".

got a link?

 

[Electric Yemeth]

So what do you think? Are we still stuck with a media that has a 'heart string criteria' to determine how important a story is?

To people in other countries; do you have a similar problem where you live?

Germany here. The problem is: we can't know. The media decides what gets reported. We know only the things that happen in our immediate area and our social circle. Everything else, even news, is nothing more than hearsay. Furthermore magazines and newspapers have to sell themselves, news on television as well (to a certein degree, newspaper have it a lot tougher though). So yes, there is definitly a criteria to meet for news to become relevant.

The true problem,however, is that we only know what the media wants us to know. Unless there is coverage, no matter how small, we won't know that something happened. Sure there are blogs and other ways to obtain information, but the quetion lies wihtin the credibilty (with news from TV and other "official" media as well).

So yeah, we are royally screwed. Also I accidently the button.

 

[Ewyx]

Let's not kid ourselves here, the majority won't give a damn about a gang related murder about a lower class black person. Let's be honest, unless it's some sort of major development in the world of crime (think about stopping a major drug operation, or a serious shoot-out) the only thing that crime serves is to get the ratings up. Let's be honest, no one really cares about the crime that happens, so when they report it, they try to report something that strikes us close to home.

 

[tomtom94]

One reason Joanna Yeates gets more coverage is she was initially MISSING as opposed to MURDERED. Same deal with Maddie McCann - when someone's missing the media attempts to piggyback on the "Have you seen X" in order to seem morally justified when in reality they're trying to sell papers. When it turned to a murder inquiry, the McCanns got a lot less coverage, and lost the top billing status they'd earned before.

Also, the Joanna Yeates case has mystery and intrigue, so the media can report on that, whereas the guy getting shot...doesn't.

As said above, the media wants to sell itself rather than the story, and that's the main reason.

 

[Karma168]

Let's not kid ourselves here, the majority won't give a damn about a gang related murder about a lower class black person. Let's be honest, unless it's some sort of major development in the world of crime (think about stopping a major drug operation, or a serious shoot-out) the only thing that crime serves is to get the ratings up. Let's be honest, no one really cares about the crime that happens, so when they report it, they try to report something that strikes us close to home.

does that not say something about our society? that we only care if the victim is like us and has no negative stereotypes attached to them? no matter who it is who is killed we should have equal emotions (unless you have personal involvement with the victim) and should not change our level of engagement dependant on the persons skin colour/social class.

you can tell how messed by what's on TV. I don't know if your from the UK but we have a story on a TV show about a cot death where the mother swaps her dead baby for a neighbours. this story has probably had more air time than some real life issues which should be taking precedence over a made up character.

 

[tigermilk]

Criminologists and media theorists have created lists of between 8 and 12 criteria for why a crime is deemed "newsworthy".

got a link?

I'm afraid not, but if you wan't to read more pretty much any undergraduate criminology textbook will cover the subject.

EDIT: Found a link to a chapter in a book on the relationship between media interest and crime

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/stout/greer_news_media%20-%20vic_crime_soc.pdf

 

[Ewyx]

Let's not kid ourselves here, the majority won't give a damn about a gang related murder about a lower class black person. Let's be honest, unless it's some sort of major development in the world of crime (think about stopping a major drug operation, or a serious shoot-out) the only thing that crime serves is to get the ratings up. Let's be honest, no one really cares about the crime that happens, so when they report it, they try to report something that strikes us close to home.

does that not say something about our society? that we only care if the victim is like us and has no negative stereotypes attached to them? no matter who it is who is killed we should have equal emotions (unless you have personal involvement with the victim) and should not change our level of engagement dependant on the persons skin colour/social class.

you can tell how messed by what's on TV. I don't know if your from the UK but we have a story on a TV show about a cot death where the mother swaps her dead baby for a neighbours. this story has probably had more air time than some real life issues which should be taking precedence over a made up character.

It says a lot about us as a whole. But to be even more honest, crime, even as serious as murder is one of societies lesser problems. I guess the thing is, we can always relate to a personal loss somehow, however if you look at the big picture, I find the fact that the corporation are running the world, and for example pharmaceutical corporation that will knowingly block production of a medicine because someone doesn't have the patent on them, even though that said corporation can't produce enough and people are dying because of that. So not because they have to, but because some stuck up corporation doesn't want another company to help them with a quota they can't fill and take part of their profits, is the reason a LOT more people die than a murder now and then. However, it's interesting how a single murder always gets more publicity, while shit like that goes unreported for the most time (or if it does, it's very VERY minor). That is something that worries me about society.

It's sad that Stalin was right when he said "A single death is a tragedy, a million merely a statistic."

 

[M Rotter]

Those kinds of news stories are popular because its a very simple story that either hints at something complex (not that we'll ever know...) or that it can be stretched out over a long period of time. While i do think that the ethnicity could be a racist thing, i think its more because the media is behind the times. I think nowadays its more about instilling the "IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU (keep watching!)" feeling, rather than "poor white people" thing because a lot of times in a quiet suburban neighborhood, the majority of people are white-and a murder happening in a quiet suburban neighborhood is going to scare people who live in suburban areas (or people who live in relatively crime free areas) while its not as terrifying for someone who lives in a bad part of town. The media has learned fear is gripping.

 

[TehCookie]

Saying a poor black person with gang links is killed is like saying an old person had a heart attack. It's not surprising. It happens every other day, so no one really bothers with it and just thinks it's normal. When a middle class white person is killed, people wonder why it happened. If a baby is dieing of cancer people find it a lot different and are drawn to the story because it's not as common, and usually there is something to it.