Connecting journalists with information and experts on crime and criminal legal issues
Journalists who cover crime and the criminal legal system influence everything from public policy to our collective sense of safety.
At its best, journalism informs & empowers.
At its worst, journalism misleads & sensationalizes.
Sensational crime reporting has been happening for centuries, and it endures today.
This reporting follows predictable patterns.
The following 5 examples are practices common in sensational journalism.
- Emphasizing crime over harm
- Sensationalizing outlier cases
- Cherry-picking alarming crime statistics
- Prioritizing the voices of police and prosecutors
- Using dehumanizing labels
The Center will continue to expand and explore this list.
01Crime is king
Contemporary journalism emphasizes crime over other factors that influence our safety, leaving people in the dark about important issues that impact their lives.
02Outlier cases
Sensational crimes are often covered with such intensity that the coverage results in demands for policy change that are not responsive to actual public safety trends.
03Cherry-picked
statistics
News articles often focus on the most alarming crime statistics, ignoring or minimizing decreases and failing to put increases in historical or locational context.
04Police first
The structure of crime stories reveals a lot about whose perspectives the media prioritizes. In the “inverted pyramid” model of news writing, the most important information appears first (the lede), supporting details come in the middle (the body), and the least essential elements of the story are held for the end (the tail).
In crime reporting, quotes from police and prosecutors often appear first, while competing voices and perspectives show up at the end, where people are less likely to see them.
The Inverted Pyramid of Contemporary Crime Reporting.
The most essential information: who, what, when, where, and why?
...Police Commissioner says ...police union officials oppose... DA and Sheriff believe...
05Dehumanizing labels
News stories label people based on their criminal records, perpetuating stereotypes and biasing readers and viewers against those individuals. When journalists use dehumanizing labels to describe someone, their audience is more likely to associate that person with negative terms (i.e. “dangerous”). When journalists use people-first language, audience associations are evenly split between negative and neutral/positive (i.e. “not necessarily a bad person”).
This reporting has major impacts on public opinion and public policy.
Year after year, Americans believe crime is increasing even when it isn’t.
People overestimate the likelihood that they will be the victim of a crime and underestimate the risks posed by other threats to their health and safety.
Worst of all, this journalism drives knee-jerk policymaking that does not make communities safer & comes at enormous human, social, & financial cost.
But, journalism has also helped build safer communities.
Journalists have expanded our collective understanding of safety
and uncovered
some of the worst excesses
and abuses of power in the criminal legal system.
Today, journalists across the country are following in these footsteps and blazing their own trails.
This is a critical moment.
People are hungry for information that will help them address violence of all forms in their communities.
Journalists working to get people that information face many challenges, from misinformation to threats.
The Center for Just Journalism exists to help journalists meet those challenges by...
Supporting newsrooms engaged in rethinking their public safety coverage
Collaborating with educators to design teaching tools for the next generation of journalists
Identifying patterns in public safety reporting and recommending opportunities for change