Perceived Media Credibility

Perceived Media Credibility

The media contributes immensely to the ideological beliefs held by an individual or group of people. The criminal justice system has, in recent years, embraced increasingly punitive crime-control policies with the intent of scaring off potential offenders (Gould, 2007). Such punitive measures have seen the rates of crime decline immensely, and have therefore, managed to garner massive public support.

Although the mass media, as Gould (2007) points out, has played a significant role in the increased popularity of punitive crime-control measures, it has been accused of doing so by raising false security alarms with the aim of attracting more crime news consumers. The article under analysis attempts to establish a link between media influence, and the fear of crime. The authors measured the punitive attitudes of a sampled 373 college students, through an 11-item scale covering issues such as the use of the death penalty on juveniles, parole, the purposes of sentencing, etc. Media influence was measured in terms of the frequency which a media source is used, the source's credibility, and as a measure of the main source of crime news. The fear of crime, on the other hand, was measured via a 7-item scale that examined the individual's worry concerning certain specified types of crime.

Multivariate study analyses revealed a significant link between the media-based variables and the development of punitive attitudes towards the criminal system. A higher frequency of exposure to media elements, such as crime-related television shows, in itself, leads an individual to develop a punitive criminal system attitude. The author's main point, therefore, is that there exists a direct link between the media variables, and the development of punitive orientations (Waid-Lindberg, Dobbs, Shelley, 2011).

The regression analysis representation in table 7 shows some degree of significance between the number of hours spent watching local television news, and the development of punitive attitudes (Waid-Lindberg, Dobbs, Shelley, 2011). This implies that an increase in the number of hours would automatically translate to increased 'punitiveness' (Waid-Lindberg et al., 2011). This significance, moreover, would remain even after the credibility variables are incorporated into the model (Waid-Lindberg et al., 2011). The authors in this case hold that, apart from the frequency of watching crime-related shows, no other frequency variable is significant to the development of punitive attitudes (Waid-Lindberg et al., 2011).

In reinforcing their argument, the authors put forward two explanations to this phenomenon; first, that television, unlike newspapers and the internet, does not give consumers the freedom to choose what crime news to, or not to watch; and secondly, that news consumers would usually settle for a source whose information and imagery strengthens their worldview (Waid-Lindberg, Dobbs, Shelley, 2011).

The authors posit that, contrary to past studies, which generalize the effects of all media use variables, theirs demonstrates the significance between the number of hours spent watching local news, and punitive attitudes, and still ends up with values within the normal range, after the addition of variables (adjusted R2). Based on this, I am of the opinion that the article was meant for researchers within the field.

I do not agree with the authors' main point because it disregards the importance of the element of fear of crime (Beckett, 1999). The fear of crime, which is induced by demographic factors such as an individual's background, age, race, education levels, etc., is a significant predictor of punitive attitudes (Beckett, 1999). The media only has an indirect effect on such attitudes, through the fear of crime (Beckett, 1999). This implies that people who regularly view crime-related media shows are more likely to fear crime, than those who do not, and are, as a result of this fear, more likely to develop punitive orientations (Gould, 2007). Fear of crime controls for age, gender and victimization status, and is, therefore, the most significant predictor for punitive attitudes (Beckett, 1999).