Week Three

Chermak's article discusses crime reported through the media. I'll start this off by saying there's not a lot I agree with in it. While Chermak is writing from a outside viewer stand point, I have seen the other side working for a student paper and taking journalism classes here. When he speaks about why the media cites sources he talks about objectivity like its a bad thing. A newspapers main goal is to report the facts not personal opinions. So reporters have to be unbiased and objective. People don't want to read random opinions from someone who isn't involved in the event so reports get quotes from those who are so people get a first hand view. Next he talks about news organizations selectively choosing the source organization's version of truth. This is waaay off base, one of the primary parts of journalism ethics is, as stated above, remaining unbiased. Reporters do this by getting BOTH sides of the story, not just their sources. He also talks about ordinary crimes not being news. To that I say it depends where you are first of all. Small towns will probably report every crime committed. Second a newspapers goal is to sell papers and do that by writing about what people want to buy and read. Nobody wants to read about a 14 year old kid stealing a shirt, or someone jay walking on a quiet street. I do however agree with his explanations for the prevalence for crime news.

In the Rafter reading she argues that crime movies have included 2 themes at once. The good-bad guy who challenges the system and the character who restores order in the end. Mainly this is before 1970, since then movies have had less happy endings and focused more on a delight in violence. She also speaks of cultural criminology as a resource that generates images of crime causation and control. She argues that crime films are not a genre but a category focusing on crimes and their consequences. She also says crime films are a pleasure for viewers.