Facebook Crime

I admit to being a Facebook addict. I spend countless hours procrastinating on the social networking site. But with the dawn of this new era of technology, I am forced to concede that it is fraught with risks. It is an example of how the media can be USED to commit crimes.

Apart from the fact that Facebook allows for the tagging of unwanted photos, it presents a forum whereby criminals get free reign.

Scammers: There is a new trend of online scams that see money being stolen from unsuspecting victims when they pose as a friend in need.

Spammers: I am often bombarded with SPAM on Facebook. I admit it is annoying, but there are also risks that such SPAM are indeed viruses waiting to plague my beloved MacBook. Indeed Facebook Security yesterday announced that it had filed complaints against Spammers in New York.

Interestingly however, such stories about scammers and spamming rarely make headline news. Especially when compared to stories about murder. When white collar crime does become newsworthy it is normally because large sums of money are involved (Katz, pg 54). For example, in Florida a money manager was convicted of defrauding investors $168 million and imprisoned for 14 years. However, as Katz identifies it is the magnitude of the person's legitimate wealth and power that is most newsworthy.

Other crimes we hear about in relation to Facebook, is where murder has been facilitated by the social networking site. Just this year, 18 year old Nona Belomesof was murdered after meeting up with a man who had befriended her on Facebook. While I doubt the Social networking site, itself, can be blamed (even vicariously) for Nona's death it was dubbed within the news media as a "facebook murder" . Such characterisation of these crimes means that individual responsibility for one's welfare and personal information is shirked.

Terror-fying

I am particularly interested in the role the media has in defining who and what actually is terrorism. Some discourse would indicate that terrorism involves some act of force for a political agenda. However it is not always this clear cut. Yet there is a tendency to exclude analysis of broader structural processes or explanations in stories about political disorder (Halloran et al. 1970). This is particularly so for stories about terrorism. politics and the media alike would have terrorism portrayed as an issue of good vs evil / us vs them/ democracy v anarchy (Anandam et all, . Yet i doubt that the world is made up of such strong dichotomies.

I think we all remember where we were on September 11, 2001. Our eyes were invariably glued to the television screen. That iconic image of the plane crashing into the twin towers was replayed countless times, and this went on for weeks. I think it is safe to say that a large scale moral panic ensued.

In the political sphere there had been a knee-jerk rejection with the likes of Anti- Terrorism legislation including:

• Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002

• Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Act 2002

• Criminal Code Amendment (Suppression of Terrorist Bombings) Act 2002

• Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Act 2002

• Border Security Legislation Amendment Act 2002

• Anti Terrorism Act (No.2) 2005

The most concerning aspects of such legislative schemes (and a stark example of the magnitude of the moral panic) is the substantial infringement they make on the rights and liberties of the average citizen. For example, the sedition and control order provisions. Such legislation, of itself, has the potential to criminalise behaviour which would otherwise not be thought of as such.

The Us vs Them mentality is quite poignantly depicted in the "Ban the Burqa" debate that arose earlier this year. The debate was prompted by the introduction of a Bill by Fred Niles into the NSW upper house to ban the wearing of veils in public. While the Bill was ultimately rejected, it succeeded in gaining a lot of media attention. Inherent in the bid to ban the burka, is the idea that the burqa represents a threat to Australian security, and furthermore, that the wearing of the burqa is a criminal or terrorism act. I have severe doubts about such an idea. Indeed, what this does indicate is that ethnic minorities associated with Islam are effectively marginalised. So that it might be suggested that the media (perhaps without even meaning to) is able to define terrorism as identifiable with a religious background.

This ideological representation might indicate a trend within whereby Islam and those associated with it become "folk devils".

Wellington (2009, p30) describes this process aptly; in an era when society is shaken by the collective insecurity that terrorism generates, the section of society that adheres to a “different” religion and culture becomes more susceptible to being labelled as a threat even if a majority of its number are law-abiding"

References

• HALLORAN, J. et al. (1970), Demonstrations and Communication, London: Penguin

What lies within the Criminal Mind...

"There are certain clues at a crime scene which by their very nature do not lend themselves to being collected or examined. How's one collect love, rage, hatred, fear...? These are things that we're trained to look for." (Season 1, episode 2)

I am a self-confessed Criminal Minds fanatic. I am particularly interested in blogging about Criminal Minds for its niche storylines, that is, fictional serial killers. It differs from other fictional crime shoes which focus on analysing evidence left behind after a crime. Such crime shows include CSI and SVU. Raney and Byrant (2002) indicate that the popularity of such crime shows can be derived from the emotionally centred response we have to violent stimuli. It is such that we will feel horror or disgust at the morally repugnant offender in Criminal Minds.

However, this cannot be the only thing that keeps us glued to the televison each week can it?

If it were so, then popularity of crime shows would be founded in a love of violence alone.

Raney and Bryant suggest that the enjoyment factor depends upon the sense of justice that is conveyed by the show and this argument has significant merit. A formulla, as such, can be determined to exist in the Criminal Minds saga. That is, they (The BAU) always catch the bad guy. Furthemore, most of the time a victim is saved. Ultimately we go to bed after an hour of Criminal Minds feeling as though justice has been served and that good will always prevail. Herein lies our enjoyment.

A complimentary argument is presented by Lee. Lee suggests that inaccurate depictions of crime in fictional programs may exist in response to “a public desire for authentic participation in a world that, though genuine, stands at a necessarily spectral remove...and with its even- tempered characters and violence contained, also provides...a sense of psychic protection”. This argument has merit insofar as it suggests that we get peace of mind from such shows. For the most part what is presented in fictional crime is black and white, good and evil. We are not forced to consider whether such dichotomies even exist.

Ultimately, the picture we get from criminal minds is a skewed one. There is a suggestion that the FBI has one criminal profiling team to solve all serious crimes. The show also seems to suggest that there is a ready profile for all serial killers, that can easily be referred to. Such representations within the series forego the acknowledgement of grey areas that are not always clear, which ultimately becomes one the show's weaknesses. While I love Criminal Minds, there is a lot to be desired in the way of truthful representations.

References:

“‘These are Our Stories’: Trauma, Form, and the Screen Phenomenon of Law and

Order.” Discourse 25.1-2 (2002)

Double standards of violence

We were all dutifully horrified by the death of the police officer, William Crews, in the line of duty. The strong media interest in this case has prompted me to think about police and violence in the media and how it is played out.

Interestingly, the death of Crews prompted discussions about introducing mandatory life penalties for those who kill police officers. Such a law reform proposal is interesting for several reasons. It suggests that there is something poignantly wrong about the killing of a police officer. While I in no way condone such offences, unlawfully killing is certainly an act that is morally wrong. However, a question that is prompted by all of this is; at what point do we value a police life over other lives?

Analysis of media articles surrounding such deaths sheds some light. Media articles about such officers killed in the line of duty hail them as a fallen hero, hardworking, and dedicated to law and order. Greer (2002) might suggest that this is a manifestation within the media of an 'ideal' victim and goes on to explain that this is perhaps why there is an over-representation of police victims within the media, as opposed to other victims of crime. It is at this point that the media appears to rationalise the notion that police are unsung heroes, whereby a death indicates a decline of society into disorder and chaos. Herein lies the newsworthiness of such deaths.Such a death is indicative of a schism within our society, and specifically a schism in our criminal justice system: 'reinforcing the perennially popular media themes of decline, disorder and lack of respect for authority' (Greer, 2002, p38).

A secondary issue surrounding media portrayal of police deaths in the line of fire, is that it seemingly defers the readers attention from underlying issues. Such as the nature of police raids and whether or not they should be reviewed. Other issues that might be heralded by such events is whether police should even have firearms at all (Sare, 1993)

In juxtaposition, is the underrepresentation of minority groups as victims or hero within the media. For example consider the seemingly absent media coverage about deaths that occur in police custody or at the hands of police themselves. Does this silence within the media constitute a consent to police violence against such groups?

Consider for example, the death of TJ Hickey which sparked what is now referred to as the Redfern riots.

Gargett suggests that the media creation of the policy as worthy victims in this instance strengthens the link between Aboriginality and crime. In this way Redfern riot was portrayed within the media as an act of criminality by Aboriginal people, rather than being viewed as a response to extreme injustice and poor policing in Redfern: "Indigeneity is demonised while the police are championed" (Gargett, 2005, p4). Such portrayals of the police as worthy victims seems to deny Aboriginal people the right to be portrayed as such and this is concerning.

Our undeniable fascination with missing persons

Recently, there has been unwavering media coverage of the investigation into the whereabouts of missing 6 year old, Kiesha Abrahams.

SMH 9 August 2010

Herald Sun 6 August 2010

Daily Telegraph 4 August 2010

Sky News 4 August 2010

Overseas example

The questions that I think it invokes in each of us include ( but certainly are not limited to)

Who took her? Where should they be searching for her? Why would someone take her? What was happening at home before she went missing? These are the questions we all ask when the lives of missing persons are splashed across the media. Embodied in all of this, is the hope that somehow they will still find her alive. It makes me wonder, where does our obsession come from?

Perhaps an analysis of victimology in the media will provide an adequate answer. Melvillve and Marsh (2009) suggest that “wherever a victim exists a crime has been perpetrated”. This suggestion is useful insofar as it acknowledges that crime sells in the media. To use the example of Kiesha Abraham, the victim is almost certainly Kiesha . In so characterising her, the media is able to invoke the unconditional sympathy of readers.

It still leaves open the question as to who is the criminal. This can be said to be the question that keeps readers hooked day after day. Especially as the investigation unfolds in the media, hour by hour (in the case of online media).

So who is the criminal in Kiesha Abraham's case? Is it DOCS for failing to act on problems at home? Is it some stranger? Or is someone closer to home, her mother, step-father or her biological father? Whatever the answer, it is almost certainly a mystery that fascinates us in the most basic human way. Our curiosity has been undeniably piqued.

Melville and Marsh have presented the idea of the deserving victim as opposed to the undeserving victim as portrayed in the media. Kiesha Abraham thus can be considered a deserving victim, not only for her youth (and therefore innocence and physical vulnerability) but furthermore for the suggestions in the media that she has been the victim of family abuse: “ victims of child abuse are most obviously and strongly presented by the media as deserving victims” (Marsh and Melville, 2009, pg 105). Such implications made by the media, seek to strike out at some emotive chord within each of us, whereby we are caused to consider our own moral codes.

The undeserving victim might thus be said to be Kiesha's mother. Her mother has arguably has been portrayed as the "bad mother", particularly in light of the death of one of her other children aged 6 weeks . This is perhaps an example of Meyers' suggestion that media portrayal of women as the undesirable victim will usually involve the woman being responsible for her own victimisation (1997, p61). Although Meyers refers to violence against women, the characterisation of the woman as the propagator of her own victimisation is applicable at a higher level. So based on such an analysis of the media and the theory surrounding it, Kiesha Abraham's mother is the propagator of her own loss because of her own bad mothering. This is a disappointing construction and requires audiences to disect their own notions of women, victims, and children.

Despite the obvious obsession the media has with selling the public somewhat sadistic stories of our own humanity and our gendered notions of victims, it cannot be denied that there are benefits of this type of crime reporting. Because of the media's ability to reach mass audiences, it is possible that someone will come forward with information about a crime, where they might not otherwise have.

REFERENCES

Marsh, I & Melville, G (2009) Crime Justice and the media, routledge, Oxon

Meyers, M (1997) News Coverage of Violence Against Women; Engendering Blame, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

The truth behind "stopping the boats" ?

A federal election campaign always seems to be marred with controversial debates surrounding the Australian way of life. In 2010, that debate involves the so- called “boat people”, and a need to “stop the boats”. Indeed in the 2010 Federal election debate there are 9 references made to “stopping the boats”.

This phrase, "stop the boats", embodies both the current government and opposition opinions on the matter of asylum seekers. That is, that they [the boat people] should not be allowed to come to Australia, and furthermore, it seems to imply that asylum seekers are inherently deviant and a risk to Australia’s status quo.

However, in so saying, it should be acknowledged that it is not illegal to seek asylum. An asylum seeker is someone who has fled their country and applies to the government of another country for protection as a refugee, and this applies regardless of the mode of entry.

The continued construction of asylum seekers as deviant in nature has seen the debate in the 2010 election framed in the question of “where do we put the boat people?". Such a construction belies the real issues at hand. Boat people are not illegal immigrants as some people would have us believe. They are not committing a crime in arriving on our shores. Yet the government is intent on framing the issue as one of national security, rather than a humanitarian one. The categorisation of asylum seekers as a national security threat became particularly prominent in the 2001 Federal election. Arguably the 2001 election is the point where the issues of asylum seekers were irrevocably and erroneously intertwined with the threat of terrorism. It is through the labeling and criminalization of asylum seekers, that politicians can justify the detention of innocent individuals.

Perhaps the answer can be found within a racial analysis. According the Refugee council of Australia, in 2006-7 the top 4 countries of origin for asylum seekers were China, Sri-lanka, India and Iraq. This situation can be contrasted to those illegal immigrants, that is, those who overstay a visa. Most of these overstayers are from the US and UK. Interestingly, it is not the latter group of peoplewho are framed in the media by politicians as potential threats to our security, or indeed our way of life. By framing the issue of asylum seekers as one of national security, politics is able to play to the racial fears that have developed in a post september 11 period.

Thus, the matter of asylum seekers can be seen now in 2010, as it was in the White Australia era, as a policy shaped by Australia's xenophobic fears.