Historically, the United States has been wrought with discrimination and segregation. In the past decades we have become a population without segregation, but did we end discrimination? The answer is no. Media shapes our understanding and view of individuals and crime. Media is our main source of information and our news stations and papers have the power to change the minds of readers. From these outlets we get our information of crime and who they deem “criminal”. The way these are presented can either make the story of little relevance or it can become the days’ pressing issue. The news on TV and the papers both have connotations of discrimination within the text. They also use imagery that conveys different opinions and attitudes about
…show more content…
We are only showed what is deemed newsworthy while a whole lot of other situations are going on in the country or in your community. The news outlets receive their information and frame their stories around primary definers (Archbold et al, 2013, p. 302). These primary definers are not the ones involved in the events. They are often individuals who are in positions to set public policy. They have more access to the media due to their hierarchic position in society. In 2011, Lori Dorman and Vincent Schiraldi conducted a meta-analysis of research on how the media is presenting crime and race (as cited in Archbold et al, 2013, p. 302). Through their study of newspapers, they found that racial minorities were overrepresented as criminals and perpetrators (as cited in Archbold et al., 2013, p.302). They also found that newspapers don’t usually run stories on minority victims. This is due to the fact that when crime victims were white, the newsworthiness of the story went up (as cited in Archbold et al., 2013, p. 303). Due to …show more content…
Before 9/11, racial profiling was huge, but seen as an ineffective and pervasive approach to policing. Before 9/11 82% of newspaper articles discussed racial profiling in the context of police behavior and 2% in the context of terrorism (Archbold et al, 2013). The government also had a hand in the media. Government officials were the most common source of information before 9/11. Citizens opinions were often overlooked and not talked about. This all changed after 9/11. Racial profiling started to become a tool to prevent terrorist attacks. Racial Profiling was being presented in ways that would justify its use (Archbold, 2013). After 9/11 33% of articles discussed racial profiling in the context of terrorism, 27% about police behavior, and 35% contained both (as cited in Archbold et al, 2013, p. 305). We also came into a time when government officials were not the only ones with a voice. 35.8% of articles after 9/11 voiced citizens’ opinions, and not from who you would expect. Government officials are mostly and predominately white, but the citizens with opinions were both African American and Arab American. This change in news media from only white opinion/source to a mixed opinion and sources has a lot to do with media in 2016. While researching, there was a distinction from older news articles and those after the
We are only showed what is deemed newsworthy while a whole lot of other situations are going on in the country or in your community. The news outlets receive their information and frame their stories around primary definers (Archbold et al, 2013, p. 302). These primary definers are not the ones involved in the events. They are often individuals who are in positions to set public policy. They have more access to the media due to their hierarchic position in society. In 2011, Lori Dorman and Vincent Schiraldi conducted a meta-analysis of research on how the media is presenting crime and race (as cited in Archbold et al, 2013, p. 302). Through their study of newspapers, they found that racial minorities were overrepresented as criminals and perpetrators (as cited in Archbold et al., 2013, p.302). They also found that newspapers don’t usually run stories on minority victims. This is due to the fact that when crime victims were white, the newsworthiness of the story went up (as cited in Archbold et al., 2013, p. 303). Due to …show more content…
Before 9/11, racial profiling was huge, but seen as an ineffective and pervasive approach to policing. Before 9/11 82% of newspaper articles discussed racial profiling in the context of police behavior and 2% in the context of terrorism (Archbold et al, 2013). The government also had a hand in the media. Government officials were the most common source of information before 9/11. Citizens opinions were often overlooked and not talked about. This all changed after 9/11. Racial profiling started to become a tool to prevent terrorist attacks. Racial Profiling was being presented in ways that would justify its use (Archbold, 2013). After 9/11 33% of articles discussed racial profiling in the context of terrorism, 27% about police behavior, and 35% contained both (as cited in Archbold et al, 2013, p. 305). We also came into a time when government officials were not the only ones with a voice. 35.8% of articles after 9/11 voiced citizens’ opinions, and not from who you would expect. Government officials are mostly and predominately white, but the citizens with opinions were both African American and Arab American. This change in news media from only white opinion/source to a mixed opinion and sources has a lot to do with media in 2016. While researching, there was a distinction from older news articles and those after the