Media Hysteria Against Paedophiles: Barking at the Wrong Tree
Social policy and
legal measures to perfect society remain inadequate where critics and educated
observers such as Jennifer Kitzinger are not elected or assigned to legislative
or government posts that help shape laws and policies. Where people like her
are assigned to such posts, other political issues and bureaucratic impediments
will become known to people like her and probably to a public that will be
given the chance to know the information. In most instances, the link to the
exposure of information maybe the media or the press.
This highlights
the role of the media or the press in public debate, legislation and policy.
How truly important matters in the lives of the majority of people in a given
society are obscured by sensationalism in the media is a major issue, too, not
only amongst authorities, policy-makers and legislators, but also to some
enlightened members of the masses, the media, various non-government
organisations, as well as the business sector. In the “Ultimate Neighbour From
Hell” (Kitzinger, 1999), this issue about the media and societal perception is
highlighted slanting towards “the paedophile” where the convicted are
ostracised and even committed grave errors such as the burning of their homes
including the children living with them, or the innocent with them sharing in
their burdens. By arguing that media sensationalism and hysterical societal
reaction against “the paedophile” obscures legislation, Kitzinger becomes a
part of the sensationalist movement that tries to transfer blame instead of
finding solution. What
society needs is an aggressive implementation of laws to protect the innocent,
from children to elderly, and excuses such as lack of resources and
bureaucratic incompetence should be properly addressed.
Kitzinger (1999)
repeatedly pointed out that “the government and ‘the professionals’ rapidly lost
control of the news agenda and information distribution” (135), “policy makers
had to reconsider legislation, policy, and
practice,” (135), “the ‘big story’ for the media, but the major headache
for policy makers, became not government initiatives, but public fear and
anger,” (136), “Some papers assumed the role of guardians of public safety”
(138), “proof of their failure to match rationality and objectivity of the
policy makers” (140), “policy makers and the professionals losing control of
the agenda,” (140) referring to inadequacy in governance.
This inadequacy on
the part of government officials or legislators is seen on conflicting
government policies such as when 1996 Home Secretary Michael Howard made public
about a policy to monitor sex offenders (136), as “Routine community
notification and the automatic right of public access to the sex offender’
register is opposed by chief constables, chief probation officers and the
NSPCC,” (139). Already, the problem is of flawed legislation and policy. Where
offenders are monitored and made public, it should not be limited to sex
offenders but also to indicted officials on bribery and corruption cases,
owners of disastrous business enterprises that endangered the public such as
the recent oil spill by BP p. l.c. (Goldenberg, 2011), and other law violators
who committed offence against one or many individuals.
Here, it was
already obvious there was a bias on picking which is “evil”, and which are
legally right or wrong. The cases against the harassed “paedophiles” and
suspected ones enumerated by Kitzinger (1999) definitely are themselves
violations of existing laws and should have been properly acted upon but Kitzinger
failed to mention whether such cases had been actually legally acted upon or
not. This is important to vindicate the law enforcers and the policy makers.
However, it will remain falling short of the expectation for fairness and
equality. Through media and societal hysteria against paedophiles, a crisis was
identified, but it was not enough that focus was on the “evil”. It could have
been a stepping stone towards identifying policy flaws which is in the
limitation of monitoring on sex offenders, instead of “all offenders” as a
sweeping policy will divide media attention with the possibility of focusing on
what really matters most.
As Kitzinger
acceded, “It is not sufficient to focus on media coverage.” However, she may be
in for another bigger disappointment to suggest that “It is important to
consider the motives of source organisations who seek out media publicity” as
observable and fact-based motives may be conflicting. In fact, influence is
also another major factor where media is concerned as these are business
entities that may not actually be the “fourth state” but beholden to their
major stakeholders (Sullivan, 2005) as much as policy makers are (Mancuso,
1995).
The laws of the
land are based on the common perception of human rights, fairness, equality,
and freedom. Where these are violated, a common ground to sanction, monitor,
and control offenders should be enacted in a manner that is equitable to all
concerned with prevention of recurrence and protection of the innocent majority
as major goals.
For the meantime,
it should be apparent by now to critics, observers, individuals and
organisations to understand that media entities, although appear or claim to be
the voice of the people, are business enterprises that are answerable to their
major stakeholders. Members of the media have reasons and have the right to be
biased and obscure. Government officials on the other hand are beholden to the
public and have surrendered their rights to be biased, and ultimately have no
right to be obscure. They should be competent and accountable, and the public
have the right to demand for it.
Reference:
Goldenberg,
S. (2011). BP and partners face $45m in fines over Gulf oil spill. The
Guardian, October 13. Accessed from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/13/bp-fines-gulf-oil-spill
Kitzinger,
J. (1999). The Ultimate Neighbour from Hell: Stranger Danger and the Media
Framing of Paedophilia. Critical Readings: Moral Panics and the Media.
Mancuso,
M. (1995). The Ethical World of British MPs. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Sullivan,
M. (2005). Media Bias is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist. UCLA Newsroom,
December 14. Accessed from http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664
.....ugh.... post of a prostitute writer... for botched order.... hate it... about not being paid for cheap writing services.
Posts
