Is the British Press justified In exaggerating deviance in society?

[Woodefly]

This is my A-Level Media Studies Critical Research question and I'm having trouble getting info for it. Does anyone have any ideas or points to consider? I'm particularly having trouble with being able to justify the press, but either argument is cool :)

Cheers

[jake-the-peg]

Supporting the press over a question like this is a real challenge as personally I belive them to be proof positive that there is still a requirement for tar and feathers in this country!

However if I had to justify them I would argue along the lines of the "precautionary principal".

In other words I would argue that the consequences of not taking action over x,y or z are so terrible that it justifies all manner of exaggerations in order to avert the risk.

Of course in order to make this argument you have to accept that the press are white suited defenders of freedom and not a bunch of grubby little egotists only interested in circulation figures - but there you go.

Hope that helps

[Oneeyedvic]

The good things that have changed peoples attitudes in the last 30 years (that I can think of):

1) Drink Driving
2) Wife (spouse?) beating

Both of these have become (quite rightly) frowned upon (even though they were both illegal), but 30 years ago they were both acceptable.

The press / media has been instrumental in that.

Bad points include:

Beating up of pediatricians
Lack of male primary school teachers
Presumption of guilt before trials
Death of people wrongly identified by press
Copy cat attacks
etc
etc

[El D]

I think that you would have to make a distinction between the media in terms of pure output i.e. the benefits that can arise from exposure throught media outlets of 'relevant' issues, vs. the Press in terms of circulation, private ownership etc in other words as Jake points out is it ever really justification on justifiable grounds . . .

I would also deconstruct the question i.e. what is deviance, who defines our society, is deviance exaggerated or over reported, what is deviance, and examine the conflict between a democratic society's right to information vs the individuals right to privacy.

If having trouble justifying an issue, try falling back on particular case studies where they performed an undeniable service i.e. perhaps exposure of corruption in govt, read private eye etc. The key is obviously to find examples of both and argue for and against in each before drawing your own conclusions. If you have specific questions post them up but hope I have helped.

[jno]

if the word 'exaggerating' is in the question, the answer is almost certainly 'no'. The basic function of the press is to report, not to exaggerate. It's hard to think of any situation - not merely those concerning deviance - in which exaggeration is justified, though in fishermen's tales it might perhaps be tolerated. Just the facts, thanks, ma'am.

[jno]

Vic, re pediatricians, that story itself may have been hype:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm

[Oneeyedvic]

Thanks jno - been reading too much.

Here is the story re the innocent person confused for a paedo: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4165 582.stm

For some reason, the BBC don't mention that this was widely reported in The Scum, hence the killing!

[jno]

ah, I hadn't come across that story before, thanks Vic. Was anyone ever caught? (Sorry to hijack your thread Woodefly, but it's all pretty relevant to your original question.)

[Ladyboyg1]

I think that the response stating ' the basic function of the press is to report' is not strictly true.The Basic function of the press is to sell more copies and therefore make more money for their shareholders...To suggest that the press have any moral code to provide the general public with the necessary facts, in order that they can make their own informed judgement is in my opinion , both misguided and naive.Political and monetary gain are the only factors which hold any sway in today's society, and all press reports should be viewed with interest , but NOT considered as fact.