Media, Ethnicity, Green Flashcards
(12 cards)
How does the media distort public perceptions of crime?
Sociologists: Ditton & Duffy, Marsh, Felson
Theory: Interactionism / Media Sociology
What they say: Media over-reports violent/sexual crime, underreports property or white-collar crime. Felson outlines fallacies: age, class, ingenuity, police efficiency, and dramatic focus.
What this means: The media creates a false picture of crime that exaggerates risk and misleads the public.
Key Concepts: Crime myths, media fallacies, news values
Evaluation:
Supports labelling theory — media defines deviance
Left realists say this drives fear and distrust, especially among marginalised groups
Ignores hidden or cybercrime patterns
In what ways has media been blamed for causing crime?
Sociologists: Schramm, Hayward & Young
Theory: Media Effects / Cultural Criminology
What they say: Media influences behaviour via imitation, desensitisation, arousal, and glamorisation. Crime is also commodified and sold as a lifestyle — especially to youth.
What this means: Media doesn’t just reflect crime — it becomes part of its cause and image, normalising it.
Key Concepts: Copycat crime, desensitisation, commodification, mediascape
Evaluation:
Neo-Marxists link media to relative deprivation and consumer frustration
Cumberbatch found no clear evidence of causation
Overlooks parenting, peers, and social background
How does the media create moral panics?
Sociologists: Cohen, Hall et al., McRobbie & Thornton
Theory: Interactionism / Neo-Marxism
What they say: Media labels groups as folk devils, exaggerates danger, and creates public fear. This leads to harsher policing and policy changes.
What this means: The media amplifies deviance, causing overreaction and legitimising social control.
Key Concepts: Moral panic, folk devil, deviancy amplification, scapegoating
Evaluation:
Neo-Marxists argue panics mask class conflict and justify state repression
McRobbie & Thornton say the concept is outdated — audiences are fragmented and reflexive
Still useful for Islamophobia or youth demonisation
How does media affect fear and create new types of crime?
Sociologists: Lea & Young, Ditton & Duffy, Wall
Theory: Left Realism / Cybercrime
What they say: Media exaggerates the risk of crime (especially to women/elderly), increasing irrational fear. Media also enables cybercrimes (fraud, trolling, deception).
What this means: The media changes both how we feel about crime and the kinds of crime that exist.
Key Concepts: Mediated fear, cybercrime typology, real vs perceived risk
Evaluation:
Left realists argue fear is sometimes valid (e.g., inner-city deprivation)
Supports realist focus on real victims and newer threats
Doesn’t explain offline or non-media-related crime patterns
How do Lea and Young explain ethnic minority crime through economic exclusion?
Sociologists: Lea & Young
Theory: Left Realism
What they say: Ethnic minorities experience marginalisation, racism, and relative deprivation due to blocked opportunities in the UK. This leads to high levels of personal crime (e.g., violence) as a way to cope with exclusion and individualism.
Concepts: Relative deprivation, marginalisation, individualism, non-utilitarian crime
Evaluation (synoptic): Interactionists argue ethnic crime stats may reflect labelling, not actual rates. Also compare to Merton’s strain theory — both suggest blocked goals cause deviance, but left realism integrates race and late modernity.
What is Sewell’s ‘Triple Quandary’ explanation of black youth offending?
Sociologist: Tony Sewell
Theory: Interactionism
What he says: African-Caribbean boys face 3 risk factors: racism, poor family support (e.g., single parents), and media pressure to gain status. This leads to the construction of hyper-masculine subcultures, where boys seek ‘respect’ through crime and conspicuous consumption.
Concepts: Triple Quandary, hyper-masculinity, subculture, status frustration
Evaluation (synoptic): Highly socially sensitive — could imply individual blame. Similar to Cohen’s status frustration and Messerschmidt’s ideas on ‘accomplishing masculinity’ through deviance.
How does Hall explain black criminality as a social construction?
Sociologist: Stuart Hall
Theory: Neo-Marxism
What he says: In the 1970s, the media created the moral panic of the “black mugger” during an economic crisis. This folk devil justified repressive policing and distracted from capitalist instability. Crime was used ideologically to control protest and maintain hegemony.
Concepts: Moral panic, scapegoating, ideological state apparatus
Evaluation (synoptic): Contradictory — Hall admits crime wasn’t rising, then says it was due to unemployment. Downes & Rock call this inconsistent. Left realists argue mugging was real and feared, not imagined.
What is Gilroy’s argument about the myth of black criminality?
Sociologist: Paul Gilroy
Theory: Neo-Marxism / New Criminology
What he says: Crime among black youths is politically motivated — a form of resistance against racism, police stereotyping, and colonial oppression. Official statistics are a reflection of biased policing and historical mistreatment, not actual crime rates.
Concepts: Political resistance, stereotyping, new criminology, colonial legacy
Evaluation (synoptic): Criticised for lack of empirical evidence. Gilroy’s theory underestimates the role of real offending, especially among youth gangs. Compare with left realist focus on deprivation and local crime realities.
How does White distinguish between two views of environmental harm?
Sociologist: Rob White
Theory: Green Criminology
What he says: Traditional criminology uses an anthropocentric view — harm is defined by state laws and focuses on human needs. Green criminology uses an ecocentric view — prioritises environmental harm, regardless of legality. Capitalism and globalisation are seen as central causes of green crime.
Concepts: Anthropocentrism, ecocentrism, green criminology, environmental harm
Evaluation (synoptic): Braithwaite & Drahos argue that anthropocentrism reflects elite interests. However, defining harm is subjective in postmodern society, where truth is relative (Baudrillard).
What is the difference between primary and secondary green crime?
Sociologist: South
Theory: Interactionism / Green Criminology
What he says: Primary green crime causes direct environmental destruction (e.g., deforestation, species extinction). Secondary green crime breaks rules meant to prevent harm (e.g., illegal toxic waste disposal). Globalisation encourages corporate violations by enabling dumping and deregulation.
Concepts: Primary vs secondary crime, environmental deviance, deregulation
Evaluation (synoptic): Blurs lines between legal and illegal. Relates to Marxist state crime — when states or corporations harm the environment for profit, tying to zemiology (harm-based definitions).
What does Beck mean by a global risk society, and how does this relate to green crime?
Sociologist: Ulrich Beck
Theory: Postmodernism
What he says: We now live in a global risk society where threats (e.g., climate change, nuclear fallout) are man-made and cross national borders. Global events can trigger environmental insecurities, stoking public fear and social unrest (e.g., Mozambique riots after bread prices rose due to Russian wildfires).
Concepts: Risk society, manufactured risk, postmodern insecurities
Evaluation (synoptic): Beck’s ideas link to media moral panics (Hall). But critics say postmodernism makes crime definitions too vague — what counts as “harm” is open to moral and ideological framing.
How do Marxists explain weak enforcement of environmental crimes?
Sociologist: Snider
Theory: Marxism
What she says: States are reluctant to criminalise environmental harm because powerful businesses influence law-making. When environmental laws exist, they often result in fines, not prosecutions. Environmental harm lacks stigma compared to working-class street crime.
Concepts: State-corporate crime, de-labelling, regulation over prosecution
Evaluation (synoptic): Ties to Pearce’s idea of mystification — elite crime is concealed or normalised. Can also be linked to Nelken’s theory of corporate crime avoiding labelling.
