I was watching the local news last night, and three of the headlines were about (three unrelated) murders that took place in my hometown and the surrounding suburbs a few days earlier (This was on Friday; I think the murders took place Wednesday). I live in a fairly large city, the second largest in South Carolina, I believe. Is the number of murders I see in on the news reflective of the actual number of murders that occurs in my city?
The number of murders reported in the TV news depends mostly on the length of time the station has to fill and the extent to which they think a murder report will increase their ratings (and the same thing is largely true of newspapers also). If you want to know the number of murders in your city, look up the murder rate for the previous year and the rate so far this year. Compare this with the murder rate for other cities. Look at the rate in the past few years. In general, the murder rate has fallen everywhere in the U.S. since 1993. The same is true for most crimes. The number of murders in the past week tells you almost nothing. In fact, rereading your post, I see that these murders didn’t even all happen in your city. You need to find out the rate for the entire metropolitan area.
It’s the month of May. May is one of the sweeps months in television. Ratings tracked and generated during May ( and, I think, February and November ) are used to sell advertising time throughout the year.
In other words, blood sells. Thank GOD I don’t shoot news.
Cartooniverse
about a year ago, I came across a sit eon th web that would give you an estimate of your chance of being murdered, after you answered about 20 questions about your job, lifestyle, and so on. It was put together by some police service for a city in the southern U.S.
I can’t find my bookmark for it, nor did a google search show it up. Was it mentioned on a thread here at the SDMB? I did a search of the archives but didn’t find it.
They have a somewhat cynical saying in the news business: “If it bleeds, it ledas.”
“Leads.”
Phooey, I hate it when I post in a hurry.
Speaking as someone who works in “the media” — daily newspaper, and, no, I’m not the carrier — be careful about drawing conclusions about crime statistics based on what you see on the news, especially TV news. The little rhyming couplet mentioned above is generally true, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Murders are something out of the ordinary and thus, they are news and they deserve attention, although TV news tends to overplay their importance compared with other events in their area of coverage.
But, as recent crime statistics bare out, actual incidences of violent crime are on the decline, although people’s perception of crime doesn’t seem to follow the statistics.
I recommend that news consumers be careful with the information they receive: Consider the source. Is it one you generally trust? Have they done a fair job in the past? Do they tend to sensationalize when the only justification is to get attention, ratings or readership? Do they strive for balance?
But take care with your own perceptions, too? The next time you say to yourself or someone else, “The papers only print bad news,” actually pick up a newspaper and count the number of “bad” news stories, the number of “good” stories and the number of just “neutral,” stories.
Newspapers, TV and radio do run “bad” news, but that’s part of our job. This, generally, is stuff you need to know to be a part of the community. This is stuff you need to know so you can take appropriate action to change your community.
If you come across stories that you don’t believe are necessary and are just tittilating and sensational, then stop reading them or listening to them and tell the newspaper or station that you don’t think they are appropriate.
Believe me. We listen to our readers, viewers and listeners.
There can be an inverse realtionship between coverage of murders in a given area and the actual incidence of murder in that area. When I was living in L.A. (which,IIRC, had a murder rate of about one a day) the news rarely reported on murders - it wasn’t news. Now that I live in a peaceful rural area, the few murders we have are reported on extensively.
If you’re really interested in reading about the media blowing a ‘crime wave’ out of control, try reading Leyton, O’Grady, and Overton’s “Violence and Public Anxiety”. They have a lot of great information in there about ways the media influence people’s beliefs in crime sprees. Newfoundland, where I live, was being made out to be drowning in a sea of blood a while back, but our homicide rate has been roughly the same for ages (since 1978 we’ve been on a general downward trend) - 1 per 100,000 per year. Nice and low, just the way I like it. 
Specifically, one thing the media did was quote studies that were VERY shabbily done… one study compared two violent crime rates: One that considered anything more ‘violent’ than simple assault as a violent crime, and another study that took aggravate assaults and homicides only - how invalid is that?!
Anyhow. Don’t judge how violent your area is based on the TV is the moral behind my post.
FD.
ignatzmouse writes:
> When I was living in L.A. (which,IIRC, had a murder rate
> of about one a day) the news rarely reported on murders -
> it wasn’t news.
Let me make a technical quibble here: One murder per day is not a murder rate. It’s the raw number of murders. The murder rate is given as something like X number of murders per year per 100,000 people in the area. It’s important to know the difference because only the murder rate, not the raw number, is useful in comparing different cities, states, etc.
Yes, I know the difference, but the nature of the true murder rate is, by its nature, only reported once a year. What we are talking about in this thread is reporting of murders throughout the year.
If I choose to right a monograph on crime statistics, I’ll be more precise with my language.
Is this what you were looking for Piper?
http://www.telalink.net/~police/risk/murder.html
ignatzmouse writes:
> If I choose to right a monograph on crime statistics,
> I’ll be more precise with my language.
And perhaps you’ll also spell the word “write” correctly.
You were talking about the difference between Los Angeles and the rural area where you live now. Knowing the raw numbers of murders tells you nothing unless you also know the population of those two areas. Knowing the rate rather than the raw numbers is important even in casual situations, like this message board, for instance.