Youth, Moral Economy, and the Media

CH 8: YOUTH AND THE MORAL ECONOMY The moral economy → how societal values, norms, and power structures influence perceptions of youth behavior The moral economy reflects power dynamics where institutions such as government, law enforcement, and media dictate youth r...

CH 8: YOUTH AND THE MORAL ECONOMY The moral economy → how societal values, norms, and power structures influence perceptions of youth behavior The moral economy reflects power dynamics where institutions such as government, law enforcement, and media dictate youth representation Moral Panics and Young People Revisiting Moral Panics: The Processual Model ​ Moral panic → periods of exaggerated societal fear over a perceived threat ​ Media-driven process that amplifies moral outrage, influencing social policies and legal responses (e.g., media attention leads to harsher policies, which escalates deviance) Key Components of a Moral Panic Folk devils Moral Entrepreneurs Media Distortion Public Consensus Groups that are Politicians, media, and Normal events are The belief that an issue demands scapegoated as threats to community leaders who push sensationalized, urgent action, often leading to social order for stricter control reinforcing stereotypes disproportionate responses Expanding Moral Panics: The Attributional Model 5 characters that focus on who drives the panic and their motivations, rather than the process of a moral panic: 1.​ Concern – public alarm over a perceived social issue 2.​ Hostility – targeted group becomes an enemy of societal values 3.​ Consensus – widespread agreement that the issue requires intervention 4.​ Disproportionately – the level of fear exceeds the actual threat 5.​ Volatility – moral panics emerge suddenly and often fade just as quickly The potential social and legal consequences that arise when the media exaggerates threats posed by youth? ​ Criminalization of youth: reactionary policies increase surveillance and policing of marginalized ​ Structural factors ignored: poverty and unemployment as root causes of youth crime are overlooked ​ Reinforcement of social order: moral panics justify stricter laws, benefiting elites and business interests ​ Media’s role: commercial media profits from sensationalism, shaping public perception to support punitive measures “Squeegee Kids” Moral Panic Media portrayal: youth washing car windows at intersections framed as a public safety threat Policy response: the Ontario government introduced the Safe Streets Act (1999), which criminalized panhandling and squeegeeing under the justification of public safety Criticism: scholars argue that this law disproportionately targeted marginalized and homeless youth, reinforcing punitive responses to poverty rather than addressing underlying social issues (Parnaby, 2003) Sexting as a moral panic ​ Sexting involves sharing explicit images or messages via digital platforms ​ Media and policymakers frame sexting as a moral crisis, often linking it to child pornography and online exploitation ​ Legal and policy responses often fail to distinguish between consensual behavior and exploitation. Typification and Particularism Moral panics and Issue Selection Certain events gain more public attention due to newsworthiness and framing, shaping public perception and state intervention Media stereotyping and typifications ​ Media constructs stereotypes of youth based on typifications that become naturalized over time ​ Common stereotypes of youth in media: ○​ Ideal youth: successful, affluent, fun-loving ○​ Threats: defiant, involved in crime, disrespectful ○​ Victims: homeless, unemployed, struggling with mental health ○​ Parasites: lazy, dependent on welfare Framing and visual representation ​ Media does not just report events – it actively shapes how the public perceives them through framing ​ Captions, headlines, and image selection can reinforce stereotypes and moral and panic narratives, influencing emotional reactions ​ A neutral or even innocent image can take on a sinister or threatening meaning when paired with specific captions or context ○​ Example: “troubled teen” vs “violent thug” – the same crime can be framed differently based on the person’s background Particularism in Legal Reforms ​ Moral panics exaggerate youth deviance ​ Particularism emerges as a response, where laws are created for specific incidents instead of applying existing legal frameworks Social Media Violence, Incels, and Moral Panics What are incels? Involuntary celibates (incels) are men who define themselves by their inability to form or access seual relationships with women -​ The incel ideology is rooted in the belief that women have too much power in the sexual/romantic sphere and ruin incels’ lives by rejecting them Youth involvement ​ Many young men, especially those struggling socially, may initially be drawn to these spaces for self-help or dating advice before exposure to extremist content. ​ Many who fall into extremist incel ideology feel socially rejected, leading to resentment. Incel Ideology ​ Feminism must be overthrown ​ “Incel rebellion” or “beta uprising” → A violent response against an incel’s sexual deprivation Racial bias in media and the CJS → Public discourse often ignores systemic factors and focuses on individual responsibility, reinforcing negative stereotypes. ​ Example: “The Kids are all White” The Role of Media in the Hyperincarceration of Minority Youth 1.​ Moral panics fueled by racialized media coverage lead to harsher policing, surveillance, and sentencing laws that disproportionately impact minority youth 2.​ Labelling theory suggests that youth internalize negative stereotypes (e.g., “criminal”, “delinquent”) CH 9: RACIALIZED VIOLENCE AND HATE CRIME Bias, Racism, Discrimination and Hate Crimes Explicit vs implicit bias -​ Explicit → involves conscious beliefs and attitudes -​ Implicit → below the levels of conscious awareness, affecting judgements & behaviors subtly  Biases come from Definitions Race is a social construct based on Ethnicity refers to cultural attributes Racism manifests through beliefs and perceived differences such as physical that define identity within a group, behaviors that assert the superiority of traits, background, language, religion, such as shared customs, language or certain racial or ethnic groups over others, and country of origin attachment to an ancestral homeland often leading to discrimination and violence Trajectory of racism and the media Hate crimes and Racialized Violence ​ A criminal offence committed against a person, group of people or property that is motivated by the suspect's hate, prejudice or bias, based on race, colour, national or ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation ​ Unlike most violent crimes, hate crimes often target strangers based on group identity rather than personal disputes. The Media: Permission to Hate The role of Media in constructing “Folk Devils” → Media plays a key role in shaping public perceptions of crime by constructing "folk devils", or groups that serve as scapegoats for social anxieties. Media Impacts on Policing and Criminal Justice Stereotypical media portrayals of racialized groups, particularly Black and Indigenous individuals, contribute to over-policing, racial profiling, and harsher sentencing. Young Black men in Toronto were disproportionately stopped by police due to racialized gang narratives (Wortley & Tanner, 2004) Media Impacts on Employment and Economic Disparities Media depictions shape employer biases, influencing hiring decisions and workplace discrimination Employers in Canada are about 40% more likely to interview a job applicant with an English-sounding name despite identical education, skills and experience Media impacts on Social Policies and Public Perception  Media narratives influence political discourse and public policy, often justifying harsher laws against racialized communities In Canada, the "ethnic gang" narrative has been used to justify tougher immigration policies, reinforcing the idea that non-White immigrants bring crime. Social Media and Radicalization Algorithmic Amplification → the process by which social media platforms’ algorithms prioritize and promote content that elicits strong emotional reactions, such as anger or outrage, to maximize user engagement -​ Content that provokes strong emotions tends to generate higher engagement, leading algorithms to prioritize such material in users' feeds. -​ Example: Some content creators employ "rage-baiting" strategies, crafting posts designed to provoke outrage and increase engagement. Echo Chambers → These are environments where individuals encounter information or opinions that mirror their own without exposure to opposing viewpoints Algorithmic Personalization Self-Selection -​ Social media platforms utilize algorithms to tailor content -​ Users often choose to engage with content and to individuals, promoting material that aligns with their communities that reflect their own past interactions perspectives -​ While this enhances user engagement, it can also restrict -​ This behavior contributes to the formation of exposure to diverse viewpoints, reinforcing existing echo chambers, as individuals are less likely beliefs to encounter dissenting opinions Islamophobia In Canada, Muslim and Arab communities have frequently been framed as threats in media and political discourse, particularly following 9/11, the Syrian refugee crisis, and high-profile terrorist attacks abroad. -​ Hate crimes targeting Muslims increased by 71 percent in 2021 Media Narratives on the ‘Arab Other’ ​ Cases of fatal domestic violence within the South Asian and Middle Eastern communities have been re-constructed as ”honour killings” and have become sensationalized and racialized ​ Demonizes an entire race and culture Social Media, Moral Panics, and the Spread of Hate Speech ​ Islamophobic content spreads easily on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, reinforcing anti-Muslim narratives and justifying exclusionary policies. ​ Public fear-mongering, such as the false claim that halal food certification funds terrorism, originated online and gained traction in mainstream discourse. Explaining the Link Between Refugee Populations and Terrorism 1.​ Explains right-wing terrorism: -​ Often motivated by white supremacist/anti-muslim/anti-refugee hatred -​ Terrorist attacks in countries that have higher populations of refugees are because the refugees are targets for acts of terrorism, not the perpetrators of it 2.​ Refugees are not radicalized when they arrive: -​ Social exclusion, harassment, and alienation can significantly impact refugees, potentially leading to feelings of marginalization and resentment. -​ This environment may increase their vulnerability to extremist ideologies, even if they had no prior inclinations toward such beliefs. Islamophobia and the “terrorism” Narrative This is evident in how attacks committed by white individuals are framed differently from those committed by racialized individuals: ​ Muslim suspects are often labeled as “terrorists”, whereas white suspects are described as “troubled individuals” with “mental health issues”  ​ The 2017 Quebec City Mosque attack, where a white nationalist killed six Muslim worshippers, was not widely labeled as terrorism, despite fitting the defitinion of a terrorist act Dangers of the Islamic ‘terrorism’ Narrative: The Case of Maher Arar ​ 9/11 terrorist attacks led to widespread fear and suspicion toward Muslim communities ​ Islamophobia became deeply embedded in public discourse, with media and politicians frequently associating Muslims with extremism and terrorism. ​ Wrongful detention: Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, was detained at JFK airport in 2002 while returning from Tunisia. US authorities suspected him of terrorism based on RCMP information later proven false ​ Extraordinary rendition: despite his pleas and valid Canadian passport, Arar was deported to Syria (against his will) where he was imprisoned and tortured for a year ​ Torture in Syria: while in Syrian custody, he endured brutal torture and inhumane treatment. Syrian officials later admitted they found no links between Arar and any terrorist organization. CH 10: CRIMES OF THE POWERFUL Corporate, state, and environmental crimes receive little media attention and are not framed as systemic issues -​ Crimes of the powerful are often portrayed as accidents, exceptions or rare events rather than ongoing problems ​ Involves abuses of power by Crimes of the Powerful elite individuals, businesses, and Corporate crime: State crime: State-corporate crime: governments White-collar fraud, tax Police brutality, Government- ​ Often under-reported, difficult to evasion corruption Business collusion prosecute, and normalized within society Corporate crime → Illegal or unethical activities committed by businesses or individuals within corporations to maximize profit, reduce costs, and/or maintain market dominance ​ Fraud, environmental harm, tax evasion, price-fixing, unsafe working conditions, and false advertising ​ Example: The Great Canadian Bread Prixe-Fixing scandal, Opioid Crisis State crime → Illegal or harmful actions committed by government officials, agencies, or the military that violate domestice/international laws ​ Abuse of power, corruption, human rights violations, police brutality, and suppression of dissent. ​ Example: The Iraq war State Corporate crime → allows corporation to engage in criminal behavior with state protection or minimal regulation ​ Environmental destruction, economic exploitation, labor violations, and human rights abuses ​ Example: the Expansion of Trans Mountain Pipeline Government’s Role: Private Industry’s Role: ​ Spent $4.5B to buy TMX and weakened environmental ​ Big oil companies profit while lobbying for regulations to push pipeline approval subsidies & weaker regulations ​ Ignored indigenous opposition & used RCMP to suppress ​ Framed TMX as essential for the economy while protests dismissing Indigenous & environmental concerns Human rights violations: Environmental consequences: ​ Indigenous land rights were ignored, and protests were ​ Increased oil spill risks & harm to ecosystems criminalized from 7x tanker traffic rise  ​ At least 58 Indigenous archaeological sites were destroyed ​ The pipeline contradicts Canada’s climate by pipeline construction commitments and caused a major spill in 2020 near Sumar First Nation’s water source Who suffers? Who profits? ​ Taxpayers fund the project while private companies profit ​ Big oil companies gain billions in profits with no ​ Indigenous communities face land loss, criminalization, & financial risk ecological harm ​ Executives & lobbyists benefit while the public bears environmental & economic burdens Neoliberalism & the Structure of Power Why are corporate & state crimes so prevalent? Neoliberalism → an economic/political system that prioritizes free markets, privatization, and deregulation, allowing powerful entities to operate with little oversight Neoliberalism: Deregulation ​ Neoliberalism reduces industry regulations (e.g., finance, oil, pharma) ​ Corporations exploit loopholes for profit ​ Justified by claims that regulation hinders growth ​ 2008 Financial crisis: Deregulated banks took risky actions → crash ​ Result: mass layoffs, unemployment, evictions, financial ruin ​ The government bailed out banks but cut public services Neoliberalism: Privatization ​ Neoliberalism privatizes services (healthcare, water, transit) for ‘efficiency’ ​ Corporations/investors control essentials → Higher costs, worse access/quality ​ Example: BC Ferries privatized → higher fares, reduced service for reliant communities ​ CEO earned $1M+ yearly – far above public wages ​ Less accountability – no longer bound by transparency laws Neoliberalism: Weakened Labor Protections ​ Neoliberalism weakens unions/labor rights for “competitiveness.” ​ Employers avoid fair wages/benefits ​ Workers face low pay, insecurity, unsafe conditions ​ Example: Gig jobs (Uber, DoorDash) – drivers labeled “partners”, no benefits or stable income ​ Demanding better pay risks deactivation, no legal protection Neoliberalism: Corporate Control of Essential Resources ​ Neoliberalism gives corporations control over key resources ​ Private firms seen as more “efficient” than government  ​ Privatization is said to attract investment and boost growth ​ Example: Nestle privatize water – treat it as a commodity, not public goods ​ Nestlé extracts Canadian water cheaply for profit, while Indigenous communities lack clean water Neoliberalism and the media ​ Shapes media to protect corporate elites and hide systemic issues ​ Media influenced by corporate ownerships, ads, and News values: pro-business government ties ​ Media prefers dramatic, visual stories ​ Powerful crimes are downplayed, blame is shifted to with clear villains individuals ​ Complex crimes (e.g., fraud, pollution) ​ Examples: get less coverage ○​ Corporate crime = “business misconduct” → ​ Example: sensational crimes get more avoid prosecution clicks than environmental harm ○​ Corruption = “political controversy” → hides systemic problems ○​ Inequality blamed on individuals, not corporate greed → Discourages reform Neoliberalism and Punishment ​ Corporate crimes (e.g., fraud, tax evasion) cost billions, yet execs rarely face prison ​ Poorer individuals committing minor crimes (e.g., shoplifting) face harsher sentences ○​ Example: embezzlers may get house arrest; someone stealin $100 gets jail time ​ Neoliberal justice protects property, markets, and elites ○​ Street crime = threat to order → punished harshly ○​ Corporate crime = benefits elites → treated lightly, as regulation issues ​ The state prioritizes market growth over accountability Criminal Fictions: How Corporate Crimes are Constructed Why are crimes of the powerful underreported? Framing: ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Crime is framed as a moral failure, reinforcing class stereotypes ​ Street crimes are more visible, frequently reported, ​ and harshly punished ​ Corporate crimes cause more harm but are: ○​ Framed as ethical lapses or regulatory issues ○​ Punished with fines ○​ Excluded from crime stats Ownership: ​ Media owned by corporations with a stake in hiding corporate crime ​ Creates conflict of interest – elite crimes are downplayed or ignored ​ Example: NBC is owned by General Electric, a nuclear company → nuclear risks underreported Accidents or Systemic Failures? Media Framing of Corporate Crime Techniques of Neutralization: Framing and Minimizing Harm Governments and corporations use “techniques of neutralization” to justify or obscure their crimes  1)​ Denial of Responsibility: 2)​ Denial of Injury: 3)​ Denial of the victim -​ Claiming that harm is -​ Downplaying the -​ Blaming victims for their own suffering accidental or unavoidable severity of the harm -​ Example: Climate change -​ Example: fossil fuel -​ Example: coal disproportionately affects the Global companies argue that oil industry claims that South, but corporations claim extraction is necessary for pollution is “natural” developing nations must learn to economic stability or “minimal” “adapt” Techniques of Neutralization: How Power Justifies Harm 4)​ Condemnation of the condemners: 5)​ Appeal to higher loyalties: -​ Attacking critics instead of addressing the -​ Justifying harm in the name of national or economic issue interests -​ Example: scientists warning about climate -​ Example: governments argue that environmental change are labeled as “alarmists” or “biased.” regulations would “hurt the economy” PR tactics to minimize responsibility: Shifting Blame The company blames third-party contractors, equipment malfunctions, or “Human error.” ​ Example: The Boeing 727 MAX crashes were blamed on pilot error rather than design flaws PR tactics to minimize responsibility: Rebranding Companies position themselves as “fixing” the problem without admitting wrongdoing Example: BP (gas/oil) released commercials promoting their environmental efforts to downplay a large oil spill PR Tactics to Minimize Responsibility: Greenwashing → Misleading marketing to seem eco-friendly while harming the environment; makes the public think companies are more sustainable than they are ​ Example: Pathways Alliance (2021) -​ Oil companies spent $24M on “net zero” ads -​ In reality, they lobby against climate policies and expand oil production PR Tactics to Minimize Responsibility: Settlements → Many corporations pay out-of-court settlements rather than going to trial, avoding public accountability Example: Canadian banks involved in money laundering scandals paid fines without admitting fault PR Tactics to Minimize Responsibility: Too Big to Fail Arguments → Some companies are seen as too important to the economy to penalize without risking stability ​ Example: Canada Post Strike (2024): -​ Workers demanded better pay and conditions -​ Canada Post claimed major financial losses and debt -​ The government intervened, ending the strike without a deal - the union’s right to strike was revoked Media Focus on Individual “Bad Actors” vs Systemic Issues Media and crime perception: ​ Frames corporate crime as isolated incidents ​ Blames “bad apples” instead of the system Legal and Financial Suppression of Opposition Crimes of the powerful are often protected through legal intimidation, corporate influence, media control, and political suppression Example: criminalizing whistleblowers & activists ​ Laws and regulations prevent public scrutiny of state and corporate crimes ​ Example: The Security of Information Act has been used to suppress whistleblowers exposing government misconduct  and corporate collusion. Journalistic Neutrality and Resisting Manufactured Narratives The concept of journalistic neutrality Potential Downsides of Journalistic Neutrality Resisting Manufactured Narratives Even mainstream media must acknowledge corporate crime and environmental harm when issues become too big to ignore (e.g., the Enron scandal) Independent Journalism → news reporting conducted without influence from corporate ownership, government funding, or major political affiliations Not owned by large media conglomerates, Often focuses on underreported issues Have more freedom to challenge allowing for more critical coverage of that mainstream media ignores due to mainstream narratives and corporate and government wrongdoing commercial or political pressures fact-check powerful institutions CH 11: CRIME AS ENTERTAINMENT ​ The public has always been fascinated with crime, morality and justice Broadsides and Penny dreadfuls (19th True crime magazines (20th century) Crime TV shows (20th-21st century) Printed stories of gruesome crimes with century) Cheap, sensationalist crime stories sold to exaggerated headlines From detective stories to forensic the mass crime dramas -​ 1920s-1950s: detective fiction (Michael Shayne private detective) -​ 1960s-1980s: legal dramas and police procedurals (California LA law) -​ 1990s-2010s: Forensic science TV (Bones) -​ Modern Era: podcasts & streaming true crime (making a murderer) Debates on true crime and crime dramas ​ Popular true crime shows raise ethical concerns about treating crime as entertainment ​ Crime dramas like CSI focus on forensic science, shifting the spotlight to scientists as protagonists.  ​ CSI effect → how such shows may influence public and jury expectations of forensic evidence in real trials The Rise of CSI and Crime TV CSI’s portrayal of police and forensic science CSI presented forensic scientists as crime-fighting heroes: ​ Blurred the lines between police and forensic scientists ​ CSI-depicted forensic scientists arrest suspects or carry guns ​ Made forensic scientists appear to be experts in everything Forensic science as a storytelling device The “scientific detective” and the illusion of objectivity Function: Provides clear, irrefutable proof of guilt, eliminating uncertainty in resolution ​ Traditional detectives use intuition and psychology to solve crimes ​ Forensic scientists are shown as objective, using science to find the truth ​ Justice is portrayed as clear-cut, with little room for moral complexity ​ Simplifies complex cases for quick viewer understanding Evidence as absolute truth Function: Provides clear, irrefutable proof of guilt, eliminating uncertainty in resolution ​ Crime dramas show forensic evidence as flawless and unquestionable ​ Tests are portrayed as always accurate, with no errors or ambiguity ​ Suggests that every criminal leaves clear evidence leading to justice ​ Science replaces complex detective work and legal debates The Speed of Crime Solving Function: keeps the plot moving quickly, crimes are solved within a single episode ​ Crime dramas show instant lab results and database matches ​ Fast evidence keeps the plot moving and avoids real-world delays ​ Emphasizes quick resolution over procedural accuracy CSI vs Real Forensic Science ​ CSI shows forensic scientists as armed heroes solving crimes ​ In reality, they work in labs, focusing on specialized evidence analysis Real Forensic Job Roles vs CSI Investigators ​ Evidence custodian: manages & ​ Firearms/tool mark examiner: ​ CSI characters do all of protects evidence examines ballistic evidence these jobs. This never ​ Crime scene analyst: ​ Forensic lab tech: supports happens in reality. photographs scenes, collects lab-based forensic analysis ​ Forensic scientists evidence ​ Latent print examiner: Compares don’t conduct ​ Criminalist: scientific tests, fingerprints interrogations, carry provides expert testimony ​ Photo tech: manages forensic weapons, or make ​ Document examiner: analyzes photography arrests. handwriting, forgeries Crime Scene Investigations in CSI vs Reality Crime scenes in CSI The Reality  ​ Investigators arrive fast, often alone, and do it all - ​ Police secure scenes first; forensic teams come later collect evidence, question, and arrest ​ Forensic scientists don’t arrest or question witnesses ​ Scenes are clean and well-lit, and evidence is easy ​ Scenes are messy, evidence may be unclear or to find missing ​ Little focus on procedures or documentation ​ Strict procedures and chain of custody are essential Forensic labs in CSI vs Reality CSI’s representation of Forensic Labs Reality of Forensic Labs ​ High-tech, well-funded, fast, and always ​ Often underfunded with staff shortages and long delays accurate ​ Results take time, may be inconclusive, and can involve ​ Instant, conclusive results errors Forensic Evidence in CSI vs Reality Forensic Evidence in CSI The Reality ​ Forensic evidence is shown as flawless and more ​ Evidence isn’t always available or tested due to reliable than eyewitnesses limits ​ “Evidence doesn’t lie” suggests it always reveals the ​ Testing is slow, involves human interpretation, and truth can be prone to error DNA Processing in CSI vs Reality Forensic Evidence in CSI The Reality ​ DNA is always present, perfectly preserved, ​ DNA testing takes weeks, may be degraded or inconclusive, and instantly matches with 100% accuracy and involves interpretation and possible errors Legal Admissibility of Forensic Evidence in Canada Wrongful conviction tied to forensic errors – R v Morin (1995) The crime (1984): Investigation and conviction: Exoneration (1995): ​ 9-year-old Christine Jessop was ​ Morin was acquitted in ​ New DNA testing ruled out abducted, assaulted, and 1986, then convicted in a Morin murdered in Ontario retrial ​ He was acquitted, and a public ​ Neighbor Guy Paul Morin ​ Conviction based on hair inquiry revealed major flaws in became a suspect due to and fiber analysis linking the investigation and forensic perceived odd behavior him to the scene practices Canadian legal standards: The Mohan Test Requires that expert testimony (including forensic science) meet four criteria: 1.​ Relevance – the evidence must be logically connected to an issue in the case 2.​ Necessity in assisting the trier of fact – the evidence must provide knowledge beyond common understanding 3.​ Absence of an exclusionary rule – the evidence must not violate legal principles 4.​ Properly qualified expert – the individual presenting the evidence must be an accredited expert in the field The heightened reliability test – R v J-LJ → builds on the Mohan Test, requiring stricter standards for new or controversial forensic evidence to prevent junk science from misleading juries. 1.​ New or uncommon forensic methods face stricter scrutiny 2.​ Techniques must be scientifically tested and proven reliable 3.​ Judges assess if the evidence helps more than it misleads 4.​ Methods must hold up in court and under cross-examination Admissibility standards and CSI ​ CSI wrongly suggests all forensic evidence is reliable and always admissible  ​ Courts apply strict tests (Mohan + Heightened Reliability) to ensure scientific validity ​ Some CSI techniques (e.g. bite marks, lie detectors) are often rejected in court Reel Justice vs Real Justice: The CSI Effect The “CSI Effect”: ​ Fictional crime shows shape public views of forensic science and justice ​ Coined in 2002, it raised concerns about unrealistic expectations of real labs. Public misconceptions about forensic science ​ TV crime dramas like CSI and NCIS distort public understanding by prioritizing entertainment over accuracy. ​ While forensic science has advanced, real investigations are slower, less glamorous, and more complex than those portrayed on TV. Types of CSI Effects Strong Prosecutor’s Effect ​ Who is affected: Jurors ​ What happens: Jurors influenced by crime dramas expect forensic evidence in every case and may acquit if it’s not presented, even when other compelling evidence exists Example: ​ In R. v. Hunter (2005), a juror questioned the absence of DNA evidence despite a confession. ​ This reflects rising juror expectations for forensic “proof,” though not all acquittals are due to the CSI effect. Weak Prosecutor’s Effect ​ Who is affected: prosecutors ​ What happens: Prosecutors alter how they present cases, anticipating that jurors expect forensic evidence. What does this look like? ​ Over-explaining why no forensic evidence exists ​ Calling more expert witnesses even when their testimony adds limited value ​ Over-relying on lab reports to “boost” the weight of evidence Defendant’s Effect ​ Who is affected: Jurors ​ What happens: Jurors assign greater weight and credibility to forensic expert testimony, sometimes even when the science is disputed or limited ○​ Crime dramas portray forensic evidence as conclusive, infallible, and the key to solving crimes. ○​ Viewers, including jurors, internalize this belief, assuming forensic experts are always correct. Producer’s Effect ​ Who is affected: Jurors ​ What happens: Jurors and the general public gain more knowledge about forensic science due to crime dramas. ○​ Positive: Jurors better understand forensic terminology, increasing engagement in trials ○​ Negative: Overconfidence may lead jurors to misinterpret expert testimony and assume forensic evidence is conclusive when it's often probabilistic. Educator’s Effect ​ Who is affected: Students ​ What happens: More students pursue careers in forensic science, inspired by TV crime dramas. o Many students  expect to work in high-tech crime labs solving murders, but real forensic work involves routine lab tasks, report writing, and long case backlogs. Example: ​ Universities, like SFU, expanded forensic science programs due to rising demand after CSI's popularity. ​ However, instructors report many students underestimate the tedious nature of the work. Police Chief’s Effect ​ Who is affected: Criminals ​ What happens: : Criminals modify their behaviour to avoid forensic detection (e.g. wearing gloves to prevent leaving fingerprints, using bleach or fire to destroy DNA evidence, not licking envelopes or removing cigarette butts to prevent leaving saliva/DNA traces). Example: ​ Toronto police (2008) saw more criminals using bleach and gloves, common in TV dramas.​ RCMP experts noted that criminals avoid digital traces with burner phones and encrypted apps. Victim’s Effect ​ Who is affected: Crime victims ​ What happens: Victims expect forensic analysis (DNA testing, fingerprinting) to be performed for every crime, including minor offenses Example: ​ Canadian police prioritize forensic testing for violent crimes, leaving victims of lesser cases disappointed. ​ In property crimes, victims often request fingerprinting or DNA testing, despite low evidentiary value. Tech Effect ​ Who is affected: Jurors ​ What happens: Jurors develop heightened expectations for forensic evidence, not just from fictional TV portrayals (like in the CSI Effect), but also from real-world technological advancements in policing and science (e.g., rapid DNA testing, AI, digital surveillance). ○​ Jurors may expect access to advanced technology like facial recognition and phone tracking. ○​ The absence of forensic evidence may be seen as a weak case, even if it's not relevant or feasible. Potential Consequences of the CSI Effect ​ Eyewitness testimony may be undervalued in favor of scientific evidence ​ Irrelevant forensic evidence may be introduced to meet juror expectations, and judges may need to clarify it ​ Legal professionals spend more time learning forensic procedures, and jurors may expect unlimited resources and quick processing of evidence The CSI effect – fact or fiction? Media Influence: Cultivation Theory Suggests long-term TV exposure gradually shapes perceptions of reality ​ Originally focused on violence (Mean World Syndrome), it helps explain why frequent crime drama viewers may expect high-tech forensics, flawless evidence, and TV-like trials in real life. Limitations of cultivation theory in the CSI Effect Debate Active audiences Fragmented media environment Media literacy and critical thinking Modern theory sees viewers as active, TV is no longer the dominant media Many viewers are media literate and not passive – they interpret, question, source. People now consume understand that forensic science on TV is or reject media based on their content across various platforms simplified. While they may enjoy crime knowledge. Many recognize crime and often choose media that aligns dramas, jurors are capable of making shows like CSI as dramatized fiction with their views, making TV just thoughtful, independent decisions in one of many influences court Research on the CSI Effect Some studies show jurors may overvalue forensic evidence, others find no link, and some say CSI viewers are more critical ​ Challenges in Measuring: ​ Jury deliberations are confidential ​ Media use varies by individual ​ No clear rise acquittals ​ No control group unaffected by media What we do know about the CSI Effect ​ The CSI Effect is real but not as strong or clear-cut as media suggests. ​ It shapes public and juror expectations, influences courtroom behavior, but there's no solid evidence it changes verdicts. More rigorous research is needed. New Media, New Effects As CSI-style shows fade, true crime docs, podcasts, and streaming series have risen.​ These focus less on glorifying forensics and more on exposing flaws and biases in the justice system Suspicion of law enforcement: Emphasis on wrongful Public engagement in cold case activism: Many modern true crime stories convictions: Viewers now see themselves as depict police misconduct, tunnel Media now often focuses on people investigators or advocates through social vision, or poor investigative practices who were convicted despite weak media, Reddit forums, or grassroots or faulty evidence campaigns The Evolution of True Crime Television ​ Early shows reinforced trust in the criminal justice system, often excluding the accused’s perspective ​ Traditional true crime upheld “law and order” values ​ Netflix-era true crime emphasizes skepticism toward authority, wrongful convictions, and social justice, though often still dramatized CH 12: SURVEILLANCE, CYBERSPACE & CIVIL SOCIETY Cyberspace and Criminality Digital tech and social media have transformed daily life and crime, offering speed, access, and anonymity—along with new risks. Example – going shopping The Digital Revolution and Crime  ​ The internet has changed how we live and commit crimes ​ Traditional crimes now happen online, while new ones like hacking and cyberbullying have emerged ​ Cybercrime is unique for its speed, scale, and anonymity Cybercrime as a consequence of digitalization Technology has not created crime, but it has changed its nature: ​ Fraud → phishing scams, identity theft ​ Theft → hacking, ransomware ​ Harassment → cyberbullying, doxxing, revenge porn ​ Espionage → state-sponsored hacking, cyberwarfare ​ Organized crime → dark web drug markets & ransomware gangs The global nature of cybercrime The internet removes physical barriers, allowing criminals to operate across borders Example – Jurisdictional Challenges ​ A hacker in Russia can steal financial data from victims in Canada using servers in China ​ Law enforcement struggles with international cooperation in cyber investigations The Dual Nature of Cyberspace: Empowerment vs Vulnerability Empowerment: Vulnerability: ​ Instant access to info, education, and ​ Risks: identity theft, hacking, fraud, global communication stalking ​ Enables activism and online communities ​ Privacy traded for convenience ​ Helps law enforcement (e.g., cyber ​ Threats: radicalization, surveillance, forensics, open-source intel) misinformation Theories of Cybercrime and Role of Media Routine Activity Theory (RAT) Crime occurs when a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of guardianship converge RAT and Cybercrime Motivated offenders → who commits cybercrimes? ​ Hackers and crybercriminals seeking financial gain ​ Scammers using phishing emails for fraud ​ Cyberbullies and trolls harassing people online ​ Organized cybercrime rings engaging in large-scale fraud Suitable targets → who or what is vulnerable? ​ People with weak passwords or poor cybersecurity ​ Businesses with outdated systems ​ Social media overshares ​ Low digital literacy users (scam targets)  ​ Data-rich government/corporate databases Absence of capable guardianship → What security measures are lacking? ​ Weak cybersecurity laws and cross-border enforcement ​ Anonymous platforms enable abuse without accountability ​ Low user awareness and poor personal security ​ Companies often fail to protect customer data Cybercrime as a Routine Activity ​ The internet allows criminals to operate 24/7 across borders ​ Unlike physical crimes, cybercriminals can target thousands instantly, using automation like mass phishing emails How to Disrupt the RAT model in cybercrime To reduce cybercrime, we must increase capable guardianship and reduce target suitability Increase guardianship: Reduce Target Suitability: ​ Use strong cybersecurity (MFA, updates) ​ Limit personal info sharing ​ Cross-border law enforcement cooperation ​ Use strong passwords and privacy ​ AI fraud detection settings ​ Boost digital literacy ​ Encrypt sensitive data Case Study: Social Media Disinformation and RAT Disinformation is false info spread deliberately to deceive (unlike unintentional misinformation) Examples: ​ Political propaganda ​ Fake health claims (e.g., COVID cures, anti-vax) ​ Deepfakes ​ Outrage-driven fake news Social Learning Theory and Cybercrime How SLT applies to cybercrime Differential association: Definitions of online deviance: ​ Online spaces connect like-minded ​ Some see trolling, doxxing, etc. as users, normalizing deviance harmless ​ Cybercriminals share tips, making crime ​ Anonymity makes offenders feel less like more accessible “real criminals” Differential Reinforcement: Imitation: ​ Positive: status, money, clout ​ Users copy deviant influencers or trends (e.g., hacking, ​ Negative: Avoid punishment due to trolling) anonymity or weak laws ​ Forums make it easy to learn and replicate deviant behaviors Case Study – The Role of 4Chan and SLT Cybercrime and its Evolving Landscape 2 categories of cybercrime: 1.​ Computer-assisted crimes: traditional crimes that are enhanced or facilitated by technology ​ Example: ○​ Fraud and scams: scammers use phishing emails instead of in-person deception ○​ Identity theft: instead of stealing wallets, criminals now steal digital personal data ○​ Harassment and stalking: cyberstalking replaces in-person harassment, making victims feel unsafe even at home ○​ Money laundering: criminals use cryptocurrency instead of cash smuggling 2.​ Computer-dependent crimes: crimes that could not exist without digital technology ​ Example: ○​ Hacking and unauthorized access: Criminals break into systems they never physically touch ○​ Ransomware attacks: Malware locks devices until a ransom is paid ○​ Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks: Hackers flood websites with traffic, shutting them down ○​ Cryptojacking: Hackers secretly use someone else’s computer to mine cryptocurrency Social Media Driven Crimes: Happy Slapping (2000s) → involves attacking someone while an accomplice records it to post online Motivations include gaining likes, peer status, and shocking viewers. Victims are often strangers, targeted to humiliate, and some incidents escalate to serious violence or even murder Happy Slapping and Digital Criminology ​ Traditional crimes like assault are now shaped by digital recording and social media sharing ​ Violence becomes gamified - perpetrators compete for virality ​ Law enforcement struggles to track and prevent cases, especially when videos spread rapidly ​ Happy slapping shows how violence and digital media intersect, creating new legal and ethical dilemmas Cyberbullying, Cyberstalking, and Online Harassment Example: ​ Amanda Todd Case (2012): A teenager took her own life after being blackmailed online. Her abuser was later identified in the Netherlands ​ Rehtaeh Parsons Case (2013): A teenager took her own life after her horrific sexual assault was videotaped and uploaded online ​ Todd Loik (2013): A 15-year-old from Saskatchewan took his own life after he experienced persistent cyberbullying through social media platforms Social media as a crime facilitator What features of social media make it easier for perpetrators to harass, bully, and stalk other users? ​ Anonymity → Platforms allow users to harass others without revealing their identity, making enforcement difficult ​ Constant connectivity → Cyberbullies can attack at any time, and victims cannot escape; follow them everywhere they go  ​ Virality → Social media allows harassment to spread quickly. One mean post or viral attack can attract thousands of participants ​ Disappearing messages: Apps like Snapchat, WhatsApp, and Telegram enable messages to disappear, making it harder to collect evidence against harassers Challenge: The Borderless Nature of the Internet Online harassment isn’t confined to one country. Perpetrators and victims can be in different legal jurisdictions ​ A harasser in one country can target a victim in another, making enforcement difficult ​ Different countries have different laws, meaning what is illegal in one place may be legal elsewhere ​ There may be no extradition treaty in place ​ International cooperation is slow, making it hard to prosecute cross-border offenders Challenge: Anonymity and Fake Accounts Social media allows users to remain anonymous or create multiple fake profiles, making it hard to track and punish offenders ​ Anonymity emboldens perpetrators - they feel safe from consequences ​ Difficulties in proving identity mean many cases go unsolved ​ Even if one account is banned, perpetrators can easily create a new one Challenge: Weak Enforcement by Social Media Platforms Social media companies profit from engagement, meaning some platforms are more inclined to be slow in removing harmful content ​ Content moderation is inconsistent – what gets removed for one user stays up for another ​ Harassment often goes unpunished because platforms prioritize growth over safety ​ Automated moderation (AI) struggles to detect nuanced harassment (e.g., sarcasm, coded hate speech) Challenge: Balancing Free Speech vs Regulation Stricter laws on online harassment risk infringing on freedom of expression ​ Overregulation can lead to censorship, restricting political speech and activism ​ Bad-faith actors can misuse anti-harassment laws to silence critics ​ Platforms hesitate to remove content for fear of legal backlash The Surveillance Society: Power, Control, and Resistance Surveillance → the monitoring, tracking, and collection of information about individuals, groups, societies Forms of surveillance: 1.​ Traditional surveillance → physical monitoring (e.g., police patrols, CCTV) 2.​ Digital surveillance → online tracking, AI-powered monitoring, dataveillance 3.​ Self-surveillance → Social media behavior shaped by visibility and fear of judgment Governmentality (Foucault) ​ Used by governments/institutions to discipline, regulate, and normalize behavior ​ Panopticon concept: ○​ People self-regulate when they think they’re being watched ○​ Encourages self-discipline without needing force or punishment Dataveillance (Clarke) ​ Shift from physical to digital tracking & AI monitoring ​ Big data from phones, websites, social media ​ Algorithms predict behavior (crime, shopping, politics) ​ AI automates policing, security, and corporate tracking ○​ Example: smartphone tracking (e.g., GPS, search history, app activity) ○​ Facial recognition and biometric databases The Expansion of Surveillance Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Biometrics & AI-Powered Surveillance ​ Used in public spaces, workplaces, stores, and ​ Facial recognition technology used for law homes (e.g., ring doorbells, traffic cams) enforcement, border security, and smart cities ​ Crime prevention? Can deter crime but also ​ Biometric tracking includes fingerprint raises privacy concerns scanners, retina scans, and gait recognition ​ Facial recognition integration → used by ​ Can introduce algorithmic bias - police and private companies for security misidentifications disproportionately affect people of color Liquid Surveillance ​ Surveillance is mobile, embedded in daily life (not fixed like CCTV) ​ Soft Surveillance: We willingly share data (e.g., location, posts, biometrics) ​ Key Features: ​ Invisible and constant – often unnoticed (AI, algorithms) ​ Participatory – people share data voluntarily ​ Context-shifting – used in policing, corporate trafficking, and self-monitoring (e.g., fitness apps, face ID) Counterveillance: Watching the Police ​ Citizens use tech to monitor authorities, especially. Police ​ Examples: ○​ Filming police brutality (e.g., smartphones) ○​ Bodycams (when footage is public) ○​ Livestreaming protests Example: George Floyd (2020) -​ Citizen video exposed police violence and sparked global protests -​ Challenged official narratives and pushed reforms (e.g., chokehold bans) Surveillance Capitalism ​ Companies profit from collecting/analyzing personal data ​ We are the product, not the customer ​ Big tech uses data to influence behavior, target ads, and sell predictions ​ Examples: ​ Social media: Tracks activity for ads (e.g., Facebook, TikTok) ​ Search engines: predict behavior via search history ​ Online shopping: monitors spending to personalize deals Misinformation, Disinformation, and Cyber Governance Misinformation and Disinformation – What is the difference? Misinformation – false info spread without intent Disinformation – false info spread deliberately to to deceive deceive Causes: Causes: ​ Bad journalism, data misreading ​ Propaganda, political influence ​ Satire mistaken as real ​ Clickbait for profit ​ AI-generated errors ​ Undermining trust, creating division How Social Media Amplifies Disinformation Platforms shape views through content selection and amplification ​ Algorithmic bias and echo chambers: ​ Algorithms favor high-engagement (often emotional/controversial) content ​ Echo chambers reinforce existing beliefs ​ False info spreads fast - hard to correct in time  Combatting Digital Falsehoods Efforts include: Challenges: ​ Fact-checkers (e.g., snopes, politifact) ​ Defining “false” info ​ AI detection tools ​ Balancing regulation and free speech ​ Media Literacy programs ​ Holding platforms accountable for viral falsehoods ​ Platform regulations Voice, Access, and Media Justice Critical media literacy ​ Don’t just blame “the media” – understand its complexity Criticism = simplistic (e.g., “media is biased”) Critical analysis = asking deeper questions: ​ Who benefits? ​ What’s omitted? ​ What frames are used? Nuance = media is a site of conflict, power, and negotiation – not just manipulation Media Justice ​ Goes beyond diversity – focuses on equity in communication power ​ Asks: Who has access to tell their stories in public discourse? ​ Key questions ​ Whose voice is recognized? ​ Whose voice is heard? ​ Whose voice influences change? The Uncritical Voice ​ Assumes speaking = empowerment without examining power dynamics ​ Visibility ≠ agency if platforms, framing, or interpretation are controlled by others ​ Overlooks key questions: ○​ Who can speak? ○​ Who listens? ○​ Who controls the narrative? ○​ Who benefits or is silenced? Three Key Risks of Uncritical Voice 1.​ Voice can be ignored ​ Whistleblowers, survivors, and marginalized groups are often dismissed by media/institutions ​ #MeToo: Early Claims Ignored Until Widespread Visibility ​ Takeaway: Without institutional/media credibility, voices can be erased 2.​ Voice can be Co–Opted ​ Institutions use activist language (e.g., DEI, BLM, Pride) to seem inclusive while maintaining harmful practices ​ Movements become branding tools ​ Example: NFL supported BLM in 2020 but blacklisted Kaepernick for protesting police brutality ​ Takeaway: Voice can be used to appear just – without real change or accountability 3.​ Voice can be Weaponized ​ Voice can be used to harm or control, especially online, without care or rules ​ Examples: ○​ Online Vigilantism: misidentifies people, leading to doxxing, harm  ○​ Cancel Culture: aims to call out harm but can turn into public shaming without nuance ​ Takeaway: a voice used for outrage or control can reproduce the harm it claims to fight Media Justice & Literacy ​ Media justice asks: ○​ Who speaks? ○​ Who’s heard? ○​ Who’s erased? ​ But questions aren’t enough – people need tools to challenge and change media systems ​ Media literacy = not just decoding but actively engaging with and shaping media for justice Reflexive Media Education and Curation Media as civic practice ​ Traditional media literacy = analyzing content (e.g., spotting bias) ​ Mediapting = actively, ethically navigating media ​ Shift from passive awareness to active engagement: ○​ Share wisely ○​ Create with purpose ○​ Contribute responsibly ​ Goal: equip students to curate, remix, and engage with civic responsibility Third space in media education ​ The “third space” blends formal education with digital lives (e.g., TikTok, YouTube, Discord) ​ Traditional media ed often sees informal media as distractions ​ Instead, recognize them as valid spaces for learning and culture ​ Goal: Connect classroom critical thinking with real-world digital media use Teaching Curation as Critical Practice ​ Sharing shapes public knowledge – curation is political and ethical Students should learn to: ​ Check source credibility and impact ​ Choose what to amplify or ignore ​ Add context when resharing ​ Consider audience, timing, and effects Five Areas of Media Literacy Research 1.​ Upskilling ​ Builds creative, technical, and platform-specific skills for active media creation ​ Without these skills, students are excluded from the digital public sphere ​ Upskilling = access, equity, participation Examples: ​ Video editing, podcasting, social media management ​ Storytelling, meme-making, data viz ​ Platform tools (e.g., TikTok, YouTube) 2.​ Discursive terrain ​ Media isn’t neutral – it reflects competing narratives and ideologies ​ Students must decode power structures, not just surface content Examples: ​ See which voices are amplified or erased ​ Analyze language, framing, and stereotypes ​ Spot dominant vs. resistant narratives ​ Goal: Build critical, socially aware media users and creators. 3.​ Civil action ​ Media skills = tools for real-world impact and civic engagement.  ​ Media literacy as civic responsibility, not just self-expression. Examples: ​ Digital campaigns on local issues ​ Podcasts for underrepresented voices ​ Hashtag activism, op-eds 4.​ New Protectionism ​ Prepares students to resist digital threats: disinformation, deepfakes, surveillance, harassment ​ Goes beyond traditional media literacy—focuses on digital survival and ethics Examples: ​ Spotting disinfo and propaganda ​ Recognizing algorithmic bias and manipulation ​ Understanding platform profits from harmful content 5.​ Curational Pedagogy ​ Teaches students to curate, not just consume or critique media ​ Emphasizes that sharing shapes public discourse Examples: ​ Choosing credible sources ​ Adding context when sharing ​ Avoiding harmful content ​ Considering audience, timing, and impact The Changing Mediascape ​ Crime reporting now includes influencers, citizen-reporters, and podcasters. ​ Blurred lines: Fact vs. opinion vs. entertainment. ​ Authority shifts from credentials to followers and virality. ​ Raises concerns about credibility, accountability, and ethics. AI-Generated Disinformation ​ Deepfakes (video/audio impersonation) ​ Fake articles or court documents ​ Synthetic news anchors or bots spreading propaganda ​ Difficult to detect; can be used to discredit real evidence or frame innocent people We may be moving toward a world where public perception of crime is shaped more by algorithmic visibility than by actual facts.