1) ‘DEAR ZACHARY’ (DOCUMENTARY, SECONDARY [MY ANALYSIS – PRIMARY], QUALITATIVE)

Probable premeditated murderer of Andrew and murder of Zachary, Shirley pictured with Zachary, the child of Shirley and Andrew.

I decided to watch the documentary ‘Dear Zachary’, made in 2008 by Kurt Kuenne, as part of my research to gain an understanding of how a murderer is portrayed in a modern documentary. Kuenne informs us in the narration of ‘Dear Zachary’ that the documentary started life as a film being made my Kuenne to honour the memory of his late best friend, Andrew Bagby, who was found shot dead with the main suspect being his ex-girlfriend, Shirley Turner, pictured with their child above. The documentary turned into a film for his Son, Zachary, pictured, when Kuenne discovered that Shirley was pregnant during the course of the documentaries making. After Shirley murdered Zachary, the documentary became a message to Andrews parents; to inform them that they are strong people and not alone.

I found that because of the nature of this documentaries conception, that the documentary was bias against Shirley and Kuenne painted her to be evil. On multiple occasions Kuenne referred to Shirley as ‘the devil’. The public comments posted on news articles, clips of this documentary and the full documentary majority proclaim that the actions of Shirley Turner were despicable. Public comments can be found if you click through this link of the full documentary available on youtube:

Professor Robert Hare is a criminal psychologist and the developer of ‘PCL-R’ which is a psychological test to assess whether someone is a psychopath. I found a full list of the assessments criteria here; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10737827/Psychopaths-how-can-you-spot-one.html. The criteria of being a psychopath, according to ‘PCL-R’ is; glibness and superficial charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, cunning/manipulative, lack of remorse, emotional shallowness, callousness and lack of empathy, unwillingness to accept responsibility for actions, a tendency to boredom, a parasitic lifestyle, a lack of realistic long-term goals, impulsivity, irresponsibility, lack of behavioural control, behavioural problems in early life, juvenile delinquency, criminal versatility, a history of “revocation of conditional release” (ie broken parole), multiple marriages, and promiscuous sexual behaviour.

Shirley’s childhood was not touched upon and her turbulent relationships with former partners only mentioned in passing. Shirley does fit the criteria in the sense that she had multiple marriages. In the footage Kuenne has found of her for the documentary she is constantly touching and grinding on Andrew, actions that could be counted as ‘promiscuous sexual behaviour’. Many interviewees in the documentary mention her glibness and superficial charm and cunning. The ‘Turner Review and Investigation’ which can be found online here; http://www.childandyouthadvocate.nf.ca/pdfs/turner-v1.pdf, states that Shirley had scholarships lined up for her children but spent the money on her own education on an impulse. Which suggests impulsivity and a lack of empathy for her children. She stated that she was not worried about the spend as she would earn ‘big-money’ which implies a grandiose sense of self worth. During her medical residency Shirley’s supervisor has this to say on Shirley’s performance:

I felt I was being manipulated whenever I spoke with Shirley Turner. When negative items would come up she would change the topic to one of my failings. She could be charming, friendly and lively but when caught in an untruth she would become angry, accusatory and loud. I always felt Shirley Turner was putting on a show, as if she were playing the role but had no feeling for her work. I cannot recall a trainee like Shirley Turner in that her approach lacked personal commitment and her relationships with people seemed, at least to me, to be superficial when compared to the over 400 residents I have supervised during the past 21 years.

Markesteyn, P.H and Day, D.C, 2006. Turner: Review and Investigation. USA: Child and Youth Advocate.

In 1999 Shirley Turner attempted suicide on the doorstep of a former partner. According to the Turner Review she consumed 65 milligrams of over-the-counter drugs in a suicide attempt that seemed serious.

This part of my research has made me realise that Shirley Turner could have been mentally unwell and potentially a psychopath. I am of the opinion that Shirley’s actions were malicious and cruel, but the documentary too readily painted Shirley as evil and did not examine that she could have been mentally unwell to much depth. I am of the opinion after this research that a documentary should have a duty to try give a balanced critique of the characters that the documentary is portraying. I understand that the point of the documentary was to honour a family that the filmmaker loved dearly, but believe that writing a potentially mentally ill woman off as evil is an unfair depiction of character. A documentary is a medium that the public generally believes will inform them of the facts, and as a popular documentary will dictate the way in which the majority of the people that have heard of Shirley Turner will think of her, creating a false depiction of her character could be seen as immoral.

Dear Zachary, 2008. Film. Directed by Kurt Kuenne. USA: Kurt Kuenne.

Markesteyn, P.H and Day, D.C, 2006. Turner: Review and Investigation. USA: Child and Youth Advocate.

Chivers, T., 2014. Psychopaths: how can you spot one?.The Telegraph, 6 April 2014, Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10737827/Psychopaths-how-can-you-spot-one.html. [Accessed 5 December 2014].

2) Gone Girl (Film, Secondary [My analysis – Primary] Qualitative). And 3) ‘Lady Psychopaths Welcome’ (Review, Secondary, Qualitative).

I decided to do an analysis of Gone Girl (2014), directed by David Fincher, as part of my research as I wanted to explore how murderers are portrayed in fictional film. Gone Girl is based on the novel by Gillian Flynn, who also wrote the screenplay for the film. From my work at Everyman Cinemas I know that Gone Girl has been the most popular film this season for us.

The film is the story of a wife that frames her husband for her murder, and when she changes her mind has to commit a murder to be with him again.

Gone Girl was an interesting examination of a killer who seemed to be neither mentally ill or evil. Amy was capable of empathy and love. Amy’s crimes snowballed from framing a rapist, to framing a murder, to committing murder. Flashbacks of Amy catching her husband with his mistress and their tender moment when the recession hit and Amy told him how money didn’t matter “everything is just background noise”, helped the audience relate to her pain. This film made me realise that people, who are not mentally ill and are not acting in self-defence, could become murderers in particular circumstances. I feel perhaps that humans are quick to label murderers as either mental or evil because we don’t want to believe a ‘normally functioning’ human like ourselves could ever be capable of murder. That is too close to home.

I researched reviews of ‘Gone Girl’ to gain an insight into other audience members views on the film. On ‘Gone Girls’ rare portrayal of a murderous female character, Maureen Dowd writes:

“Art is meant to explore all the unattractive inner realities as well as to recommend glittering ideals. It is not meant to provide uplift or confirm people’s prior ideological assumptions. Art says “Think,” not “You’re right.”

I believe that Maureen Dowd’s view on art supports my opinion that the film made some of the audience uncomfortable by exploring the unattractive reality that you do not have to be mentally ill to commit murder, but if the film hadn’t done so it could not have been true art.

In the article Dowd includes quotes from ‘Gone Girl’s’ writer Gillian Flynn on the gender she chose for murderous Amy:

“Feminism is not that fragile, I hope. What Amy does is to weaponize female stereotypes. She embodies them to get what she wants and then she detonates them. Men do bad things in films all the time and they’re called anti-heroes.”

Dowd, M., 2014. Lady Psychopaths Welcome. The New York Times, 11 October 2014, Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-lady-psychopaths-welcome.html?_r=1 [Accessed 4 December 2014].

The article then goes on to state that the film is less about the ‘she-monster’ than the ‘me-monster’, that Amy’s gender had nothing to do with her being a murderer. She murdered because of the need to escape the pressure she had created from trying to be perfect for her husband.

From this research I have come to believe that Amy’s emotional response to her husband falling out of love was also a large factor in her becoming a murderer. I understand from the writer and creators rigid denial that they did not decide that Amy should portray the irrational murderer because she was female. However, Flynn makes the point that as an audience we do judge women more harshly than men. Bad men are referred to as ‘anti-heroes’ while we tend to view a bad woman on screen as a universal portrayal of women. As a society we tend to call an angry or emotional woman ‘crazy’ when we wouldn’t apply the same word to a man in a similar emotional state. ‘Bossy’ is a word that I have heard to refer to women in scenarios where a man would be referred to as ‘in charge’ or ‘a leader’. Flynn is right that we should live in a society where there isn’t this divide where we view men and women in these different ways, however, we don’t yet. Flynn is right that it should be okay to portray a murderer as a female without the audience making negative connotations about the female gender. However I feel that although this is a film that explores how a ‘normal’ person is capable of murder, some viewers may now understand that a ‘normal’ woman is capable of ‘crazy’ acts.

Gone Girl, 2014. Film. Directed by David Fincher. USA: Regency Enterprises.

4) Nicholas Pearton Stabbing (My observation- primary, qualitative) and 5) Anonymous party (Observation, primary, qualitative)

I decided I needed to gather primary research and ask someone that has known a murderer about how they felt that murderer was depicted on the TV news. When I was in secondary school a schoolmate was convicted of the murder of Nicholas Pearton. The murder made national news and the judge lifted the ban on young people being named in the media to name and shame the murderers. The schoolmate involved in the murder was named ‘Joe Appiah’. I found one person that new him as a friend who was willing to talk anonymously about this. To give a range of views I have also thought about my opinions on this. I will also include a screenshot of a conversation that occurred on a social media platform between Joe Appiah’s friends after the conviction.

This is one of the news reports shown on London evening TV documenting the arrest of the gang of boys for the murder, including our former friend Joe Appiah:

Here is the transcript of the interview with a mutual friend of mine and Joe Appiah who wishes to remain anonymous. Following their answers are my own observations on the case. I wanted the interview to be conversational to put the interviewee in an environment where they felt comfortable to answer honestly. ‘T’ Stands for Tara, so where ‘T’ appears I am talking. ‘A’ stands for anonymous, when that appears the anonymous interviewee is talking. I am also in bold for the ease of locating the questions.

T) How close were you with Joe?

A) Very close. Obviously you know that we were in the same year at Chis’n’sid for our whole teenage lives. We travelled to and from school together because we lived near each other. I wouldn’t say he told me everything, but he didn’t tell many people everything. We hung out outside of school a bit and went to the same parties. We both faced heavy discrimination as I know did many pupils at that school because of our race and because we came from what members of that school, including the teachers thought of as a ‘bad’ part of London. We were constantly under fire from the staff body when there was a fight or something, we were constantly blamed for everything.

T) I remember him well although we were never close. We would never confide anything in each other but I do remember the normal teenage things, going to McDonalds with him, him starting to date my friend, chatting. How has your opinion of Joe changed? Do you still consider them a friend?

Yes. I will always consider him a friend.

T) I don’t think I ever did consider him a close friend, but I wouldn’t deny that I was his acquaintance and thought he was a nice person. Are you embarrassed to refer to Joe as your friend?

Not at all. I feel ashamed for the people that pretend they didn’t know him or that they didn’t like him…they were his friends and there’s still photos of them together online.

T) What do you remember of the aftermath of the killing? How did Joe change?

He was meek, scared, worried. Joe was always a calm, nice, slightly shy person but he became withdrawn in that time. He continued going to class for the entire year, it was the year of our GCSE’S. He took part in the drama show. He tried to keep living his life.

T) I’m still confused as to why the school cast him in that play. It was a play about the murder of a school girl and he was part of the gang that did it. I agree that the school had always treated him a little more unkindly than other children, but I don’t know why they cast him in that play in that way. I remember the drama teacher seemed constantly angry with him after the murder. What were other peoples reactions to Joe that knew about the murder, following the murder?

Well, not everyone knew. But I think most people had some idea of what was going on. News spreads fast amongst kids in secondary schools. He was quite social and had lots of friends, people liked him and he was popular. I think most people knew he was involved in a crime of some sort and at one point I remember people knew that the police had found a weapon that Joe hadn’t wanted them to find. People still hung out with him though, invited him to parties, no one thought twice about being with him in class. No one was scared of him. We all knew he was a nice boy.

T) I think maybe we were also all at an age where GCSE’S were taking over our lives but also that we were all too young to comprehend the crime. What do you think of the language that they used in the news report that I have shown you? (linked above)

It’s disgusting. He is not an ‘animal’. No one is. Yes, he got involved in a gang. He did not feel himself in that school where almost everyone was racist. He was friends with everyone but not enough to confide in most people. He only confided in people that came from his area. Joe didn’t actually stab the boy, he was just there whilst the murder occurred and chased the boy down.

T) The wording is vicious and colourful, even though it is just an account of what the judge said. Although it isn’t the opinion of the news, not looking somewhat into the murderers background paints him as completely a bad person. But perhaps the news should do this, or murder rates would rise. What do you think about the judges decision on lifting the ban on naming minors in the media?

It shouldn’t have happened, Joe has rights and was a minor when the murder happened. Now a future employer will google him and consider him a murderer without knowing the facts.

T) We spoke earlier about the reactions to others following the murder. I have here some screenshots of our classmates reactions to the murder after it broke in the media.

NB: I have got the permission of the peoples names published below to use these uncensored screenshots.

T) How do you think they our classmates opinions to the murder changed after his arrest broke in the media?

A) I think its obvious that the media completely changed everyones opinion on the case, but also it made it impossible to make everyone see that he wasn’t a murderer and was just associated with the murderer. The hounding of the media somehow convinced our classmates to start hounding him whereas they hadn’t before… even though most of us knew that he’d been involved in a violent crime.

What I gained from this piece of research:

Before undertaking this piece of primary research I felt it wasn’t right for factual film or TV to misrepresent anyone’s character – whether they are a murderer or not. However from this piece of research I have realised that if we do not paint murderers as ‘bad’ people in film or TV their could be negative consequences such as ‘copycat’ killings. I now think that perhaps factual films have a duty to try to accurately depict the character of their murders, but that the news has a duty to paint murders in a bad light to prevent copy cat killings. This is because the news is something that people of all ages watch regularly. I am going to research into the way fictional and entertainment television depict murderers and whether they should not be allowed to represent murderers in a good light.

ODN, 2011. Uproar in court as gang jailed over killing of teenager Nicholas Pearton. Video. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VObiz5ghvy8 [Accessed 5 December 2014].

O’Malley, T., 2011. Screenshot Series. Screenshots. Available from: http://www.facebook.com [Accessed 5 December 2014].

6) ‘DEXTER’ THE TELEVISION SHOW (TV SHOW, SECONDARY , QUANTITIVE AND QUALITATIVE) AND 7) Michael, J. (2013). The Rise of the Anti-Hero (SECONDARY, QUALITATIVE)

‘Dexter’ (2006) is an american drama television series. ‘Dexter Morgan’ is the main character, who works for the police department as a forensic analysts and is also a serial killer. Dexter makes it his mission to murder criminals that have not been punished by the justice system. The television series is based on the novel ‘Darkly Dreaming Dexter’ (2004) written by Jeff Lindsay. It was adapted for screen by James Manos Jr.

Dexter claims that he kills people that deserve death, but the characters that he kills have not always committed crimes that many would consider heinous. As we see near the start of the fan made trailer linked below, when he was a child he killed a dog because it had been disturbing his mother with its barks.

Dexter has become an incredibly popular show over the years. Season eight was announced as it’s last series and the premier of it’s first episode received 3 million views across all showings that night. The first airing of it’s finale, received 2.8 millions views, which is the highest audience rating for any Showtime airing.

Below is a link to a fan made trailer found on youtube documenting some important moments from the first series of ‘Dexter’.

From watching the show I can see how a susceptible mind could be easily influenced to copy the actions of Dexter, whom is fairly attractive and despite being a murderer, has likeable traits.

I have always thought the inclusion of anti-heroes in television and film to be important in media. One of my favourite characters is Willy Loman, a man who kills himself because of being ravaged by guilt and the pain of his failures and delusions. I believe that an anti-hero is important as it blurs the line between ‘good characters’ and ‘bad characters’ and gives a more accurate representation of the human condition.

The world included far more shades of gray, and the characters on the silver screen needed to reflect a broader view of morally acceptable behavior. Traditional heroes were just far too un-relatable.

Michael, J., 2013. The Rise of the Anti-Hero. Relevant Magazine, 26 April 2013, Available from: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tv/rise-anti-hero [Accessed 4 December 2014].

The mainstream audience has gone through periods where anti-heroes in television and film have been preferred to heroes, with their minimal or no moral flaws. In the 1940’s through to the 1970’s, the most iconic film characters were anti-heroes. Dirty Harry, The Man with No Name and Han Solo are to name a few.

There was a direct correlation between the amount of anti-hero characters in hollywood films from that period and the increase of unrest in the political landscape in that period. There were a string of wars – WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam War, Cold War, there were protests and times of civil unrests that forced the western population to think on their personal ethics and morals. Some of the western populous at that time took part in, supported or did not speak out against behaviour they may have gone on to think questionable. Not only did people question their own ethics, but also their governments. It was important for people to have characters that they could relate to on screen, an few people would have felt they could relate to a hero in that period.

I believe that we are now in another period of time where we too are left to individually question our moral fibre. In the last decades we have seen terrorist attacks; 9/11 and 7/7. Our country has gone to war in what many of us accept was an unethical war to obtain oil. A mission for oil that would have financially benefited our country and improved our lifestyles. Personally, as a young person, I know more people who have protested against tuition fees, something that directly affects their finances, than have protested against war. We are in a time where we may feel disgust at what is happening in the middle east, but we continue living our normal daily lives and don’t do much to stop it. I believe in this time, many of us are questioning are morals and would find it difficult to relate to a heroic character. Not only do we have the crises of this time to come to terms with, but the bout of unethical behaviour in the 1940’s-1970’s was in recent history and still affects us. I think this is why shows populated by anti-heroes, such as ‘Game of Thrones’, ‘Dexter’, ‘Orange is the New Black’ and ‘The Wire’ are some of our most popular shows.

People find a need to relate to the characters in the shows and films that they watch, or else the show can become unbelievable and unenjoyable. I believe that we watch anti-heroes because we want to see their redemption. We want to know that there is hope for us and our society. If physically strong Buffy, from Buffy and the Vampire Slayer, can show selfish traits and have wobbles in her moral, and then lay down her life so her sister could live, then the audience believe they too are capable of such an act. Anti-heroes serve the purpose of making the audience member more comfortable in their skin.

Maybe we watch because there is truth, no matter how painful, in the natural and just consequences to a slippery slope of bad choices. Redemption or consequence? One way or the other, I don’t think we really want to see evil succeed.

Michael, J., 2013. The Rise of the Anti-Hero. Relevant Magazine, 26 April 2013, Available from: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tv/rise-anti-hero [Accessed 4 December 2014].

From this research I have come to these thoughts: I agree that I don’t believe that we want to see evil succeed. I believe we want to see character’s suffer, such as in Game of Thrones, because a character that does not suffer is not relatable. But I believe that we would feel deeply unsettled if a character, such as Dexter, would remain unpunished or unredeemed at the end of the shows run. We watch these shows to have our morals affirmed, and I think it would be rare for anyone other than a psychopath to believe continuing to kill people is morally fine. Perhaps the first showing of the Dexter finale received the highest amount of audience views of any show on Showtime ever, because people, including those that didn’t regularly watch the show, wanted to see if Dexter could be redeemed.

Era’s of conflict hurt people’s faith in humanity, but we want to see it restored.

Michael, J., 2013. The Rise of the Anti-Hero. Relevant Magazine, 26 April 2013, Available from: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tv/rise-anti-hero [Accessed 4 December 2014].

Dexter, 2006. TV, SHOWTIME. 2006 – 2013.

8) Hong Kong murders: The psychology of copycat crime, Mark Griffiths (ARTICLE, SECONDARY, QUALITATIVE)

I have decided to research further into the psychology behind copy-cat killings and to see if media influences such as television shows and films can be to blame.

On January the 24th, 2014, autistic teenager Steven Miles murdered his 17-year-old girlfriend, Elizabeth Thomas, by stabbing her and then dismembering her body with tools from his father’s tree surgeon business. Miles then wrapped her body in cling-film, black bin bags and garden sheeting. When his sister returned home, Miles claimed that a voice he had been hearing, ‘Ed’ had made him do something bad. When being tried, his claim of schizophrenia was dismissed. The court heard that Miles had been obsessed with the television show ‘Dexter’.

My initial reaction upon hearing about the case of Steven Miles, is that some blame lies with the makers of Dexter, who not only glamorised a murderer but showed techniques on how to hide a body in their show. It seems unethical and inconsiderate of the effect that this could have on mentally vulnerable and/or easily influenced audience members. From my previous research, I understand the importance of an anti-hero lead, but I question the need for the anti-hero to be so morally flawed that they are a murderer. To me, it seems that the makers of ‘Dexter’ were more concerned over creating an interesting, controversial show that would draw viewers than ethics.

I found this article by Mark Griffith’s that aided my research into the psychology of copy cat killings.

a copycat murder is defined as a murder that has been modelled, motivated and/or inspired either by a real life murderer that has been reported by the print or broadcast media, or is based on a murderer portrayed in books, television or film.

Griffiths, M., 2014. Hong Kong murders: The psychology of copycat crime. The Independent, 04 November 2014, Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/hong-kong-murder-why-do-people-commit-copycat-killings-9838892.html [Accessed 4 December 2014].

Griffith’s explains in this article that the term copy-cat killing was coined in regards to the murders in the time of Jack the Ripper that were done to emulate his killings. Griffith’s puts forward his views that someone who commits a copy-cat killing is doing so because they want notoriety. I agree with Griffith’s opinion, and this links back to my conclusion from the research I did into the Joseph Appiah murder. I mentioned how the television news had demonised Appiah, which although felt wrong because I knew that he had redeeming features, felt important because negative notoriety might deter copy-cat killers. However I feel that films and television shows that use murderers as anti-heroes cannot entirely be to blame for copy-cat killings because surely someone has to be mentally unhinged beforehand to commit murder. Then, a large amount of duty lies with society for not providing them with proper mental health care.

Although there is a relationship between copycat killers and what they have seen or read about in the media, there are many other risk factors that have been associated with (and have an interplay with) copycat killings. Men are more likely to be copycat killers than females, and many copycat killers are young adults (below the age of 30 years). Copycat killers are more likely to suffer from personality (and other mental health) disorders, come from socially dysfunctional and alienating family backgrounds, be emotionally vulnerable, be trusting of the media, and – as noted above – a previous criminal history (as well as self-identifying with criminals they have watched or seen in fact and/or fiction).

The ability to make your audience identify with your character is central to narrative, but causing your audience to identify with a murderer seems irresponsible. Griffith’s explains that there is research that shows humans have a natural inhibition against killing people, even in acts of war. Killing our own kind does seem to go against our instinct of protecting the future of humankind. Research has proved however, that people feel more comfortable killing if they can adopt a persona to commit the act, this is called depersonalisation. Steven Miles had his claims of schizophrenia dismissed, but perhaps ‘Ed’ was a character they he had convinced himself was real to disassociate himself from his actions. In my opinion, it seems likely that an the impressionable mind of someone that trusts the media, would find it easy to adopt similar character to a character they admire, such as Dexter, to commit their crimes.

What I have concluded from this part of my research, is that there should be laws on how murders are reported on the news and how fictional television shows and films depict murderers and a ban on television shows and films showing how to commit murders. To avoid inhibiting creativity, perhaps these rules could be lifted if the producers have a strong claim that these rules would ruin their narrative and the message behind their show.

9) Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe 25/03/09 (Video, Secondary, Qualitative) 10) Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Clayton Cramer (Article from Journal, Secondary, Qualitative).

In my last section of research I concluded that there should be moral responsibilities for the news and entertainment shows when they report media. I believed the news demonised Joe Appiah, but I did not extensively research into how effectively they did this, or what techniques other news channels use when reporting a murder. I have decided to research into this. Below is a video I found, of Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe 25/03/09, where Brooker analyses how news channels report murders.

The news do overlook ‘good news’ such as the peace demonstration mentioned in favour of interesting stories like this murder. The channels focused on the killing for days and like Brooker says, the coverage seems voyeuristic. The news report should have been contained only to the local news channel of the location affected. Constantly broadcasting photographs of the boy does turn him into a celebrity.

Anyone remember a fourth-century-B.C. Greek named Herostratus?

He’s the guy whose name history has recorded solely on account of his having burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, in 356 BCE — so that history would record his name.

Gould, J.J., 2012. The Infamy Game: Thoughts on How Not to Cover Mass Shootings. The Atlantic, 23 July 2012, Available from: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/the-infamy-game-thoughts-on-how-not-to-cover-mass-shootings/260165/ [Accessed 4 December 2014].

The media feeding our macabre desires to hear about stories of murderers is causing copy-cat killings. Charlie Brooker put me in mind of Michael Moore’s documentary, ‘Bowling for Columbine’. Despite finding it a well-made documentary and an interesting insight into what made those young men kill, I know believe that by making a popular film about those killers, Michael Moore has added to the problem he was ironically trying to help erase.

From my last piece of research, I have been inspired to research into how viable a code of ethical conduct regarding news outlets reporting murders would be. I decided to read ‘Journal of Mass Media Ethics’, Clayton Cramer.

Can we develop a code of ethics that resolves this problem? Let us consider the following as a first draft of such a standard: “A crime of violence should be given attention proportionate to its size, relative to other crimes of violence, and relative to the importance of its victim. Violent crime of all types should be given attention, relative to other causes of suffering, proportionate to its social costs.” We must develop a strategy for dealing with this problem now — before another disturbed person decides to claim his fifteen minutes of fame.

Cramer, C., 1994. Ethical Problems of Mass Murder Coverage in the Mass Media. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 9 (1), 26-42.

Cramer had the idea of reporting a crime of violence proportionately to it’s size in relation to other crimes of violence. I feel that the news, that popular fictional shows and films, that documentaries should spend more time focused on matters such as the unrest in Syria, the corruption in the government, the impact humans are having on the environment. The media can be a powerful call to arms. Since the release of ‘Black Fish’, Sea World’s yearly revenue has plummeted down 7% and is still on the downfall. ‘Monster’, a biopic on the life of serial-killer Aileen Wuornos, is one of my favourite films. However if television shows, documentaries and films focusing on murderers are causing copy-cat killings, I would rather they be replaced with media that can make positive changes.

It may well be that media outlets that embraced this norm would for days at a time suffer a loss of audience share — especially in the beginning, before the norm caught on. But the establishment and sustenance of norms almost by definition carries a cost. The idea is that the cost born by some in the name of the norm is outweighed by larger societal benefit. In societies that are functioning well, this kind of thing happens when it’s needed.

Cramer, C., 1994. Ethical Problems of Mass Murder Coverage in the Mass Media. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 9 (1), 26-42.

Like Cramer says above, if we stop making shows like ‘Dexter’ and documentaries like ‘Dear Zachary’, we might miss them at first. Production companies that refuse to make shows and films around murderers might suffer a loss of audience. News channels that refuse to sensationalise killings might loose audience too. But it would soon become the norm and we, as an audience, would no longer miss them. It is wishful thinking that the media would implement these changes on their own accord. The money generate from infotainment is too tempting. There would have to be a public movement to put ethical code of conduct regarding murder into the law.

Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe 25/03/09, 2009. Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe 25/03/09. Video. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 [Accessed 4 December 2014].

Cramer, C., 1994. Ethical Problems of Mass Murder Coverage in the Mass Media. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 9 (1), 26-42.

11) ‘The Act of Killing’ (Film, Secondary, Qualitative) 12) Ethics on Film: Discussion of “The Act of Killing (Article, Secondary, Qualitative) 13) Schindler’s List (Film, Secondary, Qualitative)

From my research until this point I have come to the opinion that it is unethical to glamorise murderers or sensationalise murder. I have also come to the opinion that besides showing how an abusive childhood could mentally damage a woman, one of my favourite films, ‘Monster’, does not serve enough purpose to justify the films existence when it could lead susceptible minds to copy Aileen’s actions. I felt it was important to research how films and documentaries can focus on murder and murderers but be films that make beneficial impacts on society. I chose one documentary and one film piece based on real historical events.

‘The Act of Killing’ (2012) is the first film that I watched.

‘The Act of Killing’ is a documentary made by American filmmaker Oppenheimer. The documentary focuses on the Indonesian anti-communist genocide of 1965-1966. Oppenheimer has challenged Indonesian death squad leaders to reenact the killings that they committed using whichever genre they preferred. Styles range from mafia flicks to musicals.

The documentary is focused around Congo, an elderly executioner who was responsible for up to 1,000 deaths. Congo starts the process joyfully, he is a likeable character who does not show remorse or much understanding for what he has done. After playing the victim in some of the reenactments however, he begins to question Oppenheimer whether the people he killed felt fear when he was about to kill them. We see Congo change, we see him become aware of his actions. At the end of the film Congo is a broken man. Perhaps it is to late for his redemption, but he is a man that had never been punished for his actions, not even by his own conscience and we feel satisfied that some change has occurred in him.

Besides from making a murderer aware of their actions, ‘The Act of Killing’ brought a genocide to light that many people in the world were not aware existed. The holocaust is taught in schools in the western world, but without ‘The Act of Killing’ many would not be aware of the million or so people that died in the mid-60’s Indonesian genocide. As important it is that we remember the holocaust, lest it happen again, it is important that we remember this Indonesian genocide. I have realised from watching this film that it is important to make films focusing on murderers if it will make a good impact on society.

I found this article on the ethics involved in the making of ‘The Act of Killing’; ‘Ethics on Film: Discussion of ‘The Act of Killing’, by Alex Woodson.

Still, it must be very difficult for his victim’s children and grandchildren to see him become a movie star based on the horrible acts he committed, while 90-year-old Nazis are still being hunted down and put on trial for similar crimes. The counterpoint is the argument that it is always better to “know your enemy.” It is educational to know that mass murderers don’t have to be hollow, robotic, Terminator types. They can act and look just like your friendly neighbour or grandfather.

Woodson, A., 2013. Ethics on Film: Discussion of “The Act of Killing”. Carnegie Council, 26 August 2013, Available from: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_onfilm/0010.html [Accessed 4 December 2014].

The article then goes on to question whether it was ethical to make the film knowing how it would change Indonesian society.

Whether that will lead to police investigations or ICC indictments remains to be seen. But at the very least the world knows immeasurably more about this horrific period and Indonesians can start to come to grips with the fact that their current society was built on one of the most brutal mass murders of the 20th century.

I believe that the affect that the film would have on Indonesian society was the reason that he made the film. He believed that the time was ripe to inform the country that the communists they had thought evil, were not, and this might cause police investigations which could lead to these murderers facing justice.

The article makes a final point about the impact of these film on society which I feel summarises the issue that I have with murder being portrayed regularly in television shows and films.

We’ve all seen innumerable beatings, shootings, stabbings, etc. on movie and TV screens, but how many of us have ever knocked someone unconscious or stabbed or shot someone? How many of us have actually seen a murder being committed? Our society is infused with violence, but those who actually commit violent acts are still seen as outside of society. The Act of Killing brings us into these people’s neighborhoods, homes, and minds. It forces us all to understand that when the act of murder is taken lightly, it is immeasurably easier for things like the Holocaust, the Indonesian killings of 1965-66, the Rwanda genocide, chemical attacks in Syria, or even the Sandy Hook massacre to take place.

I have learnt that a television show or film can focus on murder if the beneficial impact it will have on society is greater than any negative consequences. If we take the act of killing lightly by portraying it in our entertainment, then more acts of killing will happen.

I watched ‘Schindler’s List’ (1993) to see if a fictional film could cover the subject of the holocaust without exploiting the story or victims or glorifying the murderers. I thought Schindler’s List did this well and while murderers featured in the film, the focus of the film was to spread the message of an amazingly moral and good man, Schindler. Schindler would not have been a household name if it had not been for this film. In Spielberg’s Oscar acceptance speech above, he says that “Schindler, a man of complete obscurity, that makes us wish and hope for Oskar Schindler’s in all of our lives.”

Schindler’s List is a film about survival rather than death, redemption instead of annihilation.

Loshitzky, Y., 1997. Spielberg’s Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on “Schindler’s List”. U.S.A: John Wiley & Sons.

From these research I have discovered that it is ethical to portray murderers in film and TV shows, and even show how murder can be committed (as The Act of Killing did), if the beneficial impact of the piece on society outweighs any potential negative impact.

The Act of Killing, 2012. Film. Directed by Joshua Oppenheimer. Indonesia: DK.

Loshitzky, Y., 1997. Spielberg’s Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on “Schindler’s List”. U.S.A: John Wiley & Sons.

Schindler’s List, 1993. Film. Directed by Steven Spielberg. USA: Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment.

14) UK Crime Statistics (Statistics, Quantitative [my analysis – primary])

I have turned my eye back to the representation of murder in the news. I have explored in previous research the ethics of showing murderers in fictional film and TV and documentaries. I have come to think that it is ethically ok to portray murderers and the act of murder if the benefits the film will have on society outweighs any potential negative consequences it may have on society.

To gain an insight into how overrepresented crimes in the news are, I have looked up the most recent UK Crime Statistics to see if they met my expectations. I am shocked to see how low occurrences of violent crime are. It is one of the things I see most frequently reported in the news, violent crimes are usually the news stories that come near the start of the show.

After watching Charlie Brooker’s screenwipe in previous research, I am surprised that the news continue to broadcast murders in the way they do. I am interested in researching further into whether they are doing this to hook a large audience and make there show more entertaining, whether it is an oversight on their behalf, or both reasons.

UK Crime Stats, 2014. UK Crime Stats. UK, Available from: http://www.ukcrimestats.com/ [Accessed 4 December 2014].

15) Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics, Secondary [My analysis- primary]) 16) The Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code) (Secondary, Quantitative)

I have decided to research the current ethical code of conduct that many professional journalists operate under to try to work out where it is failing. This list has been taken from the SPJ website: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Journalists should:

“Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.”
“Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.”
“Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.”
“Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promis made in exchange for information. Keep promises.”
“Make certain that headlines, news teases, and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites, and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.”
“Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.”
“Avoid misleading reenactments or staged news events. If reenactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.”
“Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.”
“Never plagiarize.” (Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport, Pg 478)
“Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even, when it is unpopular to do so.”
“Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing on those values on others.”
“Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, or social status.”
“Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”
“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.”
“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or content.”
“Distinguish news from advertising, and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.”
“Recognize and special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.”

Minimize Harm “Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects, and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. Journalists should”

“Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperiences sources or subjects.”

“Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or guilt.”

“Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.”

“Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves that do public officials and others who seek power, influence, or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.”

“Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.”

“Be cautions of identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.”

“Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.”

“Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.”

Act Independently “Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know. Journalists should” .”

“Avoid conflict of interest, real or perceived.”

“Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.”

“Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel, and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office, and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.”

“Disclose unavoidable conflicts.”

“Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.”

“Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.”

“Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.”

Be Accountable “Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers, and each other. Journalists should:”

“Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.”
“Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.”
“Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.”
“Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.”
“Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.”

Society of Profesional Journalists, 2014. SPJ Code of Ethics. USA, Society of Profesional Journalists. Available from: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp [Accessed 4 December 2014].

I have found some issues with the code of conduct which I believe is causing the reporting of murders that is leading to copy-cat crime. Firstly, “Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even, when it is unpopular to do so” could convince journalists to mention details of killings so that the audience can understand the magnitude of what the victim suffered and what the human experience can entail.

“Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” Journalists are encouraged to open a discussion about all forms of events, even murders.

“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.” and “Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.” These two codes would suggest that it is important that journalists share the views of charged murderers so that they can explain why they committed murder. Although this is in their ethical code, in doing this, journalists give the murderer a stage. As I have discovered from my previous research, giving a murderer a stage leads to copy-cat killings.

“Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects, and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.” This point interested me, as in my research earlier I said perhaps the demonising of murderers in the media was a good thing. This conflicted with my opinion on the representation of the murderer in ‘Dear Zachary’. Now that I have seen this is in the ethical code, I have been swayed back towards the opinion that murderers should be treated with respect when being reported on. I agree with Charlie Brooker in the screenwipe clip that I shared in a previous research post; we could report murders mundanely and only to the community that the murder had affected and avoid showing disrespect. To show too much respect, would surely bring about copy-cat killings.

On the codes in the section of this code of conduct that are supposed to minimise harm, I am surprised at how many the current media reporting of murder seems to ignore.

“Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.” and “Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or guilt.” Oppenheimer was concerned about featuring murderers in ‘The Act of Killing’, as he was worried about the affect that the murderers gaining ‘fame’ would have on the families of the victims. Many nationwide news shows broadcast news of murders to the community even though the victims and murderers families could be hurt by the news coverage.

“Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves that do public officials and others who seek power, influence, or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.” I disagree that there is a need to inform the public about murders that occur that do not affect the community at large. I think the only people affected by singular murders are the local community. If the murderer had not been found, then that is a reason to include the story on national news. In resolved cases, I think that there is not an overriding public need that can justify reporting the story.

“Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.” As Charlie Brooker touches on in the Screenwipe clip that I shared as a previous piece of research, anything more than a mundane report is pandering to our morbid, lurid curiosities.

“Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.” A criminal suspect has the right to fair trial, with a jury that do not have previous knowledge of the crime and whom have not had their view on the crime influenced by the media. Reporting the crime beforehand but a criminal suspects fair trail rights at risk.

The very motto of the SJP; ‘Seek truth and report it!’, seems flawed. A motto is something that commands importance and is something people value over other rules. By having a motto, I feel many journalists will ignore lines from the code of conduct in place of whole-heartedly adhering to the motto.

I feel that the SJP Code of Ethics needs to be revised for the above reasons, and for media firms to be held more accountable if they fail to follow the ethics that are supposed to minimise harm, which I feel a lot of companies are doing in favour of entertainment values.

Society of Profesional Journalists, 2014. SPJ Code of Ethics. USA, Society of Profesional Journalists. Available from: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp [Accessed 4 December 2014].

The Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code)

I decided to research into whether a production code exists that could implement ethical values onto films and TV shows produced. I discovered The Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code), which can be read in full here: http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html

This code was a set of industry moral censorship guidelines that applied to the production of most motion pictures released in the USA between the dates 1930 – 1938. The code was named after the chief censor in charge, Will. H. Hays. The Code was abandoned by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in 1968 in favour of the MPAA film rating system.

The Hays Code said what was unacceptable content for motion pictures produced in the USA. In 1934, Joseph Breen took over the office, and was stricter about enforcing the code than Hays had been. When the code was abandoned, it was abandoned because bold directors, such as Otto Preminger, were taking influence from foreign films and tackling the code through the Supreme Court so they could produce the films that they wanted too. The Supreme court ruled to abolish the code as film is a form of self expression through the first amendment.

I think that many points in this code are outdated, however the points on murder and on how no material should damage the ethics of the audience watching it are important and should be upheld.

Matt Bynum, 2006. The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code). USA, Arts Reformation. Available from: http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html [Accessed 4 December 2014].

In Conclusion

The main conclusion I have drawn from this research project is that film and TV producers should only include murderers and acts of murder in their show or film if the potential beneficial impact the show could have on society outweighs any negative impact. Copy-cat killing would be an example of negative impact.

The Society of Professional Journalists (The SPJ) code of ethics needs to be revised as some codes, such as encouraging the discussion of murders, can lead to copy-cat killing. I agree with Charlie Brooker and Clayton Cramer that the murder should be reported as mundanely as possibly and only to the community that it affects. No images should be used of the murderers, we should not idolise them. Many news channels are currently ignoring some of the ethics codes of The SPJ in favour of infotainment which will gain them a large audience. I believe that there should be stricter regulations and any journalist or news reporter that breaks a revised Code of Ethics should be punished. A main code of ethics for screenwriters should be reintroduced, and punishment handed out if it is flaunted.

While I believe that it is unethical to portray potentially mentally ill people whom have committed murder as ‘evil’, it would not defame anyones character to report murder in a mundane fashion. I understand that this could prove tricky in documentaries and films based on fact. In cases like this I believe the film should only be made if it can make a positive impact on society. I question whether ‘Monster’ (2003), which did not focus on Aileen’s hard upbringing, but on her gory murders and relationship, could do much for society. When TV shows, films and documentaries are made on murderers, the filmmaker has an ethical duty to make sure the murderer is redeemed or punished at the end, if they have shown the murderer in a good light throughout. An example of this is how Congo is shown as a friendly grandfather figure in ‘The Act of Killing’ (2012), but ends up punished by his conscience in the end.

In regards to my research, I feel that I could have done more quantitative research and conducted more pieces of primary research. Besides from the quantitative research that I have included, I did not feel that my research could have been driven forward by quantitative research, but I should have brainstormed ideas in ways that it could. This way my research would have been more valid. I am happy with the amount of secondary research sources that I used and the amount of analyses that I have given to them. While I did include a mix of print, online, film and video sources, I would have liked to have read more books. I analysed articles by authors, but feel I would have got a better sense of another’s opinion if I had read a novel by them on this topic. I am pleased with how I found certain rare sources, like ‘The Turner Review’, referenced in my first piece of research, which really helped me analyse the portrayal of Shirley in ‘Dear Zachary’ (2008).

If I could build upon this project I would research how different production companies are portraying murderers and which is the most unethical company. I would look at what punishments a company can receive for being unethical and what a larger audience, gathered via infotainment, can mean financially for a news channel and the producers that run it.

THE REPRESENTATION OF MURDERERS IN FILMS AND TV

Tara O'Malley research blog

My Research

1) ‘DEAR ZACHARY’ (DOCUMENTARY, SECONDARY [MY ANALYSIS – PRIMARY], QUALITATIVE)

2) Gone Girl (Film, Secondary [My analysis – Primary] Qualitative). And 3) ‘Lady Psychopaths Welcome’ (Review, Secondary, Qualitative).

4) Nicholas Pearton Stabbing (My observation- primary, qualitative) and 5) Anonymous party (Observation, primary, qualitative)

6) ‘DEXTER’ THE TELEVISION SHOW (TV SHOW, SECONDARY , QUANTITIVE AND QUALITATIVE) AND 7) Michael, J. (2013). The Rise of the Anti-Hero (SECONDARY, QUALITATIVE)

8) Hong Kong murders: The psychology of copycat crime, Mark Griffiths (ARTICLE, SECONDARY, QUALITATIVE)

9) Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe 25/03/09 (Video, Secondary, Qualitative) 10) Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Clayton Cramer (Article from Journal, Secondary, Qualitative).

11) ‘The Act of Killing’ (Film, Secondary, Qualitative) 12) Ethics on Film: Discussion of “The Act of Killing (Article, Secondary, Qualitative) 13) Schindler’s List (Film, Secondary, Qualitative)

14) UK Crime Statistics (Statistics, Quantitative [my analysis – primary])

15) Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics, Secondary [My analysis- primary]) 16) The Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code) (Secondary, Quantitative)

In Conclusion