Abuse, Neglect and the Mass Media:

Discussing the Relationship Between Abuse Cases and Media Response

Part I: Media Coverage of the Dependency Courts

Part II: Does Media Coverage Impact on the Courts and Its Decision Making?

Part III: Proactive v. Reactive Interaction with the Media

Bibliography

Contact the Authors

Part I: Media Coverage of the Dependency Courts

What Kinds of Legal Stories Does the Media Cover?

The major reason that media reporting on the courts should be studied thoroughly is that the public overwhelmingly gets the majority of their information about courts and how they function (or don't function) from reporting. Brown's (1996) study of FL residents found that 65% said they get their information from newspapers and television news and only 19% indicated their own experience or friends. However, citizens also said they would prefer to get their information from the court itself and not the press (46% to 7%).

In some ways, media coverage of the dependency courts is little different from coverage of other low profile courts (traffic courts, misdemeanor courts, civil courts, etc.). In comparison, court reporters focus on the criminal court system and high profile cases. The day to day operations of the courts are of little interest as well. The resulting picture of the court system, we have elsewhere labeled as "shadow justice." In general, a court case becomes a story only when one or more of the following characteristics listed below make it "newsworthy."

(1) Criminal cases that involve politicians or government wrongdoing serve as examples of those violating the public trust.

(2) Trials that involve public issues, e.g. abortion, domestic violence, free speech, etc., are featured. Topics currently being debated within society are deemed significant court cases when these issues are involved. In 1994, The St. Petersburg Times covered the trial of a young man accused of creating obscene comic books. He was sentenced to "stop drawing" such images, even if he were the sole intended viewer. No artist had ever received such a punishment before. This case could also qualify as "gonzo justice." (see #4 & #7 below)

(3) Well-known public figures, e.g. actors, sports figures, business leaders and their trials are covered. Stories of how the mighty have fallen are "news." This results in "serious" cases possibly being ignored, when there are no "name" participants.

(4) Newsworthy are cases that involve deviant criminal procedures or sentences. Outrageously short or long sentences are newsworthy because they focus on judicial inconsistency or sentencing disparity. If the judge's sentence is very strange or bizarre, David Altheide would refer to it as "gonzo." Judges have sentenced parents to be strapped to their adolescent children, or, as in the case above, told an artist to stop drawing

(5) Although the overwhelming majority of cases are plea bargained, the news media focuses on trials. Trials present the opportunity for dramatic storytelling. On the news, a major trial will be covered day after day, from jury selection through sentencing. In reality, it is impossible for the news media to cover the plea bargaining process on a daily basis because plea bargaining is, by nature, secret justice. Some consider it unethical. Certainly, it is not open to the same level of public scrutiny as an ongoing trial. Only investigative reporters could uncover the specifics of how plea bargaining works in the local community and the long term changes in plea bargained sentences.

(6) Acquittals get less media coverage than convictions.

(7) Pure entertainment cases involving silly actions or defendants, etc., are mentioned. A prime spot for them is at the end of a newscast as a form of comic relief. Such cases may fall into the gonzo justice category as well, if the sentence is as silly as the case itself.

While only certain cases are newsworthy, resulting in a very incomplete picture of the courts, another major problem with reporting on law lies in the complexity of the topic. The press, assuming that the public are largely uniformed citizens, often attempts to simplify everything. In addition, 30 to 90 second TV news stories by necessity gloss over complexities. On the other hand, legal arguments involve qualifiers, clauses, and precedents, and take a great deal of time to explain. Listening to a legal scholar such as Justice Souter, answer questions put to him by the Senate during his Supreme Court confirmation, made this abundantly clear. It is very difficult to tell legal stories within the limitations of news discourse. When presented to the public, reports of important legal decisions, such as Supreme Court rulings, typically are glossed in a few paragraphs. Pages and pages of legal analysis may be trivialized.

Stories Involving the Dependency Courts

Media reporting on cases involving the dependency courts does not take place in a vacuum, and, in fact, reflects our societal struggles over how to best raise and protect our children. We live in a society in which the public attitude toward state intervention into the lives of parents and children is in constant flux. American history reveals a constant struggle between the libertarian attitude that families should be left alone to raise their children as they see fit and the legally dominant position (parens patriae) that society is responsible for ultimately insuring the best interests of all children. It appears that our society goes through a pendulum type shift on what should be the official public attitude toward this issue nearly every generation. Over the past 20 years a number of specific variations on these themes have appeared; we have witnessed the growth of the child abuse industry and its backlash, the abuse survivors' movement and its backlash, and the ritualistic abuse panic and its backlash. Government policy shifts from removing kids from abusive homes quickly to protect them to attempting to keep families intact if in any way possible. The media will report on stories coming out of any of these camps if they are "newsworthy" and may flip flop their coverage without retracting their previous version of the truth. Such was the case with the McMartin preschool in California. Early media reports highly favored the claims made by kids, parents, social workers, and police that Satanic abuse was rampant at McMartin. Much later, the media reported the true nature of how the "evidence" was collected.

The dependency courts are smack dab in the middle of these societal disputes and the resulting social policy morass, knowing full well that any error might be reported. If they take or keep children from parents unnecessarily or return children to abusive homes or place children in abusive fostercare, advocacy groups will highlight the case and attempt to draw media attention.

On an extensive search of Internet newspapers two types of stories regarding the dependency courts predominated: (1) stories in which judges made the wrong decision and placed children in environments in which they were abused or harmed and (2) stories of legislative/executive review of such incidents and/or new legislation aimed at preventing future occurrences. Positive stories of the work of the courts were not to be found.

In-depth studies of individual cases as covered by the media can also be beneficial. A Tampa case involving a dependency court resulted in dozens of articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in the Tampa Tribune and St. Pete Times in early 1997. There are a number of ways the coverage of this case can be analyzed and lessons we might draw from it.

One is to note how and why the case was so "newsworthy," resulting in calls from all over the state to the Tampa Police Department. The case itself started in an unusual way; the police department called a major press conference and showed the media a series of extremely disturbing photographs of the abused child blown up to poster size. The police officers who were called to investigate the case, "veteran child abuse detectives," described being brought to tears when seeing the extent of the injuries suffered by the child. Such orchestrated actions by a police department in a child abuse investigation in which the perpetrator is the father are precedent setting.

As the "facts" of the case unfolded, the story became one of a crime which could and should have been prevented, another example of a bureaucracy unable to carry out its public mandate and monitor its own actions, and included elements of cover-up and buck passing. While all court transcripts were later released to the media and the judge acknowledged responsibility for making a poorly informed decision, the damage done to the integrity of the court was unrepairable.

The story included these elements:

(1) unmarried couple with two children living in a trailer (adds white trash element)

(2) father had an extensive juvenile record which was unknown to the judge who had been given the case on reassignment (the issue of whether juvenile records should be hidden once one becomes an adult became a major secondary theme. Some editorials called for doing away with the practice in the name of protecting infant children. However, the defendant now is suing the newspapers for revealing his juvenile crimes.)

(3) child in question had been in fostercare for two years, although investigators had been unable to prove that a broken leg at 6 months was the result of abuse

(4) parents had been attending several court-ordered counseling programs for the past two years in the hope of their son's return

(5) foster parent and guardian adlitem both informed the judge that the child showed telltale signs of abuse during unsupervised weekend visits by the child to the parents home

(6) agency assigned the task of supervising the parents once the child was returned failed to make required visits (judge said he had ordered the agency to visit the family daily, but no record in the transcript of this order could be found. Agency responded that they never visit daily, and consider cases that would need daily supervision to be too risky. Agency spokesperson even said they had not been told that there was any potential for abuse in the home.)

(7) mother called the social work agency to report bruises on her child but no social worker responded for over 48 hours

(8) abuse of the child appeared to start within days of returning to the home, by the 8th day the child was severely injured

(9) Police widely circulated the father's confession, which featured a story of both parents attempting to one up each other on how badly they could torture the child (mother who not only allows a father to beat a child, but also participates in it, is unusual. Mother denied the father's account.)

(10) Judge reported he had testimony in court from a lawyer for the Department of Children and Families, bolstered by reports from medical doctors and psychologists, that it was safe to return child to the home. After the incident, no one would go on the record as to having provided these evaluations, which a newspaper editorial criticized as "psychobabble." A mental health clinic discussed in the newspaper denied any involvement in case decision-making, and contradicted the judge's statement about when they were contacted about in-home supervision.

(11) Florida Department of Children and Families spokesperson wrote a guest column attempting to point out the overall success of the in-home supervision program. However, the column's comparison of the costs ($17,829 for 21 month stay in foster care v. $2,894 for 3 months home supervision) could be construed to conclude that the system gives higher priority to cutting costs rather than protecting children.

Taken together, these elements make for a compelling news story, one likely to captivate the public's attention for weeks. However, in this case the reactive public response was further fueled by vitriolic editorials written by a columnist. Below are sample quotes:

"The judge's decision to return the child to the birth parents borders on lunacy."

"...the child's foster mother implored the judge not to send the child back to the parents."

"A judge sentenced the child to a lifetime of brutal memories, with no parole, no pardon, no mercy."

"Why didn't the judge bother to ask someone about the father's criminal record? After all, he's only the judge in the case!"

"If the judge felt a condition for returning a child to an environment where he had already suffered cruel injuries requiring a body cast mandated daily---DAILY---visits from state workers to make sure the boy was not in danger, would not that alone suggest the judge's order was itself fraught with danger?"

Other editorials attacked the parenting class, the anger control counseling, the educational training provided for child care workers by Florida colleges and universities, current criminal penalties for child abuse, delinquency secrecy laws, psychological evaluations, state-paid attorneys, etc.; turning the whole situation into a Dennis Miller-type rant.

Within several weeks of the incident, Florida Department of Children and Families announced a number of changes to be instituted to prevent a repeat of the problem. These included: two months of unsupervised visits rather than one prior to returning a child to the home, social workers will no longer allow parents to use excuses to keep them from seeing the child during visits, criminal histories will be provided to judges, judges will receive detailed summaries of what services program provide and their limitations. At the same time, DCF placed blame on no one: "If there were mistakes made, they were made certainly not maliciously or with bad intent....Everybody made the best call with the information they had."

When cases handled by the dependency courts become high profile the resulting costs and negative publicity can be very detrimental. The 1995 murder of Lucas Ciambrone in Manatee County led to the creation of a governor's panel to review the case, and child protection issues in Florida in general. While the outcome may have been overall a positive one leading to policy and personnel changes, the resulting report made no mention of the media coverage of the case, why the public became so outraged, or any recommendations on how to keep such cases (which are inevitable) from resulting in future negative reporting on the courts. In the Tampa incident, reporters asked the Governor, in town for a luncheon, what he was going to do about it.

The pattern of "crime wave" reporting (one horrific incident can sometimes be enough), public outcry, and legislative/governmental response has long been noted by criminologists. In the Tampa case, every similar case from the last ten years (there were few) was reemphasized by the media. It is my belief that negative media reporting on a series of 1993 attacks on tourists by youths ultimately led to the creation of a separate juvenile justice system in Florida. Other examples include three-strikes laws in California and various "Megan" laws involving community notification of sex offenders returning from prison. As long as public opinion is shaped by media accounts of court system performance, legislative and executive decision making will be responsive rather than rational. For example, the changes described above may make it more difficult for parents who should be returned their children to get them, resulting in a new round of stories of "good parents" abused by DCF.

Could the relentless media assault on the judge, court system, and DCF been avoided by a better understanding of the press? Perhaps not in this case, because this incident is exactly the kind of story that will get extensive media coverage. However, it is possible to develop a more positive long-term relationship with the press, receive coverage of the many successes and positive outcomes the court system has, and communicate directly to the public without using the media as an intermediary. These are discussed in Part 3. In Part 2, we investigate whether media coverage is currently having an impact on the court's decision making process, whether subtle or overt.

Part II: Does Media Coverage Impact on the Courts and Its Decision Making?

Part III: Proactive v. Reactive Interaction with the Media

While media incidents of the intensity of some of those reviewed here might be difficult to stop as long as the system continues to make mistakes, and will, in all likelihood, continue to influence court decision-making, it is possible to develop more positive long-term relationships with the press, receive coverage of the many successes and positive outcomes the court system has, and communicate directly to the public without using the media as an intermediary. We suggest several ways to change the nature of the relationship between the court and the press and desseminate information to the public directly. All involve switching from a reactive mode of responding to events and situations only when the media calls to a proactive one of supplying information on a regular basis.

Appoint a Media Spokesperson

Unlike law enforcement agencies (Surette, 1995), few courts have appointed media spokespersons or public information officers. In fact, most courts have given little thought as to how to handle the media, resulting solely in reactive responses to damaging reporting. A full-time person dedicated to supplying information to both the media and the public on a regular basis can help.

The idea is not new. A recent issue of Full Court Press (1996:9) suggested that courts appoint media spokespersons and direct efforts toward meeting the following goals:

1. To educate and inform the public about the role and functioning of the court and the legal system.
2. To establish a communication vehicle for informing the public and court-related developments.
3. To ensure fair, complete and accurate reporting of the courts.
4. To assist reporters in carrying out their responsibilities for informing the public.
5. To promote media coverage with the least disruption of court proceedings.

While these goals are laudable, accomplishing them without full knowledge of media formats, the criteria which makes stories newsworthy, and how to effectively communicate your message, will be well nigh impossible. My own experiences of trying to present the findings of criminological research within media formats (newsmaking criminology) has been less that satisfying.

Is "newsmaking criminology" possible? My experience and that of others leads me to conclude that trying to use the media to bring the findings of criminological research to a larger audience and enlighten the public is a more difficult task than originally envisioned. It requires an understanding of how the media operates, knowledge of how to communicate successfully in a variety of formats and circumstances, and advance preparation.

Criminologists and other social scientists have found that it extremely difficult to communicate the complexities of social scientific research through a media format such as a TV talk show which is principally concerned with attempting to "entertain" an audience. At best it appears that only coverage of major points or the use of short quotes are possible given most contemporary news media formats. If criminologists hope to communicate through the media they must tailor their findings to these various formats.

However, as long as criminologists remain outside of rather than part of the media they will always be subject to the biases of reporters, editors, news bureau chiefs, etc. With little or no control over how your statements are edited the risk of being misunderstood are indeed great. One solution to these problems would be for criminologists to seek permanent ongoing relationships with the press. In particular, criminologists should strive to become consultants with the ability to provide input over story editing, who to interview, or even which stories to cover. However, the expert will first have to convince the news organization that linking up with them will make the station's crime news coverage well rounded and more accurately reflect reality. I believe that only under these conditions will genuine "newsmaking criminology" be possible.

While today I would continue to suggest that one would need to become a media insider to impact media coverage, a major alternative to the media has emerged over the last three years: the Internet. Effective use of the Internet can provide information directly to the public, while also serving as a repository for use by reporters.

Use the Internet

While traditional media coverage of law and the courts may be lacking, those who are interested in finding out more about the subject will turn more and more to the Internet. Through the World Wide Web, citizens can gain direct access to the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals court decisions, the U.S. Code, various state statutes, (e.g., Florida) and a wealth of other legal information, including court systems. In states where court records are public records, the public may push for their on-line availability as well. For example, the Leon County Clerk's Office posted a searchable database of records going back over a decade.

If the public wants to hear from the courts directly rather than through journalists, the Internet provides a cost effective way for citizens to interact with the judicial branch of government. Public information/education efforts will be able to reach the greatest numbers. This can be as simple as efforts now underway by the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law to put press releases on its Web site. Web pages which explain court processes, what citizens can expect if they end up in court, and program evaluations can serve to demystify the law. All of this can be done with minimal time investment using convert to HTML or JAVA programs with your existing word processed documents. (Example: Juvenile Justice Advisory Board Program Outcomes site. A 250 page Word document was transformed into a Web site in 5 minutes with Net-It-Now). The courts can also publicize their reform efforts by linking to existing Web materials, such as involvement in the ABA Project to Help Court Systems in Child Abuse Cases.

In addition, the Internet now allows for a much more interactive approach by using new media technology. Discussion forums, live text chat, and audio and videoconferencing can all be easily done from a computer desktop. Judges, attorneys, court social workers and other personnel can interact directly with the public through the use of both Web pages and live computer-mediated communication. As the percentage of the public with access to computers and the Internet grows every year, these forms of direct communication will become used more fully. In a recent study done by New York state, it was concluded that the Internet World Wide Web could provide today a universal interface for government services. The only problem remaining is access.

Finally, there is hope the Internet may change the way that journalists cover legal stories. Given that space is no longer a limiting factor, reporters can be freed to put on-line the full versions of their findings, including all their notes, complete interviews, and interactive forums for citizen discussion. Traditional news media coverage in press, radio, and television may be used by those who want a more in-depth analysis as a preview of what can be found through Internet access to the medium's Web site.

Encourage Judges to Speak to the Media and Use the Internet

The public currently receives the least information about law from the judiciary, who are expected to have the best understanding of it. Judges have been historically unwilling to be interviewed about points of law, particularly as it pertains to individual cases. The judiciary claims that it must remain independent if judges are to function impartially. Hearings, such as those held for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, are one of the rare times acting judges are called upon to explain their decision-making criteria. Even then, they are not required to speculate how they might rule in hypothetical future cases. For example, Souter and Thomas refused to say anything about how they might rule if a case involving abortion came before the court. If there is to be a change, judges must interact with media and the public. This can be done by holding periodic open forums for the media and the public, calling press conferences to report important court news or respond directly to media incidents, and/or participating in live forums over the Internet or writing documents reflecting upon their judicial concerns.

Target the Last Five Minutes of the News Broadcast

The last segment on the news hour is given over to two types of stories, amusing anecdotal ones or human interest stories. As example of the latter, positive stories of successful programs or reunited families can be targeted for this slot. Cases in which there were a number of negatives or obstacles to overcome before reunification make such a story even more newsworthy. By knowing the tacit criteria employed by the media in selecting newsworthy stories, a public information officer can provide a regular feed of such stories to the press. While this may sound a bit manipulative, other criminal justice agencies have benefited from the establishment of such symbiotic relationships. Many local news agencies have also been sensitized to the negative impacts of reporting only "bad" news about their communities, and are looking for opportunities to present a more well-rounded perspective.

Only through the adoption of more proactive strategies can the dependency courts hope to better communicate their mission to the public and to the media.

Research the Subject Further

Examples of Media Coverage:

Abuse case puts spotlight on system Ewing seeking answers in abuse of 5-year-old boy

Child abuse case work takes blast

Cover Stories: Child & Family Services

Advocacy Organizations: Children's Rights v. Parents' Rights

American Coalition of Abuse Awareness Newsletter

Child Abuse-Related Political Action

Child Advocacy Resource Links

Does the State Own Your Child? Traditional family values are under attack from Parens Patriae

Guardian Ad Litem

Web Resources:

ABA Project to Help Court Systems in Child Abuse Cases

Becoming a Media Criminologist by Cecil Greek

Child Abuse and Neglect: Court TV Family Law Center

Covering Courts by Craig Pittman, St. Petersburg Times

Crime and Media Course Taught by Cecil Greek

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Representing a Child in Abuse and Neglect Cases

Shadow Justice: Courts and the News Media by Cecil Greek

Using New Media in Criminal Justice Course Taught by Cecil Greek

The World Wide Web as a Universal Interface to Government Services

Additional Bibliography:

Brown, Allen. 1996. Communication Committee Completes Public Opinion Research. Full Court Press 3:6, pp. 1-6.

Governor's Panel on Child Protection Issues. 1996. A Review of the Lucas Ciambrone Case.

Surette, Ray. 1995. Public Information Officers: A Descriptive Study of Crime News Gatekeepers. Journal of Criminal Justice. 23:4, pp. 325-336.

Contact the Authors: Provide Feedback or Comments

Cecil Greek, FSU School of Criminology and John Cochran, USF Department of Criminology

If you participated in the workshop and would like to comment on or discuss these issues further, please send email to us. With your permission we will post your comments here. Lets us know if we can include your email address.