|
 |
|
Dialogue with BBC's Newsnight
& News 24
(on crime reporting, August/September,
2007) |
|
On this page:
Our letter to Newsnight >
Newsnight editor's response >
Letter to BBC reporter Keith Breene >
Keith Breene's response >
There was a media backlash against Conservative leader David
Cameron's use of the phrase "anarchy in the UK"
to describe crime levels. The Independent (21/8/07)
ridiculed Cameron in a leading article titled "Anarchy
in the UK? Hardly...". Ken Jones, president
of the Association of Chief Police Officers, criticised
Cameron and pointed
out that "Violent crime is at the lowest it has been
since the mid-90s" (Press Association, 31/7/07).
But BBC2's Newsnight decided to use the "anarchy"
phrase as a headline to their coverage of the Rhys Jones murder
a few days later.
We wrote to Peter Barron, editor
of BBC2's Newsnight (24/8/07). His reply follows our
letter:
Dear Peter,
We noticed several problems with Newsnight
coverage (23/8/07) on the Rhys Jones murder:-
1. The headline, "Anarchy in the
UK?", was misguided. One appalling crime doesn't constitute
"anarchy". You confuse instances with trends.
2. Your brief coverage of statistics
(1995-2005/06) was misleading. In the context of gun murder,
you could have presented the following figures:
Total homicides by shooting (1995): 70
Total homicides by shooting (2005/06): 50
(Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin
02/07 - Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence
2005/2006, Table 2.01, page 41)
Instead, you presented figures for "violent
crime using firearms", showing a big rise from 1995
to 2005/06. You failed to mention that this includes "threats"
(with no injury) and incidents involving imitation weapons.
You also omitted to point out that recent figures for violent
crime are artificially inflated due to changes in police
recording practices.
3. Presenter Emily Maitlis said: "As
the death of this 11 yr-old boy marked a new low in Britain's
youth violence...". This is another confusion of instances
with trends. In what way is the latest violent death of
a child worse than any which have occurred in previous years
or decades?
In future reports on child/youth/gang
homicides, you might want to present the following figures
(representing England and Wales) to counter the hysteria
surrounding this issue:
Total homicides, age 1-5 (1995): 19
Total homicides, age 1-5 (2005/06): 11
Total homicides, age 5-16 (1995): 44
Total homicides age 5-16 (2005/06): 20
Total homicides "gang warfare, feud
or faction fighting" (1995): 12
Total homicides "gang warfare, feud or faction fighting"
(2005/06): 7
(Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin
02/07 - Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence
2005/2006, Table 1.07, page 22; Table 1.06, page 21) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf
Sincerely,
Brian Dean
Media Sceptic Group
http://www.mediahell.org
We received this reply from
Peter Barron on 30/8/07:
Dear Brian,
Thanks for your email about Newsnight's
crime special last Thursday. I'll answer your points in
turn.
1. The phrase "anarchy in the
UK" was not ours, but was used by David Cameron last
week, before the fatal shooting of Rhys Jones. We set out
to analyse whether the description was accurate - hence
the use of the question mark. And we made it clear in Emily
Maitlis's introduction to the programme that it was David
Cameron's phrase, not ours.
2. The statistics we used in the opening
introduction were chosen to show what a mixed picture there
is. We did use the figures on gun crime that you quote,
as did other outlets in the course of the day. But immediately
after that we used British Crime Survey figures which indicate
that overall crime has dropped since 1995. And we also showed
that fear of crime has risen in recent years, to illustrate
that the public's perception of crime levels can be very
different to the reality.
You may have noticed that on last
night's interview with David Cameron we used a different
set of gun crime statistics to make exactly the point you
do, and he countered by quoting recorded crime figures which
in his view indicated entirely the reverse.
Had we used the statistics you quote
for homicide victims under 16, we might equally have been
open to criticism. I've had a look at the more detailed
breakdown of those stats, and it seems that the drop between
1995 and 2005/6 almost entirely due to a fall in the number
of homicides carried out by parents on sons/daughters. There
has not been an appreciable drop in the number of homicides
carried out by acquaintances or strangers or where the perpetrator
is not known - and these homicides are more likely to be
gang/knife/gun-related than those carried out by parents.
3. I don't think it is controversial
to state that the shooting dead of an 11 year old boy undoubtedly
marks "a new low" in Britain's youth violence.
Seven under 18 year olds have died this year in shootings,
Rhys Jones was the youngest. By anyone's standards, his
murder was surely shocking.
Best wishes
Peter Barron
Editor, Newsnight
The BBC maintained the shock-horror momentum with "news"
that children under age 10 committed nearly 3,000 crimes last
year. This was the BBC's main headline story on 2/9/07. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6974587.stm
We sent the following letter (2/9/07)
to the BBC's reporter on this story, Keith Breene:
Dear Keith,
In your report on crimes committed by children (BBC News
24, 2/9/07), you say: "...at a time when several high
profile cases have involved children as both victim and
perpetrator, the fact that so many are coming to the attention
of the police is causing concern."
"So many"? Compared to what? It's notable that
the BBC report mentions no figures from the past, so we're
given no idea of trends. The figure mentioned by the BBC
(3,000 crimes) included "criminal damage". Children
have committed "criminal damage" (eg breaking
windows, graffiti, etc) for centuries. As for the more shocking
crimes, they remain extremely rare.
Given a historic context, I see no real "news"
here, let alone a headline story. The figures are of academic
interest, but they don't seem to warrant the BBC's headline
"shock-horror" treatment. In 1898, newspapers
in England warned of the menace of "hooligans"
and of a "dramatic increase in disorderly behaviour".
The Times reported "organised terrorism in the streets".
In every decade of the 20th century there were similar media
panics. In the 1800s, hordes of teens and pre-teens ran
wild in American city streets, dodging authorities, "gnawing
away at the foundations of society", as a commentator
put it.
Sincerely,
Brian Dean
Media Sceptic Group
http://www.mediahell.org
We received this reply from Keith
Breene on 4/9/07:
Dear Mr Dean
Thank you for your email regarding
my report on child crime. I appreciate your concern and
would like to address the points you raise.
I feel I avoided what you call the
"shock horror" approach with my report. I was
very clear that compared to the overall number of crimes
recorded in the same period the number in which the suspect
was under 10 represented a tiny fraction.
I was also careful to avoid any sense
that the problem was getting worse. This was a snapshot
of the situation and as such there was no claim that the
number of crimes involving young children was going up or
down.
I also think it is fair to say there
is currently concern regarding young people as both perpetrators
and victims of crime. Again I made no comparisons to the
past and was simply stating the situation now.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Keith Breene
 |
