As many of you I was brought up in a household that contained more than one television set. To be exact as of right today we have 4 television sets, all with DVRs and DVD/VCR players attached to them. So I am for definite part of that 98 percentile of Americans that were spoken about in Children and television violence in the United States (Wartella, Olivarez, Jennings).
Although I grew up in a heavily television immersed environment that was never mine or my family's first focus. However, I have always been intrigued by mysteries. Searching, discovering and uncovering information has always been a passion of mine no surprise I became attracted to these types of shows. According to the ratings of all of these shows I am not the only one.
The social learning effect (Bandura; 1960s) is very much evident as a response to these shows. The show Law and Order, which originally premiered in 1990, prides itself on basing their story plots around recent national and local headlines. For those of you who have not caught atleast one episode from this 20 year running show or one of it's spin-offs Law and Order: SVU or Law and Order: Criminal Intent the premise of the show is that the law force works hand in hand with a group of attorneys to solve crimes and eventually convict the criminals. Do you watch these shows and believe this is the how the inner workings of the legal system work? No, because as educated and rational individuals we realize that this is not the case. The bad guys are not always caught and even if they are they are not always convicted. We also know that many innocent people are convicted without an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Some people receive this instant gratification from the television shows as reality of the legal system. This blurred understanding has lead to the recent phenomenon known as The CSI Effect. This derived from the CBS program CSI: Crime Scene Investigators, which is focused on forensic science solving criminal cases. There have been discoveries that people who have participated in court have watched criminal shows like CSI and have only based cases on whether there is an abundance of forensic evidence to convict people. Thinking that there is this mythical missing piece that will tie a whole case together. This relates to Gebner's culivation analysis that people create a reality towards over exposure to media and a false knowledge or perception about it can occur. Gebner of course was referring to violence but the over exposure to the idea that forensic science is the ends all to solving criminal cases.
This over exposure has been debated as both a positive and negative. That the CSI Effect is educating and that it is hindering people's judgments. The CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=681918n) analyzed this debate with opinions from Legal Analysts Wendy Murphy and Mikey Sherman. In Sherman's opinion the criminal analysis shows educate people about forensic science and while Murphy's opinion is that this is a valid argument for prosecutors to make for cases being lost. There is no clear middle ground whether this is The CSI Effect does have an influence on the outcome of trials.
In 2007, Jeffery Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker was allowed complete access to the New York Police Department's forensic science crime lab, and analyzed the myths of DNA profiling and this CSI Effect. Through his research he discovered that unlike on the show CSI evidence such as hair or other fibers are not as conclusive as made on the show. Unless the percentage of similarity is high. Also most of the time it is hard to determine the direct connection between a fiber or a strand of hair having connection to that case. Just like people the legal system is flawed and complicated. The accuracy and precision of the forensic findings is not 100% certain as displayed on these television shows.
complete article- http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_toobin
video of his findings aired on CNN- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGc4PaLB-ek&feature=player_embedded#
So I leave you with this. Do you think that this CSI Effect is a valid blame for jurors perceptions about a case during a trial? Due to these shows do you think you have become cultivated into thinking that the technology, accuracy, and time span of DNA profiling and fingerprinting that occurs on these shows is actually how it is?
As I read Courtney's blog, I felt as though I could have been writing it myself. Crime shows have always interested me. My family enjoys them as well. In fact, when we watch TV as a family, it is always either Law and Order, CSI, Criminal Minds, and lately the most watched has been NCIS. However, even though my family could be categorized as "obsessed" with these types of shows, I would like to think that we all know the difference between reality and entertainment. Often, I even find that we talk about how aspects of television shows are unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteI think this "CSI Effect" could aid people in believing they may know more about forensic science than they actually do. I believe that their so-called wide knowledge of the legal system could be thanks to the observational learning aspect of the social cognitive theory. They have seen the ins and outs of the legal system, the forensic lab, and all the little miraculous discoveries throughout the investigations from these TV shows. The theory suggests that by observing something, such as shooting a gun, we become knowledgeable about what we have seen and could imitate it even if we have not experienced it. (Baran & Davis 184) These people suffering from the "CSI Effect" most likely believe that since they have watched a realistic show about the legal system they already know what is more important in a case. Especially with evidence, they may be forgetting the phrase quality over quantity. Meaning that it is what the evidence proves, that is important rather than how much evidence there is.
The people suffering from the "CSI Effect" are cultivated by these forensic legal shows. Gerbner found with his cultivation analysis that people who watched more TV gave answers to questions asked about crime that sounded more like the "TV answer." (Baran & Davis 324) Some people do not understand the difference between reality and television fantasy. I do not think that television is to blame, although it doesn't help the people that have that confusion to begin with. The "CSI Effect" is not a valid blame for incorrect perceptions by the jurors, however, it is obviously not helping out the real legal system. Perhaps if this becomes a serious enough issue, Law and Order will put some spin on it and turn it into an episode, if they already haven't.
In accordance with the results of numerous studies, including but not limited to the ones cited in Courtney's blog, I truly believe that the CSI Effect does exist within our society today. Anyone who watches a crime show on television today involuntarily believes at some point that investigations into murders and other wrongdoings are solved by examining a strand of hair for DNA or a footprint on the floor of a dusty room. Entertaining? Yes. Factual? Possibly. Truthful? Probably Not. However, whether we choose to agree with it is not necessarily our decision. We can sometimes be affected unconsciously; as is the case with many situations with social learning.
ReplyDeleteMass mediated public messages have been shown to have an intense effect on viewers regardless of fact or fiction. George Gerbner writes "what it does mean is that in the general process of image formation and cultivation, fact and fable play equally significant and inter-related roles" (147). Overexposure of any one thing is sure to have an effect upon a viewer. For example, take the recently released James Cameron film "Avatar." The movie had an effect on everyone who saw it. Although a fictional movie, many people became absorbed in the fantasy world of Pandora and wanted to believe they could live there some day. The lines between fact and fiction become blurred to viewers as a result of mass mediated public messages and exposure. Rowell Huesmann furthers this idea of the effect of overexposure through his research by stating “a heavy diet of television violence sets into motion a sequence of processes … that results in people not only becoming more aggressive…” (McQuail 402). Basically, overexposure leads people to become consumed and do things that are not rational, even if they are unaware of their actions.
I truly believe that the previous examples are extremely potent within today's society. I have even become accustomed to being cultivated by mass mediated public messages. In watching shows one of my favorite TV shows, Entourage, I began to act like I actually knew the characters. In discussing the show with my friends we would talk like we were actually in the episode - it was almost like a reality to us. An action that we did not "try" to do but rather unconsciously performed. Even though this is a minor example, it illustrates how anyone can be affected by overexposure in any way.
So in closing, I firmly believe that the CSI Effect could cause jurors to affect a case. Prosecutors have a strong argument when they believe that a person is making judgments based on what they know from a fictional television show. It would take an extremely knowledgeable person to understand the differences between real-life crime investigation and CSI investigations; leaving us to process what we actually see as factual. And what we see is the overexposed, over exaggerated investigations of CSI. That is why I believe that the CSI Effect does and could have potentially harmful effects on jurors sitting trial. As for myself, I know that the working of a TV show are often over dramatized and exaggerated however I am not sure to what extent. I do not know anything about criminal investigations other than what I see on crime shows and therefore I believe I am somewhat accustomed to believing in the fictional methods. Essentially, the CSI Effect (or any other) can and does affect any one; it is the rationality of the person that determines how harmful the effect can be.
I do believe as well that the CSI Effect does exist in today’s society and can play a very significant role in the way that people perceive information. The belief that substantial evidence in the form of finger prints are always shown on the gun that someone used to shoot the victim, and that those finger prints are found to match the guilty person is something that is very misconstrued. Through my many legal studies classes I have found that the actual percentage of times that finger prints on a gun are found and match the guilty person is very very low. The real probability that the finger prints and the defendant are a match or the hair fibers and the victim are related is very hard to actually prove. Studies have shown that this misconception comes directly from television shows such as CSI. What television viewers often believe is that because such evidence is found the case is over and the defendant is guilty. Unless there is a direct connection between the two in an actual court case, the jury cannot find the defendant guilty. What ends up happening very often, is the jury has this notion that if there is any kind of evidence the defendant must be guilty and this way of thinking very often comes from the television and media that they are exposed to. People are often fascinated with the idea that science can solve crimes and want to believe the things they see on TV. People depend too much of scientific findings and are unwilling to accept that those findings can be compromised by human or technical errors. This CSI effect has become a phenomenon across court rooms and like George Gerbner says, “Mass production and distribution of message systems transforms selected perspectives into broad public perspectives, and brings mass publics into existence” (146). This same idea that Gerbner is talking about has happened with the CSI effect because of the overwhelming number of people that watch these CSI-like shows, and in turn believe these common public perspectives.
ReplyDeleteWith all of this being said, the fact that people think this way may, not be a totally conscious effort. Many mass mediated public messages have an effect on the viewers regardless of if they are totally in agreement at the time they get the message. Gerbner states, “My interest here centres on the fact that any attention and understanding cultivates the terms upon which it is achieved” (145). Gerbner found with his cultivation analysis that people who watched more TV gave answers to questions asked about crime that sounded more like the "TV answer" (Baran & Davis 324).
Due to this, I do feel that the “TV answer” that Baran and Davis talk about is very much incorporated in the lives of people who submerse themselves in this type of media which allows themselves to become subject to unconscious persuasion and gain a perception of reality that may not necessarily be true.
I agree that these shows do give viewers a false sense of knowledge when it comes to criminal investigations and everything that goes along with one.
ReplyDeleteI am a huge fan of the show Law & Order SVU, and I find myself getting sucked into the trap of thinking that I am some sort of expert on the legal field just because I watch this show on a weekly basis. A few semesters ago, I took a class called Crime & Society that was taught by a state prosecutor. She went into a rant about how shows like this do in fact distort the truth about what really goes on in a criminal investigation and trial. On the show, they have one hour to show the crime, gather evidence, and find the criminal and prosecute them. In real life, this is not at all how it plays out. Collecting evidence, finding the criminal, and going to trial takes YEARS, not a matter of minutes.
I think that Gerbner's cultivation analysis comes into play with media greatly, and is easily applied to crime shows. Cultivation analysis is "the theory that television 'cultivates' or creates a worldview that, although possibly inaccurate, becomes the reality because people believe it to be so (Baran & Davis 324)." I think that this idea can easily be applied to any genre of television out there, but to go along with this discussion, I can see how it easily applies to crime shows. By watching shows like Law & Order, we begin to think that the world is a scary and dangerous place. I've heard this discussed in other media studies courses I've taken in the past. By watching these shows, we begin to get a distorted view that the world is much more dangerous than it actually is, and that these violent crimes occur much more frequently than they actually do.
Television is a medium that is so prevalent in the majority of society's lives. Baran & Davis write "Television is essentially and fundamentally different from other forms of mass media. Television is in more than 98 percent of all American homes. It does not require literacy, as do newspapers, magazines and books. Unlike the movies, it's free (if you don't count the cost of advertising added to the products we buy) (325)."
Because of the unique nature of television, it's hard to stop it from entering everyone's homes and affecting society as a whole. Gerbner also identified the 3 B's of television, saying that television "blurs, blends and bends reality" (Baran & Davis 329). I think this is such a perfect and concise way to describe how television can affect society. It is inevitable that television will skew our perception of reality, it's just a matter of to what degree it is skewed.
Although I do believe that television can have a huge affect on our perception of reality, I will end with a quote from the reading that sums up my thoughts and feelings on the matter. Baran & Davis write "Put somewhat differently, television's impact on our collective sense of reality is real and important, even though that effect might be beyond clear-cut scientific measurement, might defy easy observation, and might be inextricably bound to other factors in the culture (326)."
The power that the media has on society is immense. In the time of the Great Depression, while all of America was in financial despair, DISNEY prospered. Disney debut their “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” and even though times were tough the movie gained great popularity and people found themselves spending whatever money they had to see the show so they could escape in a way to an easier time. I find it ironic that instead of light-hearted and happy shows, the majority of American Society has found themselves drawn to really perverse and traumatic shows such as NCIS, Law and Order and other crime shows. I think we must ask ourselves, since Snow White left people happy and pure-minded, do crime shows leave people with dark and vicious thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I am a TV addict! I could easily live without a computer but take away my TV and my world stops. I also am severely addicted to crime shows. I LOVE THEM! I was talking to my boss this summer about television shows and when I revealed my passion, she replied “you like all that dark stuff?” I than thought about how dark and dreary these shows really are.
The CSI effect is a semi-outrageous theory. This has become the idea that (some) individuals actually have an inability to identify the difference between television in reality. What I mean by this is people are convinced that since they understand the television world of CSI they understand how real crimes should be and can be convicted.
Like Courtney discussed about the Gebner’s cultivation theory and violence, we must ask outselves if the same “false knowledge or perception” occurs with crime shows as well. I believe that it is undeniable that the overexposure of anything can affect an individual in the long run, and sometimes not for the better, however I do not think that shows should be held accountable for peoples actions. Take Avatar for example, some people (as discussed in class) were put on suicide watch because their life would never be as pure and geniuine, and certain video games make people kill. However this is not the RATIONAL person. Millions absorb the same level of media influence daily and don’t go out and kill and the same with the CSI effect. Millions watch the show and are still rational enough to realize that this is NOT reality and how real crimes are conducted. I believe that the CSI effect should focus on the fear that more individuals will have more knowledge and a better understanding on how to get away with the perfect murder.
Overall, I do not believe that the CSI effect should be held accountable for jurors perceptions. Since it has not yet been ruled that Grand Theft Auto and other video games are to blame for murder, the CSI effect should not be held to blame for the misunderstanding of jurors. I think that the shows do have SOME accuracy in relation to DNA profiling, fingerprinting etc. but I do not believe that this is how each case is solely solved. Also I believe that it is also way to time consuming and costly that, that much man-power and resources are used on each and every little to larger crime.