This week we examined how the police are represented in the media, and in the lecture we discussed the police and media relationship. It is the latter which I will discuss in this blog, inconjuction with an article I sourced online called ‘Spinning the Media: When PR Really Means Police Relations’.
The underlying theme that the guest lecturer Brett was asserting was the need for the NSW Police to balance the public’s right to access of information, which generally occurs via the media. Brett described the difficulties associated with the Police External Agencies Transfer System (PEATS) and how the police only provide skeleton information on each PEAT job (reducing organization transparency) which makes it difficult for a reporter to discern the major jobs. A counterpoint by Alyce was that there are many PEAT jobs and that the Police don’t have the resources to provide enough detail. According to Hollins and Bacon (2010) there are 6000 PEATS a day, so it can hardly be argued that the NSW Police aren’t releasing information on crime.
In March 2008, the NSW Police radios became digitally encrypted, as prior to this, journalists and criminals were able to listen to all police dialogue on the short wave radios. Tim Archer from the NSW Police Media Unit (PMU) states that the ‘Police use the media to ‘improve behavior by increasing perception of detection, increase police visibility, highlight good police work and reduce the fear of crime’ (Hollins and Bacon, 2010). The NSW Police are trying to create a positive representation of their organization via the media. This means that accounts of police misconduct and corruption aren’t likely to be released, as this tarnishes the reputation of the NSW Police. Echoing the rhetoric asserted by Brett is that of Hollins and Bacon (2010) who state that many journalists consider the PMU a restrictor of information.
The prosecution of NSW Superintendent Adam Purcell by the Police Integrity Commission which was raised by Brett, sends a clear message to NSW Police officers that it isn’t worth sacrificing your career to help a journalist. This can be linked back to the idea of the politicization of the NSW Police Force and the idea of the Police Hierarchy and executives bending to their masters. The NSW Police wish to maintain their image, and whilst, according to Mawby (2003) some news programs are outside of police control, they can control those within their grasp. The PMU has destroyed the traditional relationship between police officers and journalists, as opinions offered by some officers might not necessarily have fit with the aforementioned image. The creation of the PMU has allowed for solidarity amongst police opinion.
From the article and lecture content, I think that the balance of access to information is tipped in favor of the police at the moment. This is detrimental to the quality of news as journalists are not able to confirm reliability and quality of information, as they are pressured to publish articles (especially with the demand of 24 hour online coverage). Stories are than published which could be potentially untrue or dangerous to police operations.
References
Hollins, N. and Bacon, W. (2010) ‘Spinning the Media: When PR Really Means Police Relations’, (Online) http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/29/spinning-the-media-when-pr-really-means-police-relations/ Accessed 24th August 2010
Mawby, R.C. (2003) ‘Completing the “Half-Formed Picture”? Media Images of Policing’, in Mason, P. (ed.). Criminal Visions: Media Representations of Crime and Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Pp 214-237.
I know I gave you some feedback on this in class, so will keep this short and sweet. Good post, picks up on a lot of the stuff I have found in my own research. Will be keen to see if the favour tips back towards the journalists, and exactly what it will take for them to gain the upper hand again, especially given the almost saturation the police have in media formats (tv shows, online, etc).
ReplyDeleteAlyce
The Wood Royal Commission might have had its strong points, but it used the media to name and shame police with little or no evidence, and some of those police were never found guilty, they just had their lives ruined. Is it any wonder the police want to take over the media representation of their force, er sorry, service? During the time of the Commission a Royal Commission investigator, Keiran Miller, told a mid-level drug supplier, KX15, to tell his supplier, the heroin wholesaler, Peter Kay, how to control the purity and strength of his heroin. After they received information from their ‘agent’ that he had supplied ‘hot heroin’ to his customers that subsequently overdosed, Royal Commission investigator Miller gave a short warning about manslaughter and then instructed KX15 to get his supplier to cut down the strength of street heroin – obviously with a view of the heroin supply operation continuing (Priest, T., Enemies of the State, 2009, New Holland Publishers Australia Pty Ltd: Sydney, pp. 48-69). Isn’t this the kind of behaviour that the Wood Royal Commission was brought in to investigate? Why did this not hit the headlines? Why was it just supposedly crooked cops, ones not convicted, that the media wrote about? The police may have taken over too far, but perhaps that’s a consequence of feeling impotent during the Wood Royal Commission.
ReplyDelete