La teoría pura del derecho de Hans Kelsen

While it is widely accepted that fear of crime exceeds the likelihood of being victimised (Zedner, 1997), the effect of the mass media means people have more access to news on a 24 hour a day basis, which can potentially have a detrimental effect on levels of fear. A variety of factors may determine the level of influence the media can have on a person’s fear of crime.

Noted by Winkel & Vrij (1990), stimulus similarity reflects how much the reader identifies with the victim in the report, how similar the reported area is to that of the reader, and how much the crime reflects what the reader is afraid of. Linked to this is source credibility, and how that impacts on whether the reader can envisage themselves in the same position as that reported. As Hale (1996) noted, media is a major source of information about the world, and it is probable that, for farmers, a key source of trusted information will likely be the farming press. It could be assumed that stimulus similarity with farm crime reported in the farming press would be high. Therefore it would not be unreasonable to assume that reports of farm crime among the farming press may have some influence on farmer perceptions and fear of crime.

Empirical evidence on the impact of the media on fear of crime, however, is mixed. O’Keefe & Reid-Nash (1987) found that crime reports on the television news led to an increase in fear; however, there was no such similar impact found for crime reported in newspapers. What one should consider is whether, if this research was repeated there would be an additional impact from news reports via the online press, something that would not have had a place in the 1987 research project.

It is likely that reports of crimes in the local area have a greater impact on levels of fear than media reports, as a person is likely to hear about such crimes in greater detail, be more aware of the area in question, and be more able to imagine such crimes happening to them (Public Policy Forum, 2001: 3).

Research carried out by Liska & Baccaglini (1990) aimed to understand how crime rates affect the coverage of crime in the media, and to assess the extent to which media

22

influences people’s attitudes, beliefs and fears about crime. They have argued that high levels of fear can become part of culture, and as such can alter patterns of social life. This conclusion could be applicable to rural areas, or is it the case that farmers pay little heed to media reports, and as such these reports have little influence on levels of fear among farmers.

One thing noted by Liska & Baccaglini, was the psychological impact of fear that exists in urban areas. The anxiety, worry, and nervousness they report is entitled “urban unease”, and is argued to be the culmination of the disorganisation of urban life. However, it is possible that this “urban unease” could be translated to ‘farmer unease’, as fear, anxiety, and worry among farming communities escalates, particularly with the ever-increasing ingress of organised criminals into these communities.

Liska & Baccaglini conclude their research on fear of homicide, by stating rural residents see reports of homicides located outside their local communities, and they therefore feel safer in comparison, and thus exhibit a lower fear of crime, not because crime in rural areas is lower, but because it seems lower than urban areas. However, one has to question how this translates to farm crime. While many crimes reported may be non-local, it is possible that, because a farmer can envisage themselves as being a victim of farm crime, unlike being a victim of homicide, the impact on fear of crime is greater.

This relates closely to the second aspect of how media reports of crime can influence fear: that of victimisation, either direct victimisation, or indirect through talking to friends or family who have been victims. Tamborini et al. (1984) noted that if a reader of a crime report can see similarities in the victim to themselves, this creates increased apprehension about possible victimisation. Similar to the findings of Winkel & Vrij (1990), this research would lead to the conclusion that farmers will relate to the plight of other farmers, and this would greatly increase anxiety and fear. However, while Yin (1985) notes that those who experience victimisation, whether directly or indirectly, report higher levels of fear than those who have not, these relationships are weak.

Sacco (1995) noted that farmers understand the sensationalistic nature of the media (1995: 153). This tends to imply that readers and viewers will know a report may not reflect reality. However, it is possible this view assumes the reader or viewer is a rational decision-maker and will think this way. Moreover, if a reader or viewer has been a victim of crime, either directly or vicariously, they are potentially less likely to consider a news report reflecting their situation or fear in a rational manner, and therefore the content is more likely to feed their existing anxiety and fear.

23

Cultivation theory (Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Gerbner et al., 1994) asserts that violence in the media cultivates an overestimate of the likelihood of becoming a victim of crime. However, an alternative explanation may be that, where a person is fearful, the more likely they are to read or watch more crime related news or programmes.

Further research carried out by McLeod (1995) provides additional evidence that the media does not influence fear among readers and viewers. The research concluded that fear of violent crime is still high, despite press articles at the time detailing a decreasing crime rate, indicating that readers and viewers, particularly those who have been a victim of crime, may be more likely to remember the bad news over the good news as it is more salient to that person.

In conclusion, as mixed as the reported findings are, it is hard to see any definitive pattern as to the influence media can have on fear of crime, particularly among farming communities. Having been a victim, or the reported crime taking place in the local area may have some role to play, but it is by no means clear-cut. Zillmann & Wakshlag (1985) concluded that media exposure and fear of crime will always be stronger when fear in urban areas rather than rural areas is measured. However, with the advent of online journalism, increasing numbers of farmers are receiving online press reports about farm crime, and as such the role of this medium should be considered. Furthermore, Vanderveen (2003) as cited by Emanuelsson & Mele (2004) stated that the media effect in minor and just one source of information, and McQuivey (1997) concluded that facts and figures have no influence on people’s perception of crime. It is what they learn from friends and family that must also be accounted for.