January 1999

The relationship between law enforcement agencies and the print and electronic media fluctuates between mutual hostility and admiration. Historically, the admiration cycle between the two professions is short lived! The purpose of this article is to provide some observations on the impact the mass media is having on our culture and our profession. Perhaps these observations and suggestions will be further discussed, which may lead to some modification in our relationship with the mass media that could serve the department's and public's best interest.

In the last fifty years, the impact that the mass media has had on our culture has been overwhelming! Upon reflection, the influence of advertising, motion pictures, television, radio, newspapers, books, and magazines have, in my opinion, replaced families, schools, and religion as the primary influence in our lives. Whether or not the overall influence of the mass media has been good or bad is a question which will, eventually, be better answered by philosophers, theologians, and historians. However from my point of view, while acknowledging the mass media has made many tremendous contributions to our culture, there is more than enough evidence to conclude overall that their influence has not been all that healthy!

I would not argue that the mass media has conspired to achieve the prominent role they have in our daily lives. A conspiracy requires logical, thoughtful thinking and a desire to work together to achieve a common goal. These intellectual qualities are not found in great abundance in any particular segment of the mass media. On the contrary, the two driving forces of mass media are the rather pedestrian traits of competition and profit. Thus, the primary motivation for a large percentage of these type of organizations is to find ways to tell a story in a compelling and accurate way, or to take the easier way out by debunking traditional values and institutions, reveling in the exposed clay feet of public figures, or seeking a controversial aspect in every story, or social issue, as a means to achieve an audience. This leads to either greater recognition or profits.

These characteristics--profit and influence--are the two fundamental objectives of the mass media industry. These goals are not inherently evil. They only lead to evil consequence when the rules of law and common decency are ignored. If profit is your only objective, and all other rules and consequences are ignored, then there is no barrier to the generation of evil consequence, whether intended or not! For example, the producers of pornography intend for their product to have evil consequences. Unfettered by either law, or decency, these producers rely on the fact that trash sells. On the other hand, a movie director who creates a scene in which the star is smoking a cigarette is probably not intending to promote smoking by children per se, rather the director may be trying to achieve a certain degree of realism. However, the unintended consequence of the scene may be that young children think smoking is cool, which by the way, does not qualify as an evil consequence, just a stupid one.

In this environment where no one is held responsible for the consequences of images that may influence other people to do evil acts, it is not surprising that some segments of the mass media have decided to appeal to the darker side of human nature in order to make a profit. This doesn't require a great deal of talent, genius, or hard work to accomplish! The argument that mass media, or the arts, is merely a mirror reflection of society falls considerably short as an attempt to justify the scarcity of noble intentions by some of the people in this industry.

While convenient to blame the media for all our current social ills we must, in all honesty, place a larger portion of the blame on ourselves--the consumer! We are the ones who buy the tickets, the newspapers, the magazines, and support the advertisers. We are the ones who watch television, listen to the radio, see the movies or watch advertisements, and thereafter, allow ourselves or our children's behavior to be influenced by what was seen or heard! We are the ones whose behaviors, however influenced, often lead to violence, misery, and degradation.

What is most important in relation to this article is that law enforcement exists in a culture that is heavily influenced by a very complex, often disturbing, yet influential mass media industry. It is very important that law enforcement officers understand the impact of the media on our job for the following reasons: First, we see first hand the violence, degradation, and lack of ethical behavior by people as a consequence of the mass media influence. Second, at times our own egregious actions arise from what officers see on television or in the movies. Third, law enforcement agencies occasionally offer technical, and other support, to movie and television crews to produce a product that glorifies those character traits to which we should be adamantly opposed. Fourth, we must understand that the work of law enforcement--enforcing the law and all of the ramifications of doing so--has become a primary source of news on television and the subject of countless television series and movies. Most of the time what we see from the entertainment industry is an over-glorification of law enforcement work. Most of the television news and print media stories about law enforcement are factual, positive reports about actions that we have taken in the community. And from time to time some of these stories are critical of the department. Law enforcement needs to acknowledge that some criticism is occasionally justified. Last, in our efforts to either educate the public or justify our existence, we use the various forms of the media to send our own message to the public. For the above reasons, it is clear that law enforcement and the mass media have a relationship that calls for more interaction than just exchanging barbs, insults, and an occasional slap on the back.

When one uses the word mass media, it should be noted that the definition includes all forms of both the print and electronic media. In each of these categories, there are many different forms--newspapers, magazines, television, movies, radio, and the Internet. Within each of these separate businesses there are either a couple, or a thousand, companies involved in the production of a media product. This diversity renders any effort to label a single sector of mass media as good or bad, liberal or conservative, virtually impossible. While it may be expedient to tar all forms of the media with the same brush, in reality it is not fair to do so. One mistake we have always made in law enforcement is labeling the print media as "liberal," or thinking that most reporters are anti-cop, or that newspapers are anti-law enforcement. While there may be some basis for these using these labels with a some reporters and a few newspapers, the labels become inaccurate when used across the board. If we continue to stereotype all members of the mass media as unfriendly, then any effort we make to influence their behaviors, or products, will be rejected.

It has been said by many commentators that the real power of the media is the ability to set the agenda of what we--the consumer--read, see, or think about. For example, a newspaper has to chose a few stories to report each day from the thousands available for wider publication. The same is true with television news. What is finally chosen to be reported reflects the best judgment of the directors or editors as to what they think is important to the consumer or, in some cases, what stories will sell more papers or attract more viewers. This is setting the agenda--not what to think, but rather, what to think about! I think it is fair to assume that most of these people are honorable and decent men and women. A few are not. These would be those persons who make selections of stories not based on importance to the viewer or reader, but rather run stories that are profitable and appeal to the bias, or fears, of the reader/viewer. Thus, we have been deluged with stories of movie stars' and athletes' antics, the latest environmental disaster, violent crime, Monica, and the latest medical/scientific advance, which eventually proves to be wrong!

We really don't see much time or space devoted to distant events such as the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, civil unrest in Indonesia, starvation or disease in the former Soviet Union, or the dark side of corporate life. I suspect the reasons for this lack of coverage lie in the fact that sending television crews or reporters abroad is expensive, the story is too complex and beyond the ability of the media to cover or, perhaps, the temerity of the media to bite the corporate hand that feeds them.

The one common desire of mass media is to achieve a high degree of credibility through accuracy, and hopefully, obtain some influence within the community. One of the major strengths of the American people, however, is that they have never been willing to grant the press a great deal of credibility, although one must admit the influence of the entertainment media, which includes television entertainment, movies, and radio, is significant throughout North America. I suspect the reason for the difference in influence is print journalism seeks to influence directly, while the entertainment and advertisement media try to influence indirectly. The average American doesn't want to be told what to think, but if the message is more subtle, we are all a bit more susceptible to an indirect influence.

All forms of the mass media rely on technology to produce their products. This technology may be as simple as a printing press or as complex as mobile transmission units using satellites to send live signals back to the station. Regardless of the complexity, all technologies as they apply to mass media products are subject to time constraints. For example, the printing presses have to run by a certain time in the evening to produce a newspaper that can be home-delivered by early morning. Television news footage has to be back in the studio by a certain time to be appropriately pruned for the early evening broadcast. Live broadcasts are even more time sensitive.

The constraints of time produce deadlines that inevitably produce haste. Unfortunately many journalists and editors--both in the print and electronic media--have allowed themselves to become hostage to deadlines, and/or getting the story out first. This self-imposed constraint is the principle reason why a number of mistakes are made in reporting stories. Additionally, quality reporting suffers and many stories are selected that have far less importance than others. The news industry has become so obsessed with time, deadlines, and the "get there first" mentality that they actually think that quality lies in breaking the story first. This is the highest order of self-deception!

If you combine the problem of reporting deadlines with the observation that most reporters of law enforcement stories couldn't tell you the difference between a subpoena and a warrant, you get the sense that life in the newspaper, radio, and television business must be quite similar to a fraternity house at the University of Virginia! It is little wonder that most news organizations today have difficulty in deciding whether they are in the entertainment or news business! The point of this discussion is that police organizations can either make it easy for the media to meet deadlines, or not so easy. Personally if I thought a particular reporter or news organization was unfair or biased against the department and didn't improve their performance after a polite warning, then the possibility that they would make their deadlines would significantly decrease!

For the past twenty years, North American law enforcement organizations have tried very hard to improve their relations with the print and electronic media. Our larger organizations have created public relations departments, which have been given the responsibility of press relations. Smaller departments usually appoint a senior officer as press spokesman. The duties of this position range from full- to part-time, depending on the extent of police operations. Generally, the role of public relations is to respond to most press inquiries and to prepare or suggest stories for the local television, radio station, and newspaper to cover. Considering the enormous appetite for usable footage or sound bites by local television and radio stations, this service has been most welcome in media circles.

In most cases, the police officer in charge of the public relations unit also serves as the department spokesman. Increasingly, the individuals staffing the public relations office are well-trained, knowledgeable regarding the press, and in some cases, have a background in journalism. Almost without exception, these efforts have paid off quite well for the department in creating a better public understanding as to the nature of police work. This has led, in turn, to a high degree of public support for police operations and the officers on the street. An extension of the public relations function was recently initiated in Phoenix when the police department hired an individual to be the marketing director for the department. It will be interesting to see if this idea spreads beyond the experimental stage.

I cannot find any major fault with present police public relations efforts. Most of these programs have served both the department and the public well. If there is any minor criticism it would be that they have made law enforcement stories a very cheap source of news for local media outlets. This has resulted in a significant increase in coverage of crime by local reporters. As you would expect, this has led to a public perception that criminal acts are a clear and present danger. At times this may be true, but more often it is an exaggeration, or a misperception of reality. If we create an atmosphere that leads to a "fear of crime," it will have a negative impact on the quality of our lives. This should be a police executive's major concern.

While there is little doubt that the "fear of crime" results in much higher public support for the police, we have to be extremely careful that this support does not translate into "extra-legal" actions on the part of our officers in fighting criminal behavior. We also have to be very cautious not to allow ourselves to be overly influenced by those in the department who would like to modify our traditional law enforcement activities with the addition of more military-style tactics and equipment. While I am sure the public, and many officers, would strongly support such modifications to our role, it is a very slippery slope.

It is, in my opinion, a very wise police executive who resists the well-meaning suggestions that the department needs advanced weaponry, super-SWAT teams, armored personnel carriers, and all of the surplus military equipment presently available. While there is nothing wrong, per se, with any of the above suggestions, the implementation of them begins to affect subtle changes on law enforcement's role in our society. We must be vigilant in not letting overwhelming public support or new, sophisticated equipment change our traditional mission into one which might be more popular and expedient, but less devoted to the rule of law.

Additionally, both police executives and officers need to be reminded that the continued mindless pursuit of "credit" in the press for doing good work is dysfunctional. While many of the stories we hear about law enforcement agencies trying to grab credit for a particular case are not completely accurate, there are a few agencies that still have a reputation for this behavior. It is difficult to comprehend why this sophomoric attitude still exists in law enforcement. I suspect it goes hand-in-hand with continuing "turf battles" between agencies. It has been my experience that those law enforcement officers obsessed with either credit or turf are shortsighted to the consequences of their lack of vision.

A common rule of thumb would be the larger the department, the less direct contact the chief executive has with daily and ordinary media relations. In those agencies with public relations departments and/or a press officer, the routine functions are delegated by the chief to subordinates. There should be an exception to this rule when a matter arises that has an significant impact on the community or a case which involves the possible loss of public trust. In these matters, the chief should give strong consideration to personally handling the media.

The most serious matters involving a law enforcement agency are those involving an abuse of power, officer misconduct which rises to the level of public interest, and law enforcement officer corruption. The common threads running through these matters is the potential loss of public trust in the department and that incidents of this nature may have a traumatic impact on department morale. This can be an extremely serious problem. If the given allegations are grave, the chief must decide whether to handle the public dissemination of information personally, or to delegate the matter to an individual who normally handles media inquiries. The prime objective of information release is to reassure the public that the investigation into the matter, or allegations, is ongoing, serious and will be all inclusive. The public must know that all allegations will be properly investigated and--if warranted--the offenders will be punished or prosecuted. It is my sense that the chief should personally handle the initial release of information to the public. This action will both reassure the public that the investigation is viewed by the chief with an appropriate level of seriousness.

Secondly when cases like this occur, the impact of the news on the rank-and-file is enormous. It is a natural reaction that the police union, the fraternal order, or friends will rush to the defense of the individuals involved. These efforts will perhaps suggest to those concerned that the officers are either being made "scapegoats" or they are being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Therefore, it is necessary to immediately furnish as much information as possible to the members of the agency to reassure the rank-and-file that this will not be the case. Only the chief can impart the message that innocent officers have nothing to fear from the investigation, or the contrary, that proven misconduct will not be tolerated. This information should be disseminated prior to any press release as a matter of professional courtesy to the employees. Obviously, the best individual in the agency to handle the above matters is the chief. Reassuring the public that the investigation is being properly handled, while at the same time ensuring that all officers are kept informed of developments, is clearly the best policy for all concerned.

Third, cases of this type require the personal attention of the chief for four reasons. First, to ensure that adequate investigative resources can be directed quickly and appropriately. Second, the officer's innocence or guilt can be rapidly ascertained. Third, the chief needs all current and relevant information to keep the rest of the department, and the public, advised of important case developments on a timely basis. Fourth, by being personally involved in the investigative process the chief will be able to obtain accurate information in order to successfully rebut any misinformation which may surface in the media or as departmental rumor.

As we all know, law enforcement agencies can function best if the public has a great deal of trust in the officers' conduct, the judgment of supervisory personnel, and the department's policies and procedures. Public trust, once gained, is a commodity that must be protected and nurtured by all members of the department. Using the mass media to inform and educate the public as to the daily operations and values of the department is an excellent idea. Done properly, this public relations effort will enable the chief executive to handle adverse situations much more effectively.

There is no longer a question about the relation between gratuitous violence portrayed on television, movies, and video games and the violent behavior of children. The most direct relationship exists dramatically in what we call "copycat" crimes. This is just the most visible link, but recent studies of the subject indicate there is a far greater, albeit more subtle relationship, between gratuitous violence and sex and the viewer's behavior. Additionally, there remains little doubt that media entertainment is a chief contributor to the "dumbing down" and "desensitization" of our population to behavior, which only a few years ago was considered improper.

These comments are not intended to place all of the blame for violence and improper behavior on the media. That would not be either fair or accurate. Many parents and public schools share the blame. Our culture is being dramatically changed by lousy parenting and lousy schools both of which fail to instill in young children and students the essential intellectual and psychological tools by which ordinary people make ethical decisions and lead normal lives. However, the mass media industry, presently dominated by more than a few greedy individuals hiding behind the First Amendment, produce media products which have an appeal to our prurient interests for the purpose of profit. Extreme violence and language in movies is considered to be a necessity for profit. Television programming follows the same pattern--an appeal to base instincts. We see a steady diet of programs which infer that parents are stupid, governments are evil, and all authority is corrupt and should be challenged. Sex, and all of its innuendoes, have been elevated to a status which obviates the need for original writing, good comedy, or compelling drama. In the past fifty years, the great promise of television, movies, books, and other media products has been considerably diminished by the embarrassing acceptance of their products by a great number of people bent upon their own debasement, and the children they are supposed to supervise.

Passing laws to outlaw sex, violence, and language in the products of the entertainment industry is clearly not the answer to the problem. Perhaps a better answer lies in boycotting the products and the sponsors of such products. Suggesting such a boycott, or leading a boycott of these products, is a possible role for law enforcement executives. To date, only a few law enforcement executives have spoken out against the glorification of sex and violence by the entertainment industry. Only a few executives have spoken out about the negative, or improper, portrayal of law enforcement officers by the industry in some of the movies and television shows. We should all speak out! There is no question that one of the roles played by law enforcement leaders is to educate the public as to the causes of crime and to provide suggestions and/or possible solutions to improper behavior. It is a message that is not necessarily controversial. I am quite sure such criticism by the chiefs, or our police unions, fraternal organizations, and our national organizations would not result in counter-criticism or anyone losing their job. It is a proper message to deliver and law enforcement executives should give consideration to including a message of this type in all of the speeches they give throughout the community. It is long past time that law enforcement helped the public send the mass media a message that we expect more from the their industry than irresponsibility, greed, and the glorification of violence and depravity.

Building a reasonable, working relationship with the various forms of the mass media and law enforcement organizations is difficult. There is not a lot a trust between members of the print press and law enforcement officers. In my opinion, our mutual suspicion of each other is probably best for the public in the long run. The print media views law enforcement with great caution, sensitive to the role they play as the "watchdog" of government and ever-mindful that law enforcement can trample all over the Constitution unless carefully monitored by zealous reporters. The electronic media, television and the movies, are more like "lapdogs." The demand they have for good footage of the disaster or crime scene, or perhaps insider comments, is so great they will go to any length to obtain the same. Both industries have a great need for the cooperation of law enforcement. However, for the sake of the story, or a dollar, they will eat your heart out in a New York minute. No matter what law enforcement does to foster good relations with the mass media it must be recognized that all forms of the press will eat our lunch when it is in their interest. To expect otherwise is naive!

The best relations law enforcement agencies can have with the mass media would be one forged by skilled law enforcement officers who understand the characteristics of the media and have been thoroughly trained for media presentations. Secondly, every department should know exactly what the objectives of the department are before any presentation, or comment, to the media. Off hand comments by press spokesman, interviews with ill-prepared officers on the street, or comments by the chief without adequate planning are all recipes for disaster. Allowing television crews to film the activities of special units or to tag along with street officers as they do in "Cops" is also foolish. While some of the footage obtained from such encounters makes for interesting television, it is the footage that is not used which will one day surface to the embarrassment and consternation of all involved.

I have little hope that those who produce television, movies, radio, and video games will do much, in our present cultural and economic environment, to improve the quality of their products. As long as a foolish segment of our population continues to support these programs they will only get worse and continue to influence, in a negative way, the behavior of an ever-increasing percentage of the population. While censorship is not the answer to the problem, the call by law enforcement organizations and citizen leaders and their children to refrain from patronizing such programs and their advertisers, is clearly a proactive, anti-crime strategy which bears further debate and discussion.

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401