Detailed reporting of crime has bad effects Consequently such details shouldn t be reported in the media To what extent do you agree and disagree

The media has long reported crime. The right of the media to do this is rarely disputed, but the way in which it does this often comes under criticism. One issue that has been discussed a lot recently is the amount of detail that should be publicised.

Those who believe that as many details as possible should be published point out the demand for such information of the public and the freedom of information. Many members of the public believe that the more information they have, the better they can protect themselves from criminals. Those who believe in the maximum possible freedom of information think that it is people’s right to be told as much as possible.

I believe that the first assertion may be correct, but that the second one is not. There are two main reasons why the media should not be given many details of crimes. The first is that it may alert the criminal to what the police know and do not know. This could allow the criminal to adjust his/her behaviour and avoid detection or capture. The second reason is that giving the media certain details could cause difficulties for the victim, his/her friends and family, and any witnesses. If you were a witness against a particularly violent gang, you certainly wouldn’t want your name and address publicised.

To conclude, I believe that the police should control the amount of information given to the media and that victims of, and witnesses to, crimes should think carefully when talking to the media. This is not to say that crimes should not be reported, only that there is insufficient reason for many details to be reported.