ABSTRACT
Politicalspinaside,publicperceptionsofcertaincrimesandbehaviour, offensiveorotherwise,canbestronglyinfluencedandshapedbytwo majorfactors:thewaysinwhichthemediaportraysuchbehaviourinits reporting,andlegalcommentaryintheformofstatementsmadeinandout ofthecourts,primarilybyjudgesandotherlegalprofessionals.The media'sroleinpromotingthehighprofileofbadbehaviour,includingthe legalprocessessurroundingit,issomethingwhichseemsparticularly apparentinthelatetwentiethcenturybutisbynomeansexclusivetoit. TheVictorianmediacanalsobejustifiablydescribedasobsessedwith depictingoffensiveconductandlegalintervention.Bothperiods demonstratedeepconcernoverthewidersocialeffectsofbadbehaviour andcrime,justifyingthismediaemphasisbytheneedtogivepublicityto crimeandcriminalconductinordertokeepthepublicinformed,or warned.Intimesofsocialpanicsuchasthese,resultantexpressionsof moraloutragestemmingfrompublicor'popular'reactionstothat informationcanprovideatwo-waychannel,'feeding'atypeofmedia 'frenzy'concentratingoncertaincasesorindividuals.Whileitisnot alwayseasytoidentifyandcomprehendtheprecisecausalfactorsbehind suchmediaexpressions,itisevidentthatpredominantlycultural perspectivesinformarangeofessentiallysubjectiveandqualitative judgmentsaboutthedimensionsofparticularsocialpanics.Eithertofocus simplyonmediaeffusions,ortoavoidsuchpopulismandconcentrate solelyonthelegaldimension,istomisrepresenttherealitiesunderlying thesemediarepresentations.Itomitstheneedtotakeaccountofanactive legalinputinmediadefinitionsofbadbehaviour.
