Murders in the News

By David Bright

Copy Editor

n watching the relentless coverage of the murder of six year-old beauty queen Jon-Benet Ramsey, I have come to ask myself why it is such a big news event. Early on, lots of attention was given to the beauty pageants she competed in. Footage of her walking around in a showgirl outfit helped expose the pedophilic aspects of these pageants, and for a while it was believed that the pageants were somehow related to her murder. Exposing the dark side of the beauty pageants made for a pretty interesting story for a while. There was also the whodunit side of the story. Her parents appeared to be the primary suspects early on in the investigation, but they were somewhat discounted after the handwriting analysis of the ransom note failed to match. Stories about parents killing their children have always been big stories in the past, so maybe that is part of the explanation. What really made it news, however, was the fact that they were a very wealthy, respected family, and that the victim, without focusing on the pageants, was very cute.

It is disturbing to me that we as a society have become so accustomed to violent crime, that the only stories deemed worthy of widespread media attention are those that are deviations from the norm. The Ramsey killing is not related in anyway to a larger national problem. Children are killed all the time as results of senseless violence. Little Jon-Benet was not struck by a stray bullet from a gang shootout while on her way home from school. While it has not been proven that she wasn't abused, there are far more frightening examples of child abuse throughout the country. Child abuse, too, has been accepted as a fact of life, not the widespread social ill that it is. There are so many cases of abuse that it would be impossible to fit them all on the national news. What it comes down to is that this kind of thing usually doesn't happen to millionaire families, and when it does, only then is it really a problem.

I am also disturbed by how Jon-Benet's beauty is used as an integral part in the coverage of the case. Any report contains numerous mentions of her beauty, along with many pictures and other adjectives to describe her appearance. From this I really get the sense that a higher value is placed on her life because of her looks. It is news not just because a child was killed, but because a pretty child was killed.

Another unfortunate trend in coverage of high profile murder cases, is how the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" has been misinterpreted. This came up most prominently during the O.J. criminal trial. The belief was that only those who were chosen to be on the jury had the right to look at the facts and make an intelligent decision. Whatever the jury says is truth, and until they tell us what to think, we must remain neutral.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the basis of our legal system, but outside of the court it has no meaning. Jeffrey Dahmer was also "innocent until proven guilty." However, in TV coverage of his case, they didn't report that he "allegedly" had rotting human flesh in his refrigerator, and news reporters didn't make pains to distance themselves from the prosecutions' arguments. During O.J.'s trial we'd hear newsmen say something like "Today prosecutor Marsha Clark contended that Colombian hitmen were not responsible for Ron and Nicole's death" as if they were reporting a shocking, untested theory (like life on Mars). While the Richard Jewell case showed how bad it can be when the media prematurely jump to a conclusion, the news media should not be afraid to look at the facts and make a judgement.