A screen shot of the McAllister-Markoff Wedding website, which has been removed.

An article on ABCNews.com focused on the fact that McAllister is “standing by her man” despite what the media has characterized as “incriminating” evidence against Philip Markoff. This is wrong on many levels.

I know that at times I sound like a broken record. The media likes to write about evidence that the police find and report it as if the suspect is already on trial. National attention essentially ensures that it is impossible to find an unbiased jury. Journalists also write stories that seem to assume that a person is guilty by characterizing the evidence. This is already happening with Markoff, as he “allegedly kept the underwear of victims under the bed where he and his fiancee slept.” Sounds like a soap opera, doesn’t it? That’s why the media is eating it up.

Markoff’s poor fiancee has been placed in the public scrutiny. Is it news worthy that Markoff had a fiancee? Absolutely. If Markoff is found guilty, the fact he was engaged to be married would offer insight into the criminal mind and the fact that someone so close to him had no idea. But the media should respect McAllister enough to not judge her. This means not forming a news story that centers around the fact that McAllister believes Markoff is innocent, accompanied by pictures of the couple together. Not only do people know who McAllister is, but they can recognize her face when she is in public.

Such news stories have invited comments by readers, the majority of which are saying that McAllister is “in denial,” and is stupid for staying with him. But with the help of her attorney, McAllister released a statement that read in part:

“I just can only hope that the criminal justice system will not be overwhelmed and persuaded by what is being put forth in the media. My fiance’s fate should not rest in the court of public opinion, but rather in a court of law.”

Luckily for Markoff, there is a voice of reason. And the media did report McAllister’s statement. But again, the media is passing judgment on individuals accused of a crime, feeding the curiousity of the public who enjoys drama while making life difficult for those like McAllister who have been thrust into the public eye.

Still, according to an article on MSNBC.com, people are rushing into emergency rooms because they are terrified that they might contract this dreaded swine flu that, according to the media and “scientists,” could be the next influenza that kills millions. Maybe if the media and “scientists” hadn’t generated similar commotion over the West Nile Virus and SARS, I would find the reporting a little more credible.

Hospitals in the United States are crowded with people who have runny noses and are scared of getting the swine flu (which again, people in the U.S. are recovering from just fine,) creating a situation that could make things worse. Crowded emergency rooms are a great way to contract another disease that could get you hospitalized, such as the “regular” flu. By sensationalizing the disease, the media is becoming part of the story by generating panic.

Basically, I am frustrated and annoyed with the media’s coverage of the disease. I know that journalism is a business, but when reporting is conducted in a way that does NOT help society but is in fact detrimental to society by causing panic, they should not be surprised when they lose credibility. I hope that by the end of the week the story will lose its sensationalism and merit one, informative headline and story instead of ten speculative ones.

While UConn’s Spring Weekend managed to escape the national news, apparently Kent State University in Ohio experienced a college party-gone-awry. Students rioted in the streets, set numerous things on fire, and threw objects at police officers. Several officers sustained minor injuries. The police responded with pepper spray and pellet guns. While this did not happen at UConn this weekend, the state is always prepared in the event of such an incident.

Interestingly, I read an article today on MSNBC.com that said some authors believe the United States is experiencing a “narcissism epidemic” which has lead to “”aggression, materialism, and shallow values.” I am not trying to take a holier-than-thou attitude, and I know that I will be narcissistic at times. But I also know that I was raised to be considerate and responsible. This means not throwing beer bottles, not taunting police officers, not giving myself alcohol poisoning and not lighting things on fire.

As I walked around campus this weekend, I wanted to go up to every police officer and ambulance driver that I saw and apologize to them. I also wanted to apologize to the state taxpayers who pay for them to be there. In the perfect world, UConn students would be able to all go to one spot and party together. In the perfect world, everyone would drink responsibly. People who do not go to UConn would not come and cause trouble (80% of those arrested at UConn this weekend were not UConn students.) In the perfect world, no one would need to be carried away on a stretcher, no one would bring weapons, and no one would drink and drive. No one would light stuff on fire and put everyone in a dangerous situation. And the police would not need to use pepper spray.

But many college students, including the obnoxious people now singing Enrique Inglesias at the top of their lungs outside at 10:30 on a Sunday night, only think of themselves. While I am sad to be graduating in two weeks, it is disheartening to know that these same narcissistic and immature people will probably be entering the “real world” with me.

In place of newspaper classified ads and flyers, the Internet has become the new medium for everyone advertising or looking for services. My roommate is currently looking for apartments, and her chief medium is Craigslist: a free Internet classified ad service.

As crime reporting is inherently sensational, the fact that a man has been arrested as the “Craigslist Killer” only places the popular site in a negative light. In fact, according to an article on CNN.com, the CEO of Craigslist has already said that they are looking for ways to make the site safer.

Safer Internet classified ads? The reality is, the “Craigslist Killer” is a moniker assigned by the media distorting the real issue. Craigslist did not cause the murder of one woman and the assault of another. A person committed these crimes, and he probably would have committed the crimes if the classified ads had been in a different medium, such as a newspaper.

A photo of the man police say killed Julissa Brisman, taken from a security camera.

But if the women advertising services in a newspaper had been victimized, would there be calls for increased newspaper advertising safety? Of course not. The focus would be on the fact that a highly improbable but terrible situation occurred in which these two women were incredibly unlucky to have been chosen as victims.

The Internet is scary perhaps because it is accessed by millions of people everyday, and your information or advertisement may be read by millions of people everyday. But with that knowledge, anyone using the Internet must take the necessary precautions. This could involve a screening process or “safety in numbers” strategy when making transactions – the type of strategies that people might normally use when meeting strangers through classified ads, regardless of the medium. The bottom line is, the CEO of Craigslist Jim Buckmaster should not have to remind users to use common sense and meet strangers in a public place, and Craigslist’s image should not suffer as a result of the crimes.

Melissa Huckaby

“Huckaby’s attorneys could use the sheer statistical improbability of the murder case to cast doubt on the allegations, regardless of the evidence.”

The article says that according to a Department of Justice report, “Women represent only 1 percent of all adult arrests for forcible rape and 6 percent of all adult arrests for other sex offenses.” Researchers in the article also say that the crime does not fit the typical profile of female sex crimes.

While the information is interesting, stereotyping criminals is dangerous. It is scary and unfortunate that people have been calling the police in California to protest the arrest of Huckaby, simply on the grounds that “a woman wouldn’t do that.” What is even more scary is that IF Huckaby is guilty and the police had not arrested her because she does not fit the typical profile, then a possibly innocent person would have been charged.

Stereotypes should never be considered in the criminal justice system, whether they are being held for or against you.

One advice given to parents is that they should restrict the amount of local news that their children are exposed to, because this could lead to anxiety. For example, one psychologist’s patient became afraid of kidnapping after learning about Caylee Anthony. Furthermore, AIDS, a disease that is preventable, is one of the top fears of children aged 7-18.

According to the article, some fear is good because it leads to caution. Children who are afraid of AIDs may be discouraged from risky sexual activity, for example. But Parents must essentially counteract the repetitive nature of television news, as children will see an incident being repeated over and over again, without realizing that it is the same incident and not a number of different ones. The article encourages parents to emphasize the probabilities of events by placing them in perspective for their child.  I suppose when the news does not do that for us, it is the responsibility of the discerning adult to be critical. Unfortunately, there are probably some adults who are equally scared by the local news.

According to an article on CNN.com, the police have released notes written by a murderer they call the Good Friday child killer.  In the note from 1988, the killer warned that he wanted to see himself in newspaper or the local news the next day.

Interestingly, other serial killers have also requested media attention. It seems to become part of their perverted game, knowing that there is an increased danger that they may be caught. They want the attention, and in their eyes the coverage means glory.

One famous example of this was serial killer Dennis Rader, a.k.a the BTK strangler (Bind, Torture, Kill.) Rader was known for sending taunting letters to the police and the media. By 2004, the BTK murders were considered a cold case. But, Rader then decided to resume communications with the police and news stations, and it was this series of communications that finally led to his arrest. While the public did not give the police tips to lead them to Rader, the media coverage and letters essentially helped them solve the crime.

Similarly, police in Fort Wayne are hoping that the public may be able to help them find the Good Friday child killer once they have read his letters. The killer left messages around Fort Wayne in 2004 as well, on bicycles and a mailbox. According to the CNN article, “Cold case investigators believe they were written by the same person who utilized a similar phrasing and style. By publishing the letters, they are hoping people may recognize the pattern, and perhaps the author.”

Furthermore, the police are warning the public that “the writer may have demonstrated an unusual interest in the media during this time frame. The writer may spend a significant amount of his time driving around in a vehicle, either because of his employment or personal preference.”

I do not believe that this particular crime is being sensationalized. The fact that the murderer left taunting, threatening letters means that he remains a threat to society. It is smart for the police to use the media as a means to track down this perverted killer.

2003 Gallup Poll

The article discusses one case in particular. Quantel Lotts, now 23, was sentenced to life without parole after he was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his 17-year-old stepbrother – a crime he committed when he was 14.  The article’s attempt to frame the case into a sob story is obvious. The article begins saying:

“It began as horseplay, with two teenage stepbrothers chasing each other with blow guns and darts. But it soon escalated when one of the boys grabbed a knife.The older teen, Michael Barton, 17, was dead by the time he reached the hospital, stabbed twice.The younger boy, Quantel Lotts, 14, would eventually become one of Missouri’s youngest lifers.”

When I read this, my first reaction was, “how do you know?” The article does not attribute the information to anything. Lotts was convicted of the crime, and if he was tried as an adult, the trial transcripts are public record.  For all I know, this version of events was what Lotts decided to feed the sympathetic reporter who wants to champion his cause. In fact, toward the end of the article the reporter tries to explain that it really wasn’t Lotts fault that he killed his stepbrother; Lotts himself was the victim of poverty. He grew up in a crack house and was sexually abused. Child welfare officials eventually took him from his mother at the age of 8.

Is it possible for a crime story to be objective? It is obvious that the reporter attempted to be fair, by giving a voice to the “other side.” But the victim’s voice is not nearly as loud and not nearly as strong. The purpose of the article is seemingly to discuss a policy, as:

“Lotts is part of a trend that has developed over the past two decades. Numerous studies have shown that In the 1970s and 1980s, minors were rarely given life sentences, let alone life without parole, experts said. By the early 1990s, according to the Department of Justice, an alarming spike in juvenile homicides spawned a nationwide crackdown, including a movement to try kids in adult courts.”

Some argue that it is the journalist’s job to write stories that are influenced by their individual perspective. But as a news consumer, if I am reading an article that I hope will provide me with information, the minute I believe the article is biased, I begin to doubt the information it contains.

I want journalists to discuss issues of public policy, including criminal laws. But I don’t think it is too idealistic to believe that such stories can be framed in a way that is not persuasive, but simply informative.

Some people are more liberal with their children. They do not see the harm in letting them watch movies that are rated R for nudity and sex. They don’t see anything wrong when their daughters subscribe to Cosmopolitan and Seventeen, magazines that encourage young girls to buy that mascara to give their eyelashes more volume (when before they thought their eyelashes were just fine) and clothes that will make their body look slimmer (when before they thought their bodies looked just fine.)

It seems like every year we raise the stakes of beauty. The latest craze has been teeth whitening. Apparently good dental hygiene just isn’t enough anymore. The bottom line is, young girls are taught that their bodies and appearance must be a certain way to gain a guy’s attention. It was only a matter of time before they discovered a way to use new technology for this purpose.

“Sexting” means sending explicit pictures or messages to others via text messaging. Unfortunately teenagers around the country as young as 12 and 13-years-old have been sexting. According to an article on CNN.com, “CosmoGirl.com surveyed nearly 1,300 teens about sex and technology. The result: 1 in 5 teens say they’ve sexted even though the majority know it could be a crime.”

Often it seems that when a girl sends her boyfriend or friend a nude picture of herself, that picture gets circulated throughout the high school and community. These kids are far too immature to realize the consequences of their actions. After all, pop culture makes it seem as if it is acceptable for  adults to send each other nude photos, so they might as well do it too. Kids are consumers of the news too, and it is always news when a celebrity decides to take her clothes off for a men’s magazine. Young people apparently do not comprehend the damage that a circulated explicit photo will do to a girl’s life and reputation.

Those who have been caught sexting, such as Phillip Alpert of Florida, have sometimes been arrested for child pornography and are now forced to register as a sex offender for much of their adult lives. I believe that the Sex Offender Registry is good. I want to know which child molesters and rapists are living around the corner from me. But I do not believe that these kids should be forced to register as sex offenders because they have been sexting.

The sex offender registry was the result of moral panic following the murder of Megan Kanka, who was raped and killed by a previous sex offender who lived in her neighborhood. According to the website megans-law.net, President Clinton signed Megan’s Law into effect in 1996. Megan’s law requires two components: sex offender registration and community notification. The purpose of the law was to protect children from convicted sex offenders. Now, each state has a sex offender registry, and the details of registration and community notification vary by state.

In the case of sexting, the law must adapt to the changing times and the changing technology. Should those participating in sexting be punished? Absolutely. But the court must realize that sexting is the result of a generation that is becoming sexualized at an even younger age, yet is too immature to deal with it. I agree with the commentary of Mike Galanos on CNN.com:

“We need to educate, not incarcerate, our teens and it has to start with parents. Don’t let the culture indoctrinate your little boy or girl about sex before their time. So strike first as a parent. If your kids are older, let them know a digital record is for life. When little Suzie tries to win the affection of little Bobby by sexting him a picture, she is putting her future at stake. There is no control over that image or video once it gets out. But that doesn’t mean little Suzie should be charged as a child pornographer.”

Sexting is a problem rooted in the treatment of women in society. Girls need to start respecting themselves and their bodies, and boys need to start respecting them too. Registering someone whose only crime is sexting will not solve this problem. They are not in the same class as rapists and child molesters, and they do not pose the same kind of danger.  They need to be punished, but in a different and more meaningful way.

Dr. Phil McGraw

I am surprised that Dr. Phil would allow these people to confess to a crime on national television, but I suppose there is nothing quite like real-life human drama. I’m not sure I would have found this story entertaining however. But  I am even more surprised that this couple was stupid enough to admit on national television to shoplifting, yet they succeeded to steal and sell $100,000 worth of items.

Maybe next time Dr. Phil can help the Feds catch some of our most wanted fugitives. Surprise surprise, he has actually accomplished something good (albeit inadvertently.)