Introduction
The interplay between crime, media, and society has long been a central focus of criminological research. Before the advent of social media in the early 2000s, traditional media—such as television, newspapers, and radio—played a significant role in shaping public perceptions of crime. Criminological theories from this era, including moral panic theory and cultivation theory, provided frameworks to understand how media representations influence fear of crime, public opinion, and even criminal behaviour. However, the digital age, marked by the rise of platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok, has transformed how crime is reported, discussed, and perceived. This essay examines the extent to which pre-social media criminological theories remain relevant in today’s hyper-connected world. It will explore key theories, apply them to recent crime-related cases observed on social media, and critically assess their explanatory power in light of contemporary dynamics. Through this analysis, the essay argues that while some theories retain relevance, their limitations are evident when applied to the decentralised, instantaneous, and interactive nature of social media.
Moral Panic Theory and Its Contemporary Relevance
Moral panic theory, developed by Stanley Cohen in the 1970s, remains one of the most influential frameworks for understanding media and crime. Cohen argued that certain events or groups are exaggerated by the media as threats to societal values, leading to widespread public concern and often disproportionate responses (Cohen, 1972). Before social media, moral panics were largely driven by traditional news outlets, as seen in the UK during the 1980s with the panic over video nasties—violent films blamed for juvenile delinquency. Today, social media amplifies and accelerates these dynamics. For instance, a recent case that gained traction on platforms like Twitter and Instagram involved the spread of misinformation about “migrant crime waves” in the UK following the 2023 Southport stabbings. False narratives linking the attack to immigration status spread rapidly, fuelling far-right protests and violence. This mirrors Cohen’s concept of amplification through media, but the speed and scale of dissemination on social media are unprecedented. While moral panic theory still explains public overreactions, it struggles to account for the decentralised nature of social media, where individuals, rather than just media elites, contribute to panic through viral posts and hashtags. Therefore, the theory remains partially relevant but requires adaptation to address user-generated content and algorithmic amplification.
Cultivation Theory and the Digital Fear of Crime
Cultivation theory, proposed by George Gerbner in the 1970s, posits that prolonged exposure to media content, particularly violent portrayals, shapes viewers’ perceptions of reality, often cultivating a heightened fear of crime (Gerbner and Gross, 1976). In the pre-social media era, television was the primary medium, with studies showing that heavy viewers overestimated the prevalence of crime in society. Today, social media platforms like TikTok and YouTube expose users to raw, unfiltered content, including videos of street violence or crime reenactments, often without context. A recent example is the viral spread of videos on TikTok showing “knife crime” incidents in UK cities, such as a widely shared clip from early 2023 depicting a brawl in London that garnered millions of views. Such content, while not necessarily representative of overall crime rates, fosters a perception among young users that knife crime is ubiquitous. Cultivation theory remains applicable here, as repeated exposure to such videos may distort reality. However, the interactive nature of social media, where users comment, share, and debate, adds complexity beyond Gerbner’s original scope. Additionally, algorithms prioritise sensational content, intensifying exposure in ways traditional media could not. Thus, while cultivation theory offers insight, its passive model of media consumption is less suited to the active engagement seen online.
Agenda-Setting Theory in a Fragmented Media Landscape
Agenda-setting theory, developed by McCombs and Shaw in 1972, suggests that media influences public priorities by determining which issues receive attention (McCombs and Shaw, 1972). In the pre-social media era, news outlets had considerable control over public discourse, often focusing on sensational crimes to drive viewership. A modern parallel can be seen in the social media response to high-profile cases, such as the disappearance of Nicola Bulley in the UK in early 2023. On platforms like Twitter, amateur sleuths and influencers dominated discussions, often spreading unverified theories about her case, which influenced public focus more than traditional news coverage. This case highlights a shift: while agenda-setting theory still holds in terms of issue salience, social media disrupts the traditional gatekeeping role of media elites. Instead, trending hashtags and viral posts shape what the public deems important, often independent of factual reporting. Consequently, the theory remains relevant in principle but requires reevaluation to address the fragmented and user-driven nature of today’s media landscape.
Limitations of Pre-Social Media Theories in the Digital Age
While the theories discussed retain some explanatory power, their limitations are evident in the context of social media. First, pre-social media theories often assume a top-down model of media influence, where powerful institutions shape narratives. Social media, however, empowers individuals to create and share content, as seen in cases like the 2023 UK riots following the Southport stabbings, where misinformation spread through personal accounts rather than news outlets. Second, the speed of information dissemination on social media outpaces the slower cycles of traditional media, meaning theories like moral panic must account for rapid, real-time reactions. Finally, the global nature of social media challenges theories rooted in national or local contexts; a crime video shared on Instagram can influence perceptions far beyond its origin. These factors suggest that while older theories provide a foundation, new frameworks are needed to fully capture the complexities of crime and media in the digital age.
Conclusion
In conclusion, criminological theories of crime and media from before the advent of social media, such as moral panic, cultivation, and agenda-setting theories, remain relevant to some extent in explaining contemporary phenomena. They effectively highlight how exaggerated fears, distorted perceptions, and prioritised issues shape public responses to crime, as seen in recent social media cases like the Southport stabbings and the Nicola Bulley investigation. However, their applicability is limited by the decentralised, interactive, and rapid nature of social media, which disrupts traditional models of media influence. This suggests a need for updated or hybrid theories that account for user agency, algorithmic biases, and global connectivity. The implications are significant for criminology, as understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing misinformation, public fear, and policy responses to crime in the digital era. Ultimately, while pre-social media theories offer valuable insights, their adaptation to modern contexts is essential for maintaining relevance.
References
- Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
- Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. (1976) Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), pp. 172-199.
- McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), pp. 176-187.
