The Glamorization of Serial Killers

To wonder how topics come about in conversation and to ponder what is spoken about and what is not are all set by agendas, but by whom? Agenda setting is the theory of having the agenda, or conversation, be set by the influential news distributors to control what topics are being discussed in a given frame. Understanding why a certain show or movie is successful can easily lead back to the trends set by people of power, or influence speaking about the content. The same would go for people’s personality development in regards to likes/dislikes, fashion choices, eating habits, social groups, etc. Everything is interconnected and influenced in one way or another by an outside or larger source. From McCombs and Shaw, “most of what people know comes to them ‘second’ or ‘third’ hand from the mass media or from other people” (1972, p. 176). Funneling down this rabbit hole, the agenda is set in time frames of influencing viewers and establishing hierarchy of news prevalence. 

Agenda Setting 

Agenda setting was first coined as having a definite term in Lippmann’s Public Opinion (1922). In his reviewed work, Lippmann argues that the news media is a determinant of how society constructs mental images of the larger world, including the affairs of the public. This being said, this is simply the frame for the conversation and is meant to incentivize interest. Being cited countless times and continuously relevant nearly 60 years later, the first big study completed that proves this theory, was not even carried out until 1968. The Chapel Hill study, as it has since been considered, covered the U. S. presidential election to clearly define the relationship between priority of issues and the issues that held priority in the eyes of the public. Respondents in the study recorded outline key issues of the presidential campaign (Stacks, et al., 2021). The data from this study was measured through content analysis of television, elite and local newspapers, and news magazines. The analysis of these sources measured the number of stories aired during the election to then put them in priority order. 

The consistency of the news is constantly feeding new information and topics of discussion to the public through this media and does not require much thought as it plays out. Iyengar claimed that with this constant broadcasting, networks are able to develop a scale for priorities as it affects viewers' beliefs, as each agenda changes these beliefs (1987, p. 25). Two concepts define a person's need to engage in public affairs; relevance and uncertainty (Valenzuela, 2021, p. 100). Relevance is influenced by many sources, taking into account the identity defining factors of each individual, where the defining and conditional need for orientation in public sight begins. From this stage is where uncertainty is introduced and the degree of uncertainty determines how affected someone is by the agenda being set. If the person of interest is uncertain about a topic, the need for orientation with it will not be high. This being said, persons with high relevance and uncertainty are more avid consumers of this media and that trickles into the conversations and influences of lesser active consumers. 

The effects of this agenda setting by media outlets subsequently focused conversations, but also determines the understanding of overarching objects. Objects are the items that define the agenda and are then dissected by attributes to support the agenda. By analyzing the two levels of agenda setting, object salience and influence of news agenda on the public agenda, attributes of candidates were fixed. As studied by Kim, Kim, & Zhou, the levels of agenda setting are expanded and explored in further depth by the meta-analysis by Wanta and Ghanem (Kim, et al., 2017). Their analysis, conducted in 2007, found an above average correlation between the media agenda and the public’s. The pattern of coverage alludes to the agenda being set through this media from the results of four elements; exchanges between sources in media work-settings, habitual conversation in workplace news settings, the norms and traditions of the journalism field, and the trends set through social media. 

In terms of the after effects of agenda setting by the media, attitudes and behaviors as reactions to these topics have surfaced. Media outlets are often reliant on the same source for their supporting information. By looking for this supporting evidence in the same place, these outlets can result in increased probability that the agendas will converge (Atkinson, et al., 2014, p. 357). Opinions are formed surrounding the information known about the object, then primed by resurging emphasis on selected issues, and molded through the emphasis of particular attributes of that object. This process of opinion forming is linked to the media through the surrounding existence of other opinions and standards by which the evaluation of people in power are transformed.

Social media as a newer addition to the instigators of agenda setting are combated with claims that the agenda has widened too far and has lost its influence, but this is not entirely correct. Kim and their researchers support this end in sight for this kind of influence, “the popular spread of the Internet and social media raises the question as to whether agenda-setting effects of news media can survive in the digital age” (2017, p. 96). Social media has allowed for more topics to emerge and at higher frequencies of change, but the agenda is still influential to its consumers. The same theory continues to apply and always will. While there are trends, agendas are able to be set. 

The media affects us as consumers in every aspect of our lives, whether subconsciously or completely actively and intentionally. There are mental, physical, and behavioral influences from the media on our development as individuals in a larger collective of communicative beings. Growing up especially in this consumer heavy society has also allowed for determining factors of individualized existence that are intertwined and put on display. Hall says, “Newspapers, then, do not merely report the news: they ‘make the news meaningful’” (Weist, 2003, p. 4). Youth culture is processed through a variety of cultural shifts with every passing agenda and are often early adopters to new agendas through their rapid acceptance and adaptation to technological innovations. In order to stand out and make a place for oneself, the agenda’s object must be chosen by an outside influence. This leads into the formulation of agendas through social media trends and topics. 

Violence 

As discussed in other literature, media’s influence of violence in its consumers are affected through influence and exposure and its framing. Media’s coverage of violence does not necessarily set the agenda for how to become violent, but it does show what outrageous acts can be achieved when the effort is present. A multitude of factors reinforce the desire to act aggressively, unrelated to media’s association with it, but this will be the focus for this paper. The agenda set by the media in relation to aggression develop violent tendencies in growing products of society and become new attributes to the agenda. For the ease of understanding, the media sets the agenda for the glamorization of serial killers. 

Media affects development in conditional ways. The consumer of the media must be exposed and paying attention to it, as well as, able to replicate the act and motivation to do so (Fondren, 2018, p. 272). Social Identity theory plays into this as well, proposing that individuals identify themselves with belonging to groups to compare their value. Assimilation with aggressive groups influences social categorization and identity to the point where it has become glamorized. Negative social identity is associated with competitiveness and the urge to feel like there is a way to be better than everyone else including devising cognitive strategies to create a different image to be a part of the in group (Fondren, 2018). This leads to the understanding and analysis of the development of serial killers as they are influenced by the media as being an idealization for recognition and fame. 

Glamourization of Serial Killers 

All known serial killers are known for their terrorizing acts of murder in the eyes of society and lawful acts. What interests so many to the aggressive discussions of these individuals is understanding how someone becomes so violent as to hurt multiple other people to the point of death. Why does their brain urge them to commit these crimes? Were the victims chosen for a reason? As analyzed through literature and found, “Serial killers not only become stars, but to some people, they become some kind of heroes” (Wiest, 2003, p. 3). The progression of recognition that these individuals receive begin at the level of being an unknown and then growing rapid audiences and attention through their crimes and become superstars, going down in history. The media helps people to understand their role in society and the value they bring. With this idea of value to society is the desire for there to be a reason to be recognized and perceived by as much of the society as possible. 

Coverage for serial killer’s actions can take multiple angles and are accompanied by constant new developments which elongates the agenda’s influence in conversation. Even after the killer is sentenced, the media covers the information that encompasses the events leading up to, during, and after the incident that landed them in the situation in the first place. From the findings of Criminologist, Philip Jenkins, 

“Perhaps the most interesting aspect of serial murder from a sociological point of view is the way in which the phenomenon has been elevated in social consciousness from a rare, aberrant occurrence into a pressing social problem” (Weist, 2003, p.4)

The way that these sociological tendencies are covered in media coverage leads consumers to believe that issue is of greater importance. David Berkowitz, known as the “Son of Sam” gained his popularity through the six acts of terror he instilled in the lives of six New York women during 1976 and 1977 (Weist, 2003, p. 6). Berkowitz is a prime example of media influence by agenda setting for the reasons for their actions. Described as a loner in childhood with violent streaks, he sought out recognition by other means. As the prime example, he knew his crimes were being recorded and broadcasted. This bolstered his confidence and was interpreted as a form of encouragement --like he had his own fan club. Berkowitz said in an interview that “I finally had convinced myself that it was good to do it, necessary to do it, and that the public wanted me to do it” (Weist, 2003, p. 13). From what was known to him at the time of his incarceration, Berkowitz pleaded mentally insane in hopes that his knowledge and understanding of courtrooms would take pity and place him in a mental institution or simple release rather than sentenced to life. 

Berkowitz and many other offenders of these crimes have been inspirations for movies and even television series, profiting off of the ‘murderabilia’ that encases these moments in time. As the audience for these interests grow and are played upon for entertainment, the audience widens and the celebrity impression of each serial killer is heightened (Spychaj, 2017, p. 19). With this constant flow of consumption of violence, oftentimes, the lines between real and fictional violence are blurred. Berkowitz even added to his encouraging beliefs, claiming that he felt like people were rooting for him. Other serial killers like Richard Ramirez have been reported to ask their victims of their popularity as acts are being done. An assault victim of Ramirez told interviewers that he asked her if she knew who he was then saying, “I’m the one they're writing about in the newspapers and on TV” (Weist, 2003, p.18). 

The notions surrounding cultivated nicknames for serial killers support the glamorization of these actions and identification. A nickname helps the person to be remembered forever in the public’s memories and that kind attention that can prolong their legacy beyond their actual crimes. There is an apparent constant struggle in the relationship between indulging the interest of the serial murderer as being a fan of their work versus how these killers should be perceived according to social norms (2017, p. 94). The media's use of catchy, attention-grabbing nicknames can also contribute to the sensationalization of these crimes, potentially leading to copycat behavior and further perpetuating the cycle of violence. In the review by Raitanen and Oksanen it was found that the problem with the media unintentionally idolizes mass killers into “celebrity role models, who are then worshiped as gods, heroes, kindred spirits, and even sex symbols by the people who eventually commit mass killings of their own” (Lankford, 2018, p. 155). The desire for a nickname and preservation throughout time incentivizes copycats to kill as many victims as possible to gain more attention. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the glamorization of serial killers through the lens of agenda setting in communication theory is a complex issue that raises important questions about the impact of media on our society. By selecting which stories to cover and how to cover them, media outlets can shape public perception and influence attitudes towards violence and crime. The danger of glamorizing serial killers is that it can normalize and even encourage violent behavior, particularly among vulnerable, younger individuals. However, it is important to note that the media is not the only factor influencing public attitudes towards violence and crime. Other factors, such as personal experiences, social norms, and mental health, also play a role. While media outlets have a responsibility to report on important issues, including crime, they must do so in a responsible and ethical manner that avoids glorifying violence or contributing to harmful stereotypes. 

References 

Atkinson, M. L., Lovett, J., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2014). Measuring the media agenda. Political Communication, 31(2), 355-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.828139

Fondren, W., Holody, K. J., & Bryant, J. (2018). Violence and Sex in the Media. In D. W. Stacks (Ed.), An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 271-289). Routledge. 

Humphreys, L., Paley, A., & Rinaldi, S. (2021). Digital media: Identity management. In D. Stacks & M. Salwen (Eds.), An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 345-364). Routledge.

Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. University of Chicago Press.

Kim, Y., Kim, Y., & Zhou, S. (2017). Theoretical and methodological trends of agenda-setting theory: A thematic analysis of the last four decades of research. Agenda Setting Journal, 1, 5-22.

Lankford, A., & Madfis, E. (2018). Media coverage of mass killers: Content, consequences, and solutions. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(2), 151-162.

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-218.

Spychaj, M. (2017). “Serial killers are interesting, they’re not heroes”: Moral boundaries, identity management, and emotional work within an online community (Doctoral dissertation, Wilfrid Laurier University). Retrieved from https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1985/

Valenzuela, S., & McCombs, M. (2021). The agenda-setting role of the news media. In D. W. Stacks & M. Salwen (Eds.), An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 179-192). Routledge.

Wiest, J. B. (2003). Serial Killers as Heroes in the Media's Storybook of Murder: A Textual Analysis of the New York Times Coverage of the" Son of Sam", the" Boston Strangler", and the" Night Stalker" (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia).