Society's Perception On Drug Use

Drugs have long been perceived as one of the biggest issues facing our country, but how did they reach that place in the public eye? The media has a staggering amount of influence on public perception of social issues, and this is evidenced in the way the media both popularized conversation surrounded drug use as well as demonized it. The media's portrayal of drug use is overwhelmingly negative, which is fine because it is an illegal act, but the desecration of those who partake in it is an unfortunate side effect which can be seen across hours and hours of media coverage of drug usage. In these clips, the various documentarians and news reporters tackle on aspects of drug use the public had no prior knowledge of, simultaneously enlightening them with new information as well as subliminally shaping the opinions they have on the matter.

This clip is picked from a broader series of programs which delves into the issue of teen drug use in suburban America and the various ways in which it can be combatted. As the majority of these programs are presented from the perspective of outsiders, teachers, lawyers and others indirectly rather than directly affected by the problem, this clip is significant for its presentation of a real-life drug user’s real-life point of view, something which was very rare in these kind of programs. In the clip, he discusses the specific things he does and doesn’t enjoy about his drug addiction, even going into the details of how he likes the needle and the way he positions it against his arm. The identity of the drug user is masked throughout the entirety of the interview, reflecting the hugely negative stigma of drugs in the public eye and the necessity of anonymity for those who wish to confess their experience. While it is interesting that the user was allowed to relay their own experience, the anonymity and the fact that Lord still controls the program and ultimately the content itself speaks to the power taken out of the addicts and into those unaffected. Ultimately this clip shows that the issue of drug addiction is a highly stigmatized one in which the addicts are portrayed as disease ridden victims instead of human beings.

This clip illustrates the uncertainty that science had with the drug LSD during this time. Scientists claimed it to be an ‘enigma’. The documentary captures this uncertainty as very dangerous. Throughout the documentary, many issues are examined of how acid could to be dangerous to its user. For the most part, this documentary does not express any favor towards the drug. But in some instances, there are claims by its users and scientists of how it can beneficial to its users. 
In this particular clip, the documentary is painting the dangers of this drug by portraying the usage of it as not only harmful, but also a drug that has many undesirable consequences. What brings meaning to this clip is how a drug like this was viewed during this time. During the 1970’s, LSD was not only a legalized, psychedelic drug but it was also widely and heavily used amongst American adults and teens. This documentary establishing the questions of how it could affect its users was very unfamiliar to the American public. The audience and the documentary share uncertainty over this issue and how it is affecting people.

As soon as the documentary starts, you are immediately shown and told a person’s opinion on T’s and Blues, a heroin substitute. I was immediately intrigued by the man’s devastating description of the drug. Not only are the drug’s effects described in explicit detail, but there are actual shots of injection and preparation of the drug. During the intro in this clip, it is explained that the drug can be obtained with a prescription from a pharmacy. The law enforcement knows that the drug is a problem akin to heroin, but there simply haven’t been any criminal charges that can warrant large scale action against it. According to the statistics cited in the clip, over 30,000 prescriptions were written at the Mohawk clinic, and junkies could waltz in get exactly what they needed, all the way down to the preparation materials. The negative reputation of the drug was emphasized made immediately transparent, yet I found it interesting that I had never heard anything of this drug before. With the measures in place today, this situation likely wouldn't even happen in current society.

While it is good that these programs shed light on an important issue which the public was largely unaware of, the manner in which they presented their findings led to the audience gaining an unconscious bias which is in no way fair and respectful of all sides of the issues. These news reports and TV programs served the knowledge in granting them knowledge, but ultimately ended up presenting them information in a skewed manner that pushed their overt agendas more than assisted the need of the general public or, most notably, those affected by the issues at hand.

Portrayals of Killers in 20th Century TV

The subject of serial killers has always been a hot-topic in the media. The manner in which these mass-murderers were presented has undergone something of a transformation since the early years of television. The transformation started as a simple, factual news coverage of a shadowy monster. As time went on, the transformation progressed to more in-depth documentaries, and lastly, to fictionalized portrayals that seek to understand what occurs in the mind of a killer.

Though pre-1990s news coverage of murders often strictly presented the facts, other sources often provided interviews showcasing an entirely different take on a murderer. “Charles Whitman Sniping Spree,” news coverage of a tragic event in 1966, was presented by local news broadcast station, KTBC News. It covered the chaos that took over the area surrounding Austin, Texas when mass-murderer Charles Whitman shot 49 people.

This clip shows the lead of the story and live shots of gunfire, as well as the public panic that surrounded the camera crew. The information was presented stoically throughout the package. Though the cameras were present during the actual live shootings, the reporters show little emotion towards the events or the killer. This clip is significant because the coverage is journalistically oriented, and in fact shows scarce interest in the killer's motives. Naturally, there isn’t an abstract take on the inner psyche of a killer, as the news is supposed to be as direct as possible. This emotional distance greatly contrasts that of the 1961 program, Volcano Named White. Essentially, Volcano Named White, is narrated by the murderer himself, Don White. Though both the Charles Whitman Sniping Spree and Volcano Named White reported  factual information, the presence of the murderer narrating Volcano Named White showcased what led the killer to commit his crimes. Positive reactions from the audience were arguably garnered because they had the ability to understand Don White’s actions. Though Charles Whitman Sniping Spree and Volcano Named White both covered murderers, Volcano Named White was thought to be more thought-provoking because the coverage of killer was taken in an entirely different context.

Due to the public’s curiosity concerning the influx of serial killers in the 70s, many documentaries were created to unveil the monstrosities that people, many as seemingly commonplace as your neighbor, were capable of committing. While many documentaries were largely informative and spent time delving into the background and psyche of killers in order to determine the causality of their mental instability, the men were never truly regarded as human being, as they were often classified as monstrous.  

This clip discusses many serial killers, including the Son of Sam killer, the Boston Strangler, John Wayne Gacy, and the “classic case” of Ted Bundy by showing intimate pictures of victims, weapons used in the crimes, and the serial killers themselves to create a more real, tactile world for the viewer. As the pictures are presented, a voiceover narration, along with dramatically eerie music, attempts to create a familiar foundation for the all-too-unusual killers as they are repeatedly regarded as “all normal looking…men” who are sometimes “soft-spoken [businessmen]” or even “married with two kids”. This commonness juxtaposed against the revelation of their heinous crimes is the premise on which the remainder of the documentary is based off—unidentifiable murderers. Despite the outlandishly unusual characteristics of these men, they are described as being “just like your next door neighbor…people you would not suspect”.  And it is because of this that they are difficult to identify and, in turn, granted the opportunity to continue roaming the streets undetected; free to commit their crimes.

In documentaries, news coverage, and fictional series, the average program from the 50s to the 90s did not care to explain the why of crime, but rather the who and the how. For instance, ITV’s Jack the Ripper focuses the majority of its screen-time on the adventures of the lead detectives as they encounter grotesque crime-scenes and seek to unmask the killer. It cares less about the psyche of the Ripper and more about the outward devastation he causes. Starting from the mid-90s, more and more television focused on instead understanding in-depth the reasoning behind murders.

In this clip from Cracker, we see the central protagonist of the show, criminal psychologist named Fitz, confronting a suspect in a series of brutal murders. Unlike in shows popular in previous decades, Cracker focuses strongly on individual motivations for crime, and what would drive a person to commit murder. Documentaries on the subject of specific serial murderers often choose to focus on the crime itself, or the victims, instead of decoding the psyche of the criminal himself. In Cracker’s “To Be a Somebody,” the protagonist is chiefly able to solve the mystery of the murders through understanding what is going through the killer’s mind. Though the killer is portrayed as a dangerous character, and one certainly in the wrong, he is not unsympathetic. The audience can both condemn him for his senseless killings, and also understand why he did such a thing.

This is a stark contrast to the previous decades, wherein programs about killers depict their subject in shadows, or else as a crazed lunatic. The crux of the story is not who the killer is—the audience knows this from the start—but rather why he is a killer. This program heralds a shift from the simple portrayal of serial murderers on television as senseless monsters to a more nuanced depiction, one where the audience understands the driving force (even if monstrous).

As time goes on, the perplexities of what makes a serial killer become more and more intriguing to the common consumer. What started as simple news deliveries transformed into the complex documentaries and fictional characterizations that grace television today. Of course, each type of program can only portray murderers in a certain fashion. While the news can only report about the crime and its victims, documentaries have the ability to delve further into the inner workings of a killer, and dramatizations can bring new light to why mass murderers are who they are. Though it is interesting to see these different angles, it is important to understand what biases have affected the programs.