Explain the influence of media depictions on perceptions of race, crime, and justice.

Read the instructions and reminders before completing this assignment.

INSTRUCTIONS: Use the reading for this week, the readings below, and credible outside sources to answer ONE of the questions below (highlighted section).

Your job is to explore the question asked and offer thoughtful responses using the provided articles and weekly readings to support your case. Do NOT summarize articles, rather consider and apply the research to your own ideas/ experience. Your paper should: relate directly to the material assigned for the week, identify strengths and weaknesses of the material, provide a commentary and critique, include previous content knowledge (week 2 Victimization and Offending is an example) and be supported by references to the readings. You do not have to include all readings, but you must demonstrate connection to at least one article and cite it in your work.

Higher grades generally accompany work that includes more than one source AND demonstrates critical thinking regarding the question posed.

Question: CHOOSE ONLY ONE

A) Analyze how victim and/or perpetrator identity impact crime reporting.

-or-

B) Explain the influence of media depictions on perceptions of race, crime, and justice.

REMINDERS: Reflection papers should be 350 to 700 words, typed double spaced, and uploaded using .doc or .docx files

Review the rubric to understand the components needed for this assignment.

Requirements: 350-700 words

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uvao20Victims & OffendersAn International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, andPracticeISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20Victimization Portrayals on Popular Crime Shows &Comparisons to the NCVSSarah G. WhitefordTo cite this article: Sarah G. Whiteford (2022): Victimization Portrayals on Popular Crime Shows &Comparisons to the NCVS, Victims & Offenders, DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2022.2112639To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2112639Published online: 12 Sep 2022.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 144View related articles View Crossmark data

Victimization Portrayals on Popular Crime Shows & Comparisons to the NCVSSarah G. WhitefordDepartment of Criminal Justice, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USAABSTRACTCrime shows have been airing on television for over 70 years and we continuously find said shows to have high rates of viewership. But how accurate are the portrayals depicted in said shows? This research analyzes crime show drama portrayals of victimization across two time periods by analyzing 270 episodes from 11 different crime drama television series in which a clear criminal event is followed by a law enforcement investigation. Shows were chosen at Time 1 for inclusion based on popularity, longevity, accessibility, and recency; Time 2 data included a 5-year follow-up to any of the Time 1 shows still in production. Demographics and background characteristics of victims are analyzed including gender, age, race/ethnicity, occupation, military/law enforcement affiliation, parental/marital status, and prior victimization. Additionally, the relationship between offender and victim, whether the victimization was actually portrayed in the show, whether the victim was held captive, and if the victim ultimately survived or died are also addressed. Findings are discussed in compar-ison to what previous research from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates actual victimization patterns to be.KEYWORDS Victimization; media portrayal; NCVS; crime showIntroductionAs early as 1973, researchers had established that law-breaking and crime was the most common element found across prime-time television shows (Dominick, 1973). At that time, almost two-thirds of shows portrayed at least one crime with 42% portraying more than one crime. Research shows that crime receives an extraordinary amount of time and attention in mass media including news coverage and fictional portrayals such as television dramas and feature films (see, Warr, 2000). Additional research on the demographics of television portrayals have revealed that many fictional characterizations portray criminals, police, judges, lawyers, defendants and witnesses, especially when compared to how frequently scientists, engineers, or blue-collar workers are portrayed (Gerbner & Gross, 1976).Given the prominence of such television portrayals, it is important to consider the impact viewing such portrayals has on the public’s understanding of crime, victimization, and the criminal justice system. A substantial amount of research within criminal justice has been done on media and television effects on a variety of outcomes as they relate to crime, criminal offenders, and particularly the effects on perceptions of and fear of crime. While much research has focused on the ways in which offenders are portrayed in the media, less CONTACT Sarah G. Whiteford [email protected] Department of Criminal Justice, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TNVICTIMS & OFFENDERS https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2112639© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

attention has been paid to the portrayal of victims and the extent to which said portrayals are an accurate reflection of victimization patterns in society. When victimization portrayals are the focus of such inquiry, the overwhelming focus has been on whether watching such portrayals increases viewers’ fear of being the victim of crime. Fear of crime appears to be one way in which the media and media portrayals affect public discourse about criminal justice (Warr, 2000) with research findings indicating that fear of crime is far more prevalent than actual likelihood of victimization (Warr & National Research Council, 1994). But the question remains whether this fear is related to the over portrayal of crime and violence in television programming?Prior research – media portrayals and fear of crimeMuch of the previous research suggests that factors such as frequency of television news viewing and watching crime-related entertainment programs significantly increases view-ers’ fear of crime and criminal victimization (Chiricos et al., 1997; Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004). In finding that television viewing was related to fear of crime, Sparks and Ogles (1990) argue that it is possible that television viewers may overestimate the dangerousness of their environment and how vulnerable they may be to becoming the victim of crime. This may be due to the fact that television grossly exaggerates the prevalence of violence in society which results in heavy television viewers to be more likely, as compared to light viewers, to overestimate how dangerous the world is (Oliver & Armstrong, 1998). A review of the early literature on television affects by Heath and Gilbert (1996) concluded that “at least some television programming was correlated with fear of crime for at least some of the viewers” (p. 380) suggesting that the television program’s message and who the audience is may matter when assessing television effects on fear of crime.If television portrayals of crime and violence do indeed affect our fear of crime and beliefs about the likelihood of criminal victimization, then what about the fact that violent crimes are a prominent theme in the media and are even overly represented in media portrayals as compared to their actual occurrence in society? Although crimes such as homicide, rape, and robbery are the rarest, the public tends to exaggerate the frequency of these rarer, more serious crimes while underestimating less serious crimes that are much more common (Warr, 2000). Previous research has suggested that, regardless of the type of media, news coverage of crime disproportionately focuses on violent or serious criminal events compared to nonviolent or less serious reports of crime (Lipschultz & Hilt, 2014; Marsh, 1991).Early research by Dominick (1973) established that television tends to overly portray violent crimes directed at people compared to the more real-world patterns of crime that tend to be nonviolent and directed at property. In an analysis of one week’s worth of prime- time television, Dominic found violent crimes such as murder, aggravated assault, and armed robbery accounted for 60% of the crimes portrayed which, when compared to the Uniform Crime Reports, illustrates a gross exaggeration of the frequency of these violent index crimes. Findings by O’Keefe and Reid-Nash (1987) indicated that while violent crimes only constitute 20% of all crime, the media more frequently depict and emphasize the most horrific of these crimes. In fact, the media are likeliest to report the exact crimes that are least likely to occur (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). News media in particular are most likely to report on violent crimes (Chermak, 1995; Marsh, 1991) and homicide remains a preferred 2S. G. WHITEFORD

topic for both television crime shows (Britto et al., 2007; Eschholz et al., 2004; Rhineberger- Dunn et al., 2008) and news media outlets where it receives a disproportionate amount of attention over other crimes (Jerin & Fields, 1994; Reiner et al., 2000).A portion of the analyses in this paper will focus on the types of crimes portrayed in the crime shows analyzed and whether this overemphasis of violent crime still exists, particu-larly amongst fictional prime-time television shows. For example, similar to the current study’s focus, Soulliere (2003) found that murders comprised 66% of all criminal incidents depicted on the popular prime time crime shows of Law and Order, NYPD Blue, and The Practice during the 1999–2000 season. As Soulliere noted, this illustrates the overrepresen-tation of violent crime when compared to the official statistics of the Uniform Crime Reports and it is hypothesized that the analyses presented in this study will yield similar findings when more recent prime time dramas are analyzed with regards to crime and victimization portrayals.In studying the effects of media portrayals on viewers, the question arises of whether the effects of media portrayals differ by type of crime programming watched? Findings by Kort- Butler and Sittner Hartshorn (2011) suggest that type of crime program matters when addressing people’s attitudes about crime and fear of crime and victimization. Their research indicated that nonfictional crime programs in particular increased fear of criminal victimization amongst respondents. Similarly, Romer and colleagues (Romer et al., 2003) found that watching local news stories about crime on television increased citizens’ reported fear of crime (Romer et al., 2003). Callanan (2012) found that those who watched local television news were more likely to fear being victimized in their own neighborhood. Across all racial groups, watching local television news significantly increased fear of crime but newspaper and crime drama portrayals were even more influential than crime-based reality shows (Callanan, 2012). Taken together, these findings emphasize the importance of clearly distinguishing between types of media analyzed and findings by Callanan particularly suggest the need for further focus on crime drama portrayals as a separate form of media from news and “reality” based crime shows. With much previous research focusing pri-marily on nonfictional news stories of crime, the focus of this study will be on fictional portrayals from popular crime dramas that originally air on prime time television, are widely available through streaming services, and are aired in an almost consistent loop on television through syndication.Research findings as recent as 2017 still suggest a need for additional research on examining the relationship between media exposure and fear of crime and victimization (Hollis et al., 2017). Hollis and colleagues argue that we need to further understand the fast paced, ever changing nature of communications about crime from a variety of sources. We must understand how various communications about crime can impact outcomes such as fear of crime and, more importantly for this research, perceptions of criminal victimization. Therefore, this research focuses specifically on the portrayals of victims in prime-time crime shows given the belief that viewership of victimization would likely affect the viewing public’s fear of crime and perceived likelihood of victimization. The affinity hypothesis suggests these media effects may be particularly strong when viewers share similarities with victims portrayed by the media (Gerbner, 1978; Hirsch, 1980). Thus, in attempting to understand media portrayal affects on fear of crime and victimization, it is critical to more closely examine the characteristics of those most frequently portrayed as victims in media portrayals.VICTIMS & OFFENDERS3

Conceptual frameworks – framing, social construction, and cultivationCriminology as a discipline is, by its very nature, an interdisciplinary field that attempts to explain crime, criminal behavior, and victimization. The theoretical underpinnings of the discipline promote theories that are sociological, psychological, and biological in nature. Like the broader discipline, studying media portrayals of crime seems to require the inclusion of theories and concepts from many fields including sociology, psychology, communications, public policy, and more. Just as the content and forms of media vary greatly, so do the many explanations for why media portrayals matter. Here, several conceptual frameworks for understanding the relationship between media and fear of crime and victimization are summarized as well as why these perspectives would be particularly important for understanding media portrayals of victimization.The framing perspectiveOne of the more social psychological perspectives applied to media explanations is the use of “framing” as proposed by sociologist Erving Goffman (1974). Framing refers to the ways people make sense of objects and events they observe and provide a means of classifying or organizing the massive amounts of information to which people are constantly exposed. Frames provide a way of interpreting and making sense of the information received – whether that information be from other persons or from mediated communications such as the media.Given that individuals are perpetually bombarded with information from numerous media sources – news media, social media, television, movies, and more – people use framing to organize the information received from these sources. When applied to under-standings of crime and victimization, we must acknowledge that most people are rather ignorant regarding actual crime trends and victimization patterns and therefore often make judgments about crime without access to accurate information or any direct personal experience with crime (e.g., Drakulich, 2013). Without actual experience, media represen-tations are the main means of learning about and interpreting issues of crime and justice for many Americans (Dotter, 2002) with the public reporting that the media is their primary source of information about crime and criminals (Roberts et al., 2002; Surette, 2015a) especially given the amount of time they spend watching, reading, and listening to media outlets (Graber, 1980; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). Thus, the public’s knowledge of both the criminal justice system and crime policy is drawn from and shaped by media depictions when there is an absence of any actual experience with the criminal justice system (Pickett et al., 2015). The media becomes a primary frame of reference for issues of crime and interpretations of criminal events (Barak, 1994; Eschholz, 1997).The media plays an important role then in framing the public’s knowledge and under-standing of crime particularly because the media has the ability to communicate key messages to large numbers of people and can use frames to provide condensed, convenient, easy-to-interpret packages of information to an audience (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Scheufele, 1999; Tuchman, 1978). Visual framing from sources such as television may be even more salient than verbal framing found in sources such as newspapers and radios (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004). Given that the nature of television is visual, television news makes images of crime more salient for viewers (Hamilton, 2000; Romer et al., 2003). The 4S. G. WHITEFORD

repetition of similar scenarios teaches the viewers about the causes of disorder (Ericson et al., 1989) and, the greater the consistency of information received from various media sources, the more likely a conclusion presented by the media is to be believed by the viewing public (Kahneman, 2011). For many viewers, the frame built for understanding crime is based on media portrayals but that frame is based off the “distorted reality” that viewers see portrayed by the mass media (Dowler et al., 2006; Quinney, 1970; Roberts et al., 2002; Sacco, 1995; Surette, 2015). Remember, the goal of the media is not to necessarily present an accurate picture of crime but rather to sell stories. Thus, stories with a sensational bend are more often the focus of media portrayals of crime rather than stories more in keeping with general crime patterns and trends (Graber, 1980; Potter & Kappeler, 1998; Reiner, 2002). This emphasis on sensationalism is perhaps particularly salient when we consider the goal of fictional media such as crime shows that are produced with the specific intent of dramatic appeal.Expanding the work of Goffman and others, Altheide (1997) proposed a conceptual model focusing on a “problem frame” that news media in particular use to promote a message that resonates fear. Altheide utilizes the notion of frames as broad thematic boundaries or parameters for how media frame particular events including crime. Frames determine what will and will not be discussed in the context of a particular newsworthy topic such as crime. According to this model, media intentionally inform the audience of a situation that is deemed undesirable, persuades the audience that many people are affected by the undesirable situation, and asserts that the main factors contributing to the situation are easily identifiable. Thus, though this framing process, the news media become central to the process by which the crime problem is socially constructed (Chiricos et al., 2000).According to Altheide, the problem frame used by media formats, particularly TV, packages stories about fear of crime in a way that reduces social complexities into simplistic problems. These simplistic frames then become a resource for audiences to draw upon when interpreting subsequent reports and news stories. The problem frame utilized by the news media conveys a common image of offenders as individuals uninhibited by societal rules and values (Surette, 2015) while at the same time portraying victims as innocent and vulnerable (Bjornstrom et al., 2010; Lundman, 2003). Findings by Kort-Butler and Habecker (2018) are consistent with this problem frame and suggest that the more viewers “buy in” to the media’s skewed portrayal of crime, the angrier viewers felt about crime. Thus, if audiences do use media portrayals to create frames about crime, criminals, and victimization, their personal frames for thinking about such things are largely based on the problem frames portrayed by the media.The social construction perspectiveAlso grounded in a social psychological perspective on crime, Surette (2015) utilizes a social constructionism perspective to focus on the way in which people create a reality based on both personal experience and knowledge gained through social interactions. Under this perspective, reality is not independent of human thought processes but rather constructed through the shared meanings people hold in common. According to Surrette, the goal of social constructionism is to understand the process by which people construct an agreement that is then perceived to be the reality and to understand the conditions that can affect change in that constructed reality.VICTIMS & OFFENDERS5

Surette suggests that people acquire knowledge from four sources when constructing a reality: personal experience, from significant others, from other social groups, and from the media. For example, personal experience with victimization – what Surette terms “experienced reality” – is the most powerful indicator of how an individual views the seriousness of a particular crime (p. 32). But personal victimization is relatively rare which leads to Surette’s argument that symbolic reality – combining knowledge from other people, institutions, and the media – is actually the foundation for what most people believe about the world and is a major source in shaping our view of reality. Of greatest importance for this study, Surette suggests that media dominates our formation of symbolic reality more so than knowledge received from other people or institutions thereby making the media a main source of reality construction.Through a four-stage social construction process, the media takes differing descriptions of the physical world and helps filter out competing constructions thereby acting as a filter by which some constructions receive greater credibility and coverage. The media typically favor those constructions that “are dramatic, are sponsored by powerful groups, and are related to pre-established cultural themes” (p. 34). Following this filtering process, a dominant social construction emerges from the media that prevails and influences the reality people hold about issues such as crime, victimization, and the criminal justice system.One can apply Surette’s framework to the ways in which the media constructs a reality regarding victimization – particularly with regard to which victims are deemed worthy of coverage. Despite the overemphasis on violent crime in the media, not all violent crime stories receive equal attention (Gruenewald et al., 2009) and the likelihood of media coverage may vary according to attributes of the victim (Jewkes, 2004). The media decides which stories are worthy of publication with certain types of victims receiving preferential coverage while others are underrepresented. In fact, victim characteristics are found to be one of the most important factors in the newsworthiness of a crime story (Chermak, 1995).First introduced by Christie (1986), the term “ideal victim” refers to “a person or a category of individuals who – when hit by crime – most readily are given complete and legitimate status of being a victim” (p. 18). Some individuals are considered to be more deserving or worthy of victim status and, because victimhood is socially constructed in this way, whether or not someone is characterized as a victim becomes dependent on a number of factors. As suggested by Gekoski and colleagues (Gekoski et al., 2012), ideal victims generally hold a vulnerable status, are law-abiding, and murdered without just cause. By focusing on stories of victimization with these victim characteristics, the media plays a continued role in socially constructing what the viewing public perceives to be the reality of victimization – regardless of how skewed these perceptions may be from the statistical reality of victimization.The cultivation perspectiveOne final perspective often utilized to examine the effects of media and perhaps particularly relevant to portrayals of victimization and viewers’ fear of crime is the cultivation perspec-tive or hypothesis. Proposed by George Gerbner (see Gerbner, 1970; Gerbner & Gross, 1976), the cultivation perspective focuses on the effects that television viewing has on our perception of the world around us and how increased television viewership affects and 6S. G. WHITEFORD

shapes viewers’ conceptions of reality. Gerbner (1970) proposed that watching heavy amounts of television engenders fear, mistrust, and perceptions that the world is a dangerous place due to the portrayals of violence and resulting fear of violence amongst the viewing public. The result of this cultivation model effect is that differing perceptions of reality result from varying degrees of television exposure whereby those who are heavy viewers of television believe a reality that is consistent with that which is portrayed on television regardless of the accuracy of that reality (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). The result of these beliefs may lead to increased fear amongst heavy television viewers in what Gerbner called a “mean world syndrome.”Research findings have provided support for this “mean world syndrome” by illustrating that heavy and frequent television viewing does result in increased fear of crime – particu-larly when viewership exposes viewers to repetitive and consistent media imagery (Romer et al., 2003; Tan, 1986). The result is an inconsistency between the reality of crime and victimization and people’s perceptions of crime and victimization (Eisen & Roeder, 2015) whereby people fear victimization at a much higher rate than the rate at which actual crime victimization occurs (Hale, 1996). Thus, many people appear to hold distorted views of how prevalent crime is and how likely they are to be the victim of crime.One concern raised by Sarapin and Sparks (2009) is that cultivation theory originally assumed effects based on overall TV viewing and failed to focus on specific genre viewing whereby some types of media may have greater affects than others. In their comparison of various forms of media, Baranauskas and Drakulich (2018) found that both journalistic and fictional programming played a role in public perceptions of crime and viewers of crime investigation shows in particular were more likely to believe that crime is increasing. Barananauskas and Drakulich concluded that, regardless of the fictional nature of such shows, crime dramas appear to serve as an important source of information viewers use to assess the crime problem even if the information presented is not grounded in reality.Current studyWhether applying a cultivation perspective, focusing on the ways in which people frame their thoughts about crime, or focusing on the ways in which media socially construct crime, it is important to further examine the ways in which crime and victimization are portrayed on crime shows given the effects such viewership may have on our world view, cognitive frames about crime, and skewed perceptions regarding the likelihood of criminal victimization. By focusing on the ways in which victims are portrayed in popular crime shows, one might infer how these media portrayals might differentially impact viewers’ world view about victimization, framing of victimization, and fear of victimization based on their own similarities or differences to the victims portrayed in the crime shows they watch.While studying these effects on the viewing public are beyond the purview of this study, a focus on comparing popular crime show victimization portrayals to the NCVS data further illustrates how accurate or inaccurate these popular crimes show portrayals are and which demographic groups are overly portrayed as victims in comparison to their actual victimization rates in the general public. One might then infer that the misconcep-tions of victimization and fear of crime might differ by demographic characteristics of the viewer and how similar they are to victimization portrayals on the shows they watch but that is, once again, beyond the scope of this study.VICTIMS & OFFENDERS7

As previously stated, much of the research on media portrayals has focused on the crime itself, the offender, or the effects on fear of crime amongst the viewing public but less attention has been paid to the ways in which victims are portrayed and how these portrayals may relate to the increased fear of crime and victimization. As previous research indicates, it is believed that viewing such victimization portrayals may increase fear of crime amongst viewers and lead to unrealistic beliefs about the likelihood of being the victim of crime. To address the accuracy of prime-time television portrayals of victims and victimization, analyses of the characteristics of victims and victimization portrayals are analyzed here in comparison to actual victimization data as indicated in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).While the UCR has been traditionally used for comparisons of media portrayals to actual crime rates, the NCVS is the more obvious choice when focusing on portrayals of victimi-zation and actual instances of victimization. The NCVS is probably the best-known source of information on criminal victimization and it defines victimization as a crime as it affects one person or household. The NCVS measures the violent crimes of rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault but does not include a measure for homicide (National Crime Victimization Survey [NCVS], n.d.). In 2013, the NCVS reported that approximately 3 million persons (1.2% of all persons age 12 or older) experienced at least one violent victimization (Truman & Langton, 2014). In 2018, this number rose to approxi-mately 3.3 million violent victimizations (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019). Thus, while the likelihood and prevalence of victimization is quite small amongst the general public, the concern is that an overemphasis on victimization on popular crime shows may skew the public perception of how likely they are to be victimized – particularly as it may relate to victimization by gender, race, age, and other demographic characteristics.Much research has focused on media portrayals through “non-fiction” media such as news outlets while less has focused on the ever popular “fictional” portrayals found in popular fictional television series. Among the demographic characteristics of victims to be analyzed here are gender, age, race/ethnicity, occupation including military/law enforce-ment affiliation, marital and parental status, and prior victimization. While much research has been done on the actual rates of victimization based on many of these characteristics, a discussion of those trends will be presented below when comparing the findings of these analyzes to the actual victimization trends reported in the NCVS.Materials and methodsPrimary data collection utilized content analysis of individual episodes of popular American crime show dramas originally airing from 2010 to 2014 (Time 1) on major television networks and then again 5 years later (Time 2) for any shows still in production. Each episode included in the sample was treated as a single case (N = 270) and was coded across 75 variables pertaining to portrayals of offenders, victims, criminal events, and the criminal justice process including law enforcement agencies and their investigation proce-dures. The focus of this paper is on the portrayals of victims including their demographic characteristics as well as how their victimization is portrayed.8S. G. WHITEFORD

SampleWith a multitude of crime show dramas to choose from, identifying a sampling frame was critical to narrowing the field of potential shows for inclusion in analyses. For each show that was determined to meet the sampling criteria, a full season of the show was analyzed with each individual episode from that season representing a single case in the data. Keeping the focus on American shows, the decision was made to include only shows that indicate a clear criminal event followed by a law enforcement investigation and those shows in which each episode portrays a singular criminal case rather than shows in which either multiple cases are investigated within the same episode or a single case is investigated across episodes.Data collection began in 2014 (Time 1) with initial consideration requiring that the show had completed at least 3 full seasons since 2005 to garner a measure of both recency and longevity at that time (i.e., Fall 2014). To garner a measure of popularity, shows had to originally air on a major television network during prime time (8–11pm EST). It seemed important to capture shows that reached a broad audience and, recognizing that not all persons have regular access to cable television, original air dates, or even syndicated reruns, the decision was made to restrict the sampling frame to shows available through popular streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime. While access to a show on cable might be restricted to viewing the show on its original airdate or happening across a rerun through syndicated television, streaming services provide an additional source of on-demand access to such media content. When multiple seasons of a show were available through these streaming services, the most recent season fully available was analyzed to garner a measure of recency. However, this led to the inclusion of different seasons for different shows. These sampling criteria resulted in Time 1 data including 11 shows across 5 networks that aired anywhere from the 2010–2011 up to the 2013–2014 season.To garner a more recent measure of media portrayals, a 5-year follow-up (Time 2) was then conducted on any of the originally chosen shows still airing five seasons after the original season analyzed. This led to the inclusion of an additional 4 full seasons being analyzed that aired from 2014 up to the 2018–2019 season. Thus, these sampling criteria and the inclusion of a second wave of data collection lead to the inclusion of different seasons from different shows across different years.Additional sampling frame considerations included intentionally sampling shows that portrayed both local and federal law enforcement agencies as well as various types of crimes. For example, shows such as NCIS and Criminal Minds focus on federal agencies while Law & Order: SVU and CSI: Miami portray local agencies. The final sample resulted in slightly over half of the cases (n = 155; 58.7%) portraying federal law enforcement agencies and slightly under half (n = 109; 41.3%) portraying local law enforcement agencies. In an attempt to purposively select shows that went beyond the ever-popular portrayals of homicide, shows such as NBC’s Law and Order: SVU and USA’s White Collar were included. However, even with a conscientious attempt at capturing other crimes, when analyzing the most heinous crime portrayed in the episode – similar to the UCR’s hierarchy rule – the final sample still reflected a majority of cases in which episodes focused on murder (n = 204; 76.1%).Utilizing all the aforementioned sampling criteria, 15 full seasons from 11 shows across 5 major networks were chosen for inclusion resulting in a total of 270 episodes analyzed. VICTIMS & OFFENDERS9

Major networks represented in the final sampling frame included CBS (7 seasons across 5 shows including 141 episodes [52.2%] analyzed), NBC (2 seasons from 1 show including 46 episodes [17.0%] analyzed), FOX (2 seasons across 2 shows including 37 episodes [13.7%] analyzed), USA (3 seasons across 2 shows including 33 episodes [12.2%] analyzed), and A&E (1 seasons from 1 show including 13 episodes [4.8%] analyzed). Please see Table 1 for a full listing of shows, season numbers, number of episodes in each season, and years each season aired.Of the 75 variables analyzed for each of the 270 episodes included in these data, 15 variables are included in these analyses focusing on portrayals of victims and their victimi-zation experience. Beginning with victim characteristics, the sex, age, race/ethnicity, pre-vious victimization, occupation status and type including military and law enforcement status, and familial status such as marital and parental status are included in these analyses. In addition to these victim characteristics, elements of victimization are analyzed including the victim and offender relationship, how many victims are portrayed, whether the victim was taken hostage and held captive, and whether the victim survived. One final variable analyzed was whether or not the actual victimization is portrayed in the episode or if only the aftermath is shown.When multiple victims were presented in a single episode, the first victim was analyzed regarding these individual characteristics whenever possible. Unfortunately, some episodes never clearly portray the victim and, therefore, it was impossible to code the variables pertaining to the victim’s characteristics. In many episodes, even when a victim was clearly identified, not all characteristics analyzed for these research purposes were clearly por-trayed. Therefore, some variables had larger numbers of missing cases.The purpose of this paper is primarily descriptive, focusing on the portrayals of victims and their victimization experience. Analyses include simple frequencies analyzed using SPSS. While portrayals of victimization on popular crime show dramas are important to understand on their own, perhaps even more important is the extent to which these portrayals diverge or accurately reflect what is known about patterns of criminal victimiza-tion as indicated in popular data sources such as the UCR and the NCVS. Given that the analyses in this paper focus on victimization, it is more appropriate to draw comparisons Table 1. Crime shows included in data analyses.Show TitleYears the show airedNetwork AffiliateSeason AnalyzedTime 1: Criminal Minds2005-CurrentCBSSeason 9 including 24 episodes(aired 2013–2014)Time 2: Criminal Minds2005-CurrentCBSSeason 14 including 15 episodes(aired 2018–2019)Time 1: Law and Order: SVU1999-CurrentNBCSeason 12 including 24 episodes(aired 2010–2011)Time 2: Law and Order: SVU1999-CurrentNBCSeason 17 including 22 episodes(aired 2015–2016)Time 1: CSI: Miami2002–2012CBSSeason 10 including 19 episodes(aired 2011–2012)Time 1: NCIS2003-CurrentCBSSeason 11 including 24 episodes(aired 2013–2014)Time 2: NCIS2003-CurrentCBSSeason 16 including 24 episodes(aired 2018–2019)Time 1: Bones2005–2017FoxSeason 9 including 24 episodes(aired 2013–2014)Time 1: Numb3rs2005–2010CBSSeason 5 including 23 episodes(aired 2008–2009)Time 1: White Collar2009–2014USASeason 1 including 14 episodes(aired 2009–2010)Time 2: White Collar2009–2014USASeason 6 including 6 episodes(aired 2014)Time 1: Psych2006–2014USASeason 7 including 13 episodes(aired 2013)Time 1: Lie to Me2009–2011FoxSeason 3 including 22 episodes(aired 2010–2011)Time 1: The Glades2010–2013A&ESeason 4 including 13 episodes(aired 2013)Time 1: Unforgettable2011–2016CBSSeason 2 including 12 episodes(aired 2013–2014)Source: (IMDb, n.d.).10S. G. WHITEFORD

with the NCVS which focuses on victimization experiences rather than the UCR which focuses on official reports of criminal offending.When possible, results are then discussed in comparison to the National Crime Victimization Survey data to determine how similar crime show portrayals of victimization are in comparison to official victimization statistics. Though more recent NCVS data is available, the 2013–2014 television season was the most recent season analyzed during Time 1 with the majority of shows (6 of the 11 Time 1 shows) included in analyses aired either entirely or in part during the 2013 calendar year. For the follow-up at Time 2, the four seasons analyzed came from the 2014, 2015–2016, and 2018–2019 seasons of which two of the shows were from the 2018–2019 season. Given the same 5-year follow-up approach as used for sample selection, the choice was made to use the 2018 NCVS data as a 5-year comparison to the 2013 NCVS data.Given that the majority of episodes (n = 231; 86.2%) analyzed focused on violent crime victimizations such as murder, sexual assault, and battery/assault, these comparisons will utilize the NCVS violent crime victimization data. These NCVS data therefore include rape/ sexual assault, robbery, assault, domestic violence, stranger violence, and violent crime involving injury as well as serious domestic violence, serious stranger violence, serious violent crime involving weapons, and serious violent crime involving injury. It is important to note that the NCVS does not include homicide and that the data counts the number of victimizations for crimes against a person as equal to the number of victims that were present during the time of a criminal event (Truman & Langton, 2014). Thus, a single criminal event could account for numerous instances of victimization if more than one victim was present during the criminal event. The data analyzed in this paper report each episode as a single criminal event and only the primary/first victim is analyzed for the purposes of comparing victim characteristics and victimization experiences. Thus, the representation of victims in the analyses reported here may be undercounted as compared to the NCVS data given that the NCVS counts each victimization separately by number of persons present rather than by single criminal incident with one primary victim being analyzed as is done for these analyses.ResultsThe first set of analyses focus on the crimes committed and violence depicted within each episode to provide context for understanding the way in which victimization is portrayed. The first variable analyzed was whether the actual crime was portrayed in the episode or if only the aftermath was shown. Over half of episodes (n = 138; 51.7%) allude to a violent crime occurring but only portray the aftermath of that crime – not the actual crime itself within the episode. Seventy-one episodes (26.6%) fully portray the violent act within the episode and 58 episodes (21.7%) do not portray a violent crime as the main crime being investigated in the episode. Many of these nonviolent crime episodes come from the inclusion of shows such as White Collar which obviously focuses on nonviolent, white collar crimes and shows such as Lie to Me and Psych which focus on various types of crimes through the application of psychological profiling.Going beyond the simple fact that violence was portrayed, the next variable analyzed what crime was portrayed in each episode and utilized a hierarchical categorization system similar to the Uniform Crime Reports in reporting only the most heinous crime portrayed. VICTIMS & OFFENDERS11

Like the UCR, this therefore leads to an undercounting of lesser crimes when ultimately a singular criminal incident might include the crimes of battery, sexual assault, and ultimately murder of the same victim. Results indicated that the majority of episodes (n = 204; 76.1%) analyzed portrayed murder as the most heinous crime portrayed as part of the criminal event even though sampling efforts were intended to incorporate shows that focused on other types of crime such as sexual assault (i.e., NBC’s Law & Order: SVU) and white-collar crimes (i.e., USA’s White Collar).In addition to murder, 19 episodes (7.1%) portray sexual assault, 8 episodes (3.0%) portray battery/assault, 4 episodes (1.5%) portray property crime, 14 episodes (5.2%) portrayed white collar crime, and an additional 19 episodes (7.1%) portrayed some other form of crime not clearly fitting into one of these categories. If all violent crime categorical responses (i.e., murder, sexual assault, and battery/assault) are combined, then 86.2% of episodes are portraying violent crime compared to only 13.8% of episodes portraying nonviolent crimes.With this violent crime focus in mind, the next variable analyzed was howmanyvictims which identified “how many victims does the offender victimize.” A total of 130 episodes representing 51% of all cases portrayed only a single victim with additional of 33 episodes (12.9%) portraying 2 victims, 16 episodes (6.3%) portraying 3 victims, and 11 episodes (4.3%) portraying 4 victims. Additionally, 17 episodes (7.2%) portrayed from 5 to 9 victims and 48 episodes (18.8%) portrayed 10 or more victims within the episode. A descriptive analysis revelated a mean of 3.44 victims portrayed per episode with a standard deviation of 3.51 indicating quite the variance amongst episodes in how many victims are portrayed within a single episode.These research findings regarding the emphasis on portraying violent crime and multiple victims illustrate a great divergence of media portrayals from actual crime and victimization patterns. The 2013 NCVS findings indicate that only 1.2% of all persons over the age of 12 (approximately 3 million persons) experienced at least one serious violent victimization (Truman & Langton, 2014) and the 2018 NCVS data indicate only 1.68% of U.S. residents were victims of serious crimes (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019). Furthermore, the rates of violent crime (i.e., rape/sexual assault, robbery, assault, domestic violence, stranger vio-lence, and violent crime involving injury) were 23.2 per 1,000 in both 2013 and 2018. Compared to the rates of property crime, these are very low given that the rates of property crime victimization were 131.4 per 1,000 households in 2013 and 108.2 per 1,000 house-holds in 2018 (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019; Truman & Langton, 2014). Thus, according to the NCVS, the rates of property crime victimization are much higher than for serious violent crime yet television crime shows tend to focus on the most serious of violent crimes, particularly the crime of murder.One thing to note when comparing NCVS rates to crime show portrayals of violent crime is that the NCVS does not include murder in their counts for violent crime so the numbers reported here only include other violent crimes. This comparison can therefore be extre-mely problematic given the excessive focus on murder in many crime shows. A quick look at the UCR data for 2013 and 2018 shows the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate to be 4.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013 and 5.0 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2018 – rates of 0.046 and 0.050, respectively, when converted to the “per 1,000 persons” rate used by the NCVS (U.S. Department of Justice–Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Thus, we once 12S. G. WHITEFORD

again see that murder is grossly over portrayed on these crime shows in comparison to its occurrence in society.If we then compare the overall violent crime rate from the UCR including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, we see the UCR reporting a rate of 382.1 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013 (i.e., 3.82 per 1,000) and a rate of 388.2 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2018 (i.e., 3.88 per 1,000). Comparing these UCR violent crime rates to the rates of property, we once again see much higher rates of property crime – 2,754.2 per 100,000 inhabitants (i.e., 27.54 per 1,000) in 2013 and 2,216.4 per 100,000 inhabitants (i.e., 22.16 per 1,000) in the 2018 UCR data. Keep in mind that the UCR only includes crimes reported to police while the NCVS includes both reported and unreported crimes which partially accounts for the large differences in these rates of property crimes. But regardless of which data source is used for comparison, results still illustrate how much more prevalent property crime is than violent crime in the United States and leads to the conclusion that there is a gross overemphasis on violent crime in television shows given these statistics.Having established the types of crime and corresponding victimizations portrayed, the next series of analyses analyzed the basic demographic characteristics of victims portrayed including sex, age, racial/ethnic classification, occupation as well as military or law enforce-ment status, marital and parental status, and previous victimization. Nearly half of episodes (n = 126; 48.3%) portrayed only male victims, 104 episodes (39.8%) portrayed only female victims, and additional of 31 episodes (11.9%) portrayed multiple victims of differing genders. When the “multiple victims of differing genders” are set to missing, results indicate that, of the episodes portraying only 1 victim or at least same-gender victims, males represent 54.8% of victims and females represent 45.2%.According to the 2013 NCVS, approximately 1.6 million males (1.2% of all males older than 12) and approximately 1.5 million females (1.1% of all females older than 12) had experienced at least one violent victimization (Truman & Langton, 2014). As noted by Truman and Langton (2014), this is not a significant difference in male and female violent victimization. Utilizing the NCVS dashboard (NCVS Dashboard: Home, n.d.) to find the number of victimizations by crime time, we find that there were 6,126,423 violent victimi-zations in 2013 with less than half (49.7%) being of males and over half (50.3%) being female. In 2018, the same NCVS Dashboard data revealed nearly twice as many violent victimizations with 48% being male victims and 52% being female victims. If we average the NCVS data from the 2013 and 2018 reports, we find that 48% of victims were male and 51% were female. Thus, the findings in these media analyses overly portray males as the victims of violent crime when NCVS data indicate females as being more likely to be victims of violent incidents than males. Remember, these NCVS numbers do not include murder while the media portrayals overwhelming focus on murder and this distinction may be why we see a divergence in the gender portrayals of victims. See Table 2 for a summary of gender of victim comparisons.Table 2. Comparisons of victimization portrayals to NCVS data: gender of victim.Gender of VictimCurrent Analyses2013 NCVS Data2018 NCVS DataAverage 2013 & 2018 NCVS DataNValid %NValid %NValid %NValid %Male12654.83,045,96849.72,956,09346.36,002,06148.0Female10445.23,080,45550.33,429,42253.76,509,87752.0Total230100.06,126,423100.06,385,515100.012,511,938100.0Source: NCVS DashboardVICTIMS & OFFENDERS13

With regards to race and ethnicity, the overwhelming majority of victims portrayed in the episodes analyzed were white/Caucasian (n = 195; 85.9%) followed by blacks/African Americans and Hispanics (n = 12 each; 5.6% each), and Asians as well as those categorized as “other” racial/ethnic categories (n = 4 each; 1.8% each).To draw comparisons with the NCVS data, it is important to consider whether NCVS results are reported as prevalence rates or as a count of victimization incidents per response category given that many of the BJS reports of the NCVS data utilize prevalence rates. Since the media analyses results reported here focus on number of incidents rather than pre-valence rates, the number of violent victimizations by race/Hispanic ethnicity will be used for comparisons. In the 2013 NCVS, we find that whites constitute 62.6% of violent victimizations followed by Hispanic/Latinos (16.6%), Black/African Americans (13.3%), and those designated as “other” (7.5%). The 2018 NCVS data indicate that the violent victimization of whites constituted 66.4% of all victimizations followed by Hispanics (13.6%), blacks (10.6%), and “other” (9.4%). See Table 3 for a full reporting of victimizations by race/ethnic origin.These numbers illustrate an over portrayal of whites as the victims of crime on popular crime dramas as compared to other minority groups and the rates at which each is actually victimized. For example, while the 2013 NCVS data reveal that whites constitute 62.6% of violent victimizations and then 66.4% in the 2018 data, the current analyses reveal an over portrayal of whites as victims of crime on popular crime shows with nearly 86% of episodes portraying the primary victim as white. In comparison, these media analyses revealed an underrepresentation of both Black/African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos as victims (5.3% each) portrayed as compared to the actual percentages in the NCVS data (13.3% and 16.6% in 2013, respectively; 10.6% and 13.6% in 2018, respectively). These NCVS data suggest more than twice the rate of violent victimization of minorities than the rate portrayed in the fictional media analyses conducted here. In summary, the media portrayals of victimization portray white victims at a much higher rate than actual victimizations reported in the NCVS data while portraying fewer black/African American and Hispanic/ Latino victims than the NCVS data indicate.With regard to age, crime show dramas tended to portray victimization as most likely to occur from the ages of 20–29 (n = 64; 37.4%) followed by those in their 30s (n = 43; 25.1%), their teens (n = 21; 12.3%), and their 40s (9.9%). The least likely age categories portrayed were those in their 50s (5.8%), those older than 60 (5.3%), and children ages 0–9 years old (4.1%). An additional 48 episodes portrayed more than one victim of differing ages with another 51 failing to clearly portray who the victim was or what their age was and were excluded from these victim age analyses.Table 3. Comparisons of victimization portrayals to NCVS data: Race/ethnic origin.Race/Ethnic OriginCurrent Analyses2013 NCVS Data2018 NCVS DataNValid %NValid %NValid %White85.93,832,52762.64,238,94466.4Black/African American125.3815,06113.3675,32410.6Hispanic/Latino125.31,015,67216.6872,54513.6Asians41.8****Other41.8463,1637.5598,7029.4Total227100.06,126,423100.06,385,515100.0Source: NCVS Dashboard. *The NCVS Dashboard data does not distinguish “Asian” as a separate racial/ethnic category.14S. G. WHITEFORD

Like race, the 2013 NCVS data as reported by Truman and Langton (2014) utilized prevalence rates of violent victimization which indicated that persons ages 12 to 17 experienced the highest prevalence rate of violent victimization of any age group. When utilizing the NCVS Dashboard, number of violent victimizations by age illustrates that those ages 12 to 20 years old experienced the greatest number of victimizations (29%) followed by 25 to 34 years old (20.5%), 35 to 49 years old (20.2%), and 50 to 64 years old (18.8%). In the 2018 NCVS data, we see similar rates with the same age groups making up the majority of victimizations, but 35 to 49 years old experience the most victimization (24.3%) followed by 25 to 34 years old (22.4%), 12 to 20 years old (21.6%), and finally 50 to 64 years old (18%). In both years, two categories with much fewer incidents of victimization include those ages 21 to 24 years old (9.3% in 2013 and 8.5% in 2018) and those older than 65 (2.2% in 2013 and 5.2% in 2018). The smaller numbers for those ages 21 to 24 years old may be due to the smaller age range of this category than the other adulthood categories that span 10 to 15 years each. See Table 4 for a complete listing of victimization by age category.Note that the NCVS data uses different age range categories than those decade ranges used in these media portrayal analyses. The NCVS does not use consistent age categoriza-tions with some ranges encompassing as little as 4 years and others as many as 15 years. The youngest age ranges in the NCVS include even fewer years in each age range and were therefore combined into a single 12 to 20-year-old age range for comparison purposes. Keep in mind that the NCVS does not collect data on victimizations of those younger than 12 years old.One thing to consider when comparing these data is that the media portrayals of victims does not allows clearly state the age of the victim and was therefore coded based on researcher’s best estimation of the victim’s age which could be inaccurate. The analyses of victimization portrayals found in these media analysis results indicated those in their 20s to be the most commonly portrayed victims on crime shows followed by those in their 30s and these two age categories combined made up nearly two-thirds (62.5%) of all victimization portrayals on television crime shows. If those in their 40s are added into this middle-aged group of adults, those aged 20 to 49-years old constitute 72.4% of victim portrayals. Comparatively, combining those NCVS respondents reporting violent victimization ages 25 to 34-years-old with those 35 to 49-years-old, we find that those 25 to 49-years old constitute 42.5% in 2013 and 46.7% in 2018 illustrating what appears to be an over portrayal of middle-aged adult victims in the episodes analyzed here.Table 4. Victimization by age: media portrayals and NCVS data, 2013 & 2018.Age of VictimMedia AnalysesAge of Victim2013 NCVS DataAge of Victim2018 NCVS DataNValid %NValid %NValid %0–974.110-192112.312–20*1,770,40729.012–20*1,379,30921.620–296437.421–24571,9379.321–24542,7188.530-394325.125–341,257,68020.525–341,431,44622.440–49179.935–491,239,22520.235–491,548,55224.350-59105.850–641,150,85018.850–641,152,46218.060+95.365+136,3242.265+331,0275.2Total127100.0Total6,126,423100.0Total6,385,514100.0Source: NCVS Dashboard. *The NCVS Dashboard categories of 12–14, 15–17, and 18–20 were combined to better align with the categories used in these analyses.VICTIMS & OFFENDERS15

On the other hand, the media portrayals underrepresent victimizations by those in their teens (12.3%) and amongst children (4.1%) compared to their actual victimization accord-ing to the NCVS (29% in 2013 and 21.6% in 2018). Even combining the 0–9 years old and 10–19 years old categories of media portrayals still only results in 16.4% of portrayals including a victim younger than 20 years old. When focusing on the violent victimization of the young, another factor to remember is that the NCVS does not include data on persons under the age of 12 so these findings of high violent victimization prevalence rates among those 12 to 17 years old represents the youngest category of persons included in the NCVS data.Additional demographics of the victim include a focus on their occupational, military, and law enforcement statuses. Table 5 illustrates the findings for the variables occupational status and military/law enforcement status. Victims appear to be most likely to be portrayed as Blue-Collar workers (27.2%) or White-Collar workers (26.8%) rather than working in a vocational trade (4.7%) or being unemployed (22.1%). The majority of episodes (78.1%) portray a victim that is neither military nor law enforcement. However, it is important to note that the inclusion of the show NCIS largely accounts for the 28 episodes (11.2%) portraying victims with a military background. Perhaps even more interesting is the 27 episodes (10.8%) that portray a law enforcement officer as the episode’s main victim. Of these law enforcement victimizations, 12 episodes portrayed local law enforcement officers as victims and 15 portrayed federal law enforcement victims.Though both the 2013 NCVS report by Truman and Langton (2014) and the 2018 report by Morgan and Oudekerk (2019) do not include detailed information on occupational, military, and law enforcement status, the 2018 report does include a measure of violent victimization by veteran status whereby veteran status is defined as currently or previously Table 5. Occupational & military or law enforcement status in media portrayals.Occupational & Military or Law Enforcement StatusNValid %Occupational StatusUnemployed4722.1Employed – Blue Collar Job5827.2Employed – Vocational Trade104.7Employed – White Collar Job5726.8More than 1 Victim w/ Different Occupational Statuses4119.2Total:213100.0Military or Law Enforcement StatusNot Military or Law Enforcement19678.1Military2811.2Law Enforcement – Local124.8Law Enforcement – Federal156.0Total:251100.0Table 6. Victimization portrayals by parental status.Parental StatusNValid%No Children14378.6Young Child(ren)189.9Teenage Child(ren)52.7Grown Child(ren)105.5Children of Different Age Categories63.3Total182100.016S. G. WHITEFORD

on active duty. Those data indicate that there were 378,300 incidents with a rate of 20.7 per 1,000 violent victimizations of those who hold veteran status. These victimization statistics indicate that 5.92% of all violent victimizations are of veterans. As noted by Morgan and Oudekerk (2019), the NCVS is a household-based survey and, given that those on active duty are more likely to be away from the household and unable to participate, the NCVS data most likely includes former active-duty military personnel more so than active duty military. But these findings provide some context to compare the 11.2% of episodes portraying military victims which once again may be due to inclusion of the show NCIS.With regards to familial statuses, both marital and parental status of victims were analyzed. Victims were overwhelmingly portrayed as not being parents (n = 143; 78.6%) with those that were portrayed as parents most likely to be portrayed as having young children (n = 18; 9.9%) followed by grown children (n = 10; 5.5%), children of different age categories (n = 6; 3.3%), and teenage children (n = 5; 2.7%). Eighty-seven episodes did not clearly indicate parental status and had to be set to missing. See Table 6 for further information on marital and parental statuses.Focusing on marital status, over half (59.4%) of all victims were portrayed as being single or never married with the remainder of victims portrayed as married (19.3%) or in a relationship but not necessarily married (10.9%). Only 20 episodes (10.4%) portrayed victims as separated, divorced, or in some “other” form of relationship. Unfortunately, an additional 77 episodes did not clearly indicate the marital status of the victim and had to be set to missing. The number and percentages for marital status in both the media portrayals analyzed here and the 2013 and 2018 NCVS data are reported in Table 7.While the NCVS does analyze marital status, it does not analyze parental status so no comparisons can be drawn there. Though once again the response categories used by the NCVS differ slightly from those used in these analyses, some comparisons can be made regarding marital status. While these analyses combined “never married” with “single” and the NCVS only notes the category as “never married,” percentages of victimizations in which the victim was never married constituted the majority of victimizations. These analyses indicated that the shows analyzed portrayed 59.4% of victims as never married while the 2013 NCVS reports 54.7% and the 2018 NCVS reports 51.0% of vic and the 2018 NCVS reporting 24.5% of violent victimizations being of married persons. As stated in the 2013 NCVS report by Truman and Langton (2014), married persons have a lower violent Table 7. Comparisons of victimization portrayals to NCVS data: marital status.Marital StatusCurrent Analyses2013 NCVS2018 NCVSNValid %NValid %NValid %Never Married/Single*11459.43,308,13054.73,253,99651.0In a Relationship but2110.9********Not Married**Married3719.31,358,61022.51,559,42324.5Widowed*********123,8322.0188,9653.0Separated10.5377,0626.2298,6164.7Divorced73.6880,16414.61,069,23916.8Other**126.3********Total:192100.06,047,798100.06,370,239100.0Source: NCVS Dashboard. *NCVS uses only “never married” while current analyses include “single.” **Not a category reported in the NCVS. *** Not a category reported in current analyses.VICTIMS & OFFENDERS17

victimization rate than those who have never married (10.7 per 1,000 and 36.3 per 1,000, respectively).Comparisons of other marital categories include victims who are separated (0.5% for current analyses; 6.2% for the 2013 NCVS; 4.7% for the 2018 NCVS) and those who are divorced (3.6% for current analyses; 14.6% for the 2013 NCVS; 16.8% for the 2018 NCVS). Comparisons in other response categories are not possible given the differences in categor-izations such as widowed being present in the NCVS but not current analyses, “in a relationship but not married” being present in the current analyses but not the NCVS, and “other” being present in the current analyses but not the NCVS. In summary, the most common categories of “never married” and “married” indicate quite similar results when comparing portrayals of victims on crime shows with actual NCVS data. Taken together, these comparisons by marital status illustrate a much more accurate reflection of actual victimization patterns among crime show portrayals than the ways in which gender, race/ ethnicity, and age are portrayed.One final victim demographic analyzed focused on whether or not the victim had ever been previously victimized. The majority of victims portrayed had not been previously victimized (n = 152; 84.4%) with only 28 episodes (15.6%) portraying victims who had been previously victimized prior to the victimization portrayed in the episode analyzed. The NCVS does not include a measure of previous victimization so comparisons cannot be drawn.In addition to these portrayals of the demographics of victims, additional analyses were conducted on the ways in which the victimization event was portrayed within each episode (see, Table 8). The first of these additional analyses focused on whether or not the victim knew their offender and what the nature of their relationship to the offender was. The original variable analyzed asked “What is the relationship between the victim and offen-der?” One hundred and three episodes (39.9%) portrayed victims and offenders as having Table 8. Portrayals of victim and offender relationship.Victim/ Offender RelationshipCurrent Analyses2013 NCVS2018 NCVSNValid %NValid %NValid %No Relationship/10339.9Stranger2,098,17035.32,493,74741.5StrangerFriend218.1*Romantic166.2Intimate748,79512.6847,22614.1PartnerPartnerSexual Partner72.7**Relative135.0Other367,2916.2485,8278.1RelativeCo-Worker249.3***Acquaintance4115.9Well-Known/2,445,09941.11,830,35730.5CasualAcquaintOther3312.8Don’t know288,7954.8350,2075.8Total:192100.0Relationship5,948,150100.06,007,364100.0Source: NCVS Dashboard. *Category of “friend” is not available in the NCVS data – would most likely be placed in combination with the “well-known /causal acquaintance” NCVS category. **Category of “sexual partner” not separated from “intimate partner” in NCVS data. ***Category of “co-worker” not available in NCVS data – would most likely be placed in combination with the “well-known /causal acquaintance” NCVS category.18S. G. WHITEFORD

no relationship or being strangers. The most common relationship portrayed was as acquaintances (n = 41; 15.9%) followed by coworkers (n = 24; 9.3%), friends (n = 21; 8.1%), romantic partner (n = 16; 6.2%), relative (n = 13; 5.0%), and sexual partner (n = 7; 2.7%). An additional 33 episodes (12.8%) were coded as having some “other” form of relationship other than those listed here.According to the 2013 NCVS, violent victimization is highest when the offender is either a well-known/casual acquaintance of the victim or a stranger. However, while the 2013 NCVS data find well-known/casual acquaintances (41.1%) to be higher than strangers (35.3%), the 2018 NCVS data find the reverse with victimization by strangers to be the highest (41.5%) and well-known/casual acquaintances to be second (30.5%). While these are also the two most commonly portrayed victim/offender relationships in the fictional portrayals analyzed here, the NCVS data shows higher percentages of crimes being com-mitted by intimate partners (12.6% in 2013; 14.1% in 2018) than in the fictional portrayals which portrayed 6.2% of crimes being committed by a romantic partner and another 2.7% by a sexual partner. The NCVS also indicated higher rates of violent victimization by relatives (6.2% in 2013; 8.1% in 2018) than in the fictional portrayals (5.0%). Finally, the NCVS’s failure to distinguish categories like friends and coworkers from amongst the broader category of “well-known/casual acquaintances” does not allow for much compar-ison beyond those already addressed. Thus, both the episodes analyzed here and the NCVS indicate violent offenders are most commonly either strangers or well-known/casual acquaintances rather than intimate partners or family members. However, we must once again use caution considering these results given the over portrayal of murder in the crime show portrayals and the exclusion of murder from the NCVS data.Additional victim experience analyses included whether or not the victim was held captive or the crime happened instantaneously as well as whether the victim ultimately survives or dies during the episode. Over two-thirds of episodes (69.5%) portrayed the crime as happening instantaneously with 30.5% of episodes portraying victims as being held captive prior to the conclusion of the criminal event. Even more popular in crime show portrayals is the portrayal of victims as ultimately dying (n = 190; 73.6%) with only 68 episodes (26.4%) portraying the victim as surviving. Once again, this is in large part due to the focus on murder portrayals committed within the episodes analyzed. There are no comparison data available for these variables in the NCVS.DiscussionThese analyses indicated that the overwhelming majority (86.2%) of crime show episodes analyzed portrayed violent crimes including murder, sexual assault, and battery/assault. These findings are similar to those published in one 2003 study analyzing Law & Order, The Practice, and NYPD Blue where 80% of the 113 criminal incidents depicted portrayed violent crime with only 7% devoted to property crime and 3% devoted to white collar crime (Soulliere, 2003). Even early television shows illustrated similar trends given that, as early as 1973, Dominick found approximately 2/3 of victims portrayed (67%) were por-trayed as victims of violent crime.The findings presented in these analyses are important particularly when trying to assess the amount of violence portrayed on TV given that multiple victims being portrayed may, but does not necessarily, indicate more than one incident of violence within a single VICTIMS & OFFENDERS19

episode. For example, one UCLA study analyzed the number of violent scenes depicted within 3,200 hours of programming and found that 68% of prime time programs contain at least some violence with these analyses not even including breaking news programs airing during prime time. (An Increase Is Seen in the Number of Violent Television Programs – The New York Times, n.d.). Results such as these remind us that violence is a prominent part of prime-time network television. But when attempting to analyze the amount of violence portrayed on the shows analyzed here, results indicated that only 29.5% of episodes fully portrayed the violent act within the show with another 51% only portraying the aftermath of the violent act but not the act itself. These findings combine with previous findings to indicate a clear prominence of violence in prime-time programming as well as on crime shows in particular.The episodes analyzed in these analyses reported that crime show dramas tend to portray victims as more likely to be male than female (54.8% only male victims to 45.2% only female victims), overwhelmingly white (85.9%) compared to other races, and predominately in their 20 s or 30 s (62.5% combined) as compared to other age categories. These results are quite similar to those found by Dominick (1973) in which 83% of victims were portrayed as male, 84% were ages 20 to 50 years old, and 93% were portrayed as white. More detailed analyses of just murder victims by Dominick revealed that they were portrayed as over-whelmingly male, under the age of 35 years old, and white (73%). Dominick concluded that the world of criminal television underrepresents blacks, young people, and lower-class individuals as victims and the similarity with the findings presented here would suggest that this trend still holds true on crime shows airing 40 years later.Additional analyses by Dominick (1973) found three-fourths of all attempted murder portrayals were of law enforcement officers. While the numbers portrayed in these analyses are not nearly as high, they do illustrate a tendency of fictional media to incorporate violence against law enforcement officers on television. Approximately 1 in 5 episodes (22%) portrayed the victim as military or law enforcement which may largely be due to the inclusion of a military-based show such as NCIS as well as the added drama of having main characters on these law enforcement shows serve as victims on occasion.Remember that, of the episodes examined in this study, 39.9% of victimization was committed by a stranger or someone the victim had no relationship with while romantic partners, sexual partners, and relatives combined to account for 13.9% of the victim– offender relationships portrayed. These results are similar to Britto and colleagues (Britto et al., 2007) finding that crimes are often portrayed as happening between strangers but differ from those found by Soulliere (2003) in an analysis of 3 popular prime time crime shows – NYPD, Law and Order, and The Practice – in which victims were portrayed as knowing their offenders in 80% of murder incidents leaving only 20% of portrayals to be committed by strangers.While these analyses tell us much about the ways in which victims are portrayed in popular crime shows, they do not illustrate the extent to which such portrayals actually influence the viewing audience’s perceptions of crime and fear of victimization. Some inferences can be made given that previous research findings do illustrate that consistent and repetitive media imagery does influence people’s conceptions of reality (Tan, 1986) and increases fear of crime (Kort-Butler & Sittner Hartshorn, 2011). Future analyses should consider addressing the extent to which victimization portrayals skew viewers’ perceptions of likelihood of victimization. Additionally, they should focus on whether the demographic 20S. G. WHITEFORD

similarities between victim portrayals and viewers may even lead to increased fear of victimization amongst certain viewing groups more than others given the portrayals found on television.Additional analyses ought to also compare these portrayals of victims with the ways in which offenders are portrayed within the same shows. Comparisons could focus on the differences in portrayals based on demographics such as gender, race/ethnicity, and age as well as potential interactions regarding gender of offender by gender of victim or race/ ethnicity of offender by race/ethnicity of victim to determine the extent of intragender and intraracial portrayals compared to intergender and interracial portrayals. Additional ana-lyses of interactions between these demographic characteristics and other social statuses such as marital and parental status may be particularly insightful as we think about the portrayal of white female married mother compared to that of single black male.Given that data include a sampling of crime shows from two different time periods, a longitudinal analysis of victim demographics, significant social statuses, and victim to offender relationships comparing Time 1 to Time 2 portrayals might also prove interesting. The additional inclusion of more recent shows and longitudinal analyses of long-running shows have the potential to determine if any significant changes in victimization portrayals have occurred over time and if media portrayals more broadly have changed.Finally, more recent research should include analyses of additional types of crime shows, shows that have had long-running success, and shows that focus on different types of crime or different parts of the criminal justice system. While these analyses focus on fictional crime shows, comparisons to “true crime” television and documentaries that still hold a certain audience appeal factor could provide interesting comparisons. Additional analyses should be done on shows that have proven to have high audience appeal as indicated by longest-running status, viewership numbers and rankings, and having achieved syndica-tion – illustrating a continued appeal that runs long past original airdate. Finally, another avenue of inquiry should be to analyze and perhaps compare portrayals in investigative crime shows as compared to courtroom procedural dramas that focus on a different portion of the criminal justice process but still include portrayals of victims, offenders, the criminal event, and the CJ process.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).ReferencesAltheide, D. L. (1997). The news media, the problem frame, and the production of fear. The Sociological Quarterly, 38(4), 647–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00758.x An Increase Is Seen in the Number of Violent Television Programs—The New York Times. (n.d.). Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/17/us/an-increase-is-seen-in- the-number-of-violent-television-programs.html Barak, G. (1994). Between the waves: Mass-mediated themes of crime and justice. Social Justice, 21(3 (57), 133–147.Baranauskas, A. J., & Drakulich, K. M. (2018). Media construction of crime revisited: Media types, consumer contexts, and frames of crime and justice. Criminology, 56(4), 679–714. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1745-9125.12189 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS21

Bjornstrom, E. E., Kaufman, R. L., Peterson, R. D., & Slater, M. D. (2010). Race and ethnic representations of lawbreakers and victims in crime news: A national study of television coverage. Social Problems, 57(2), 269–293. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2010.57.2.269 Britto, S., Hughes, T., Saltzman, K., & Stroh, C. (2007). Does ‘special’ mean young, white and female? Deconstructing the meaning of ‘special’ in law & order: Special victims unit. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 14(1), 39–57.Callanan, V. J. (2012). Media consumption, perceptions of crime risk and fear of crime: Examining race/ethnic differences. Sociological Perspectives, 55(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2012. 55.1.93 Chermak, S. M. (1995). Victims in the news: Crime and the American news media. Westview Press.Chiricos, T., Eschholz, S., & Gertz, M. (1997). Crime, news and fear of crime: Toward an identifica-tion of audience effects. Social Problems, 44(3), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097181 Chiricos, T., Padgett, K., & Gertz, M. (2000). Fear, TV news, and the reality of crime. Criminology, 38 (3), 755–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00905.x Christie, N. (1986). The ideal victim. In Fattah, E. A. (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy (pp. 17–30). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Dominick, J. R. (1973). Crime and law enforcement on prime-time television. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(2), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1086/268081 Dotter, D. (2002). Creating deviance: Scenarios of stigmatization in postmodern media culture. Deviant Behavior, 23(5), 419–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396202320265300 Dowler, K., Fleming, T., & Muzzatti, S. L. (2006). Constructing crime: Media, crime, and popular culture. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 48(6), 837–850. https://doi.org/10. 3138/cjccj.48.6.837 Drakulich, K. M. (2013). Perceptions of the local danger posed by crime: Race, disorder, informal control, and the police. Social Science Research, 42(3), 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssre search.2012.12.012 Eisen, L. B., & Roeder, O. (2015). America’s faulty perception of crime rates. Brennan Center for Justice.Ericson, R. V., Baranek, P. M., & Chan, J. B. (1989). Negotiating control a study of news sources.Eschholz, S. (1997). The media and fear of crime: A survey of the research. University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, 9(1), 37. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/jlpp/vol9/iss1/2 Eschholz, S., Mallard, M., & Flynn, S. (2004). Images of prime time justice: A content analysis of “NYPD Blue” and “Law & Order.” Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10(3), 161–180.Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 229213 Gekoski, A., Gray, J. M., & Adler, J. R. (2012). What makes a homicide newsworthy? UK national tabloid newspaper journalists tell all. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1212–1232. https://doi. org/10.1093/bjc/azs047 Gerbner, G. (1970). Cultural indicators: The case of violence in television drama. Annals of the American Association of Political and Social Science, 388, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 000271627038800108 Gerbner, G. (1978). Cultural indicators: Violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 176–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01646.x Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.Graber, D. A. (1980). Crime news and the public. Praeger.Gruenewald, J., Pizarro, J., & Chermak, S. M. (2009). Race, gender, and the newsworthiness of homicide incidents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrim jus.2009.04.006 22S. G. WHITEFORD

Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology, 4(2), 79–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975809600400201 Hamilton, J. T. (2000). Channeling violence: The economic market for violent television programming. Princeton University Press.Heath, L., & Gilbert, K. (1996). Mass media and fear of crime. American Behavioral Scientist, 39(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764296039004003 Hirsch, P. M. (1980). The “scary world” of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis part I. Communication Research, 7(4), 403–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365028000700401 Hollis, M. E., Downey, S., Del Carmen, A., & Dobbs, R. R. (2017). The relationship between media portrayals and crime: Perceptions of fear of crime among citizens. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 19(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-017-0015-6 IMDb. (n.d.). Retrieved August 26, 2021, from https://www.imdb.com/ Jerin, R. A., & Fields, C. B. (1994). Murder and mayhem in USA today: A quantitative analysis of the national reporting of states’ news. In Gregg Barak (Ed.), Media, process, and the social construction of crime: Studies in newsmaking criminology (pp. 187–202). Taylor & Francis.Jewkes, Y. (2004). Media and crime. Sage.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.Kort-Butler, L. A., & Habecker, P. (2018). Framing and cultivating the story of crime: The effects of media use, victimization, and social networks on attitudes about crime. Criminal Justice Review, 43 (2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016817710696 Kort-Butler, L. A., & Sittner Hartshorn, K. J. (2011). Watching the detectives: Crime programming, fear of crime, and attitudes about the criminal justice system. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01191.x Lipschultz, J. H., & Hilt, M. L. (2014). Crime and local television news: Dramatic, breaking, and live from the scene (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606587 Lundman, R. J. (2003, September). The newsworthiness and selection bias in news about murder: Comparative and relative effects of novelty and race and gender typifications on newspaper coverage of homicide. Sociological forum, 18(3), 357–386. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1025713518156 Marsh, H. L. (1991). A comparative analysis of crime coverage in newspapers in the United States and other countries from 1960–1989: A review of the literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(91)90083-8 Morgan, R. E., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2019). Criminal victimization, 2018 (NCJ 253043). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.National Crime Victimization Survey. (n.d.). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved August 26, 2021, from https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs NCVS Dashboard: Home. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2022, from https://ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov/ Home#hometopHome O’Keefe, G. J., & Reid-Nash, K. (1987). Crime news and real-world blues: The effects of the media on social reality. Communication Research, 14(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 009365087014002001 Oliver, M. B., & Armstrong, G. B. (1998). The color of crime: Perceptions of Caucasians’ and African- Americans’ Involvement in Crime. In Mark Fishman (Ed.), Entertaining Crime: Television Reality Programs (pp. 19–36). Taylor & Francis, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351328203 .Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., Mears, D. P., & Gertz, M. (2015). Public (mis) understanding of crime policy: The effects of criminal justice experience and media reliance. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(5), 500–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403414526228 Potter, G. W., & Kappeler, V. E. (1998). Constructing crime: Perspectives on making news and social problems. Waveland Press.Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. Transaction publishers.Reiner, R. (2002). Media made criminality. The representation of crime in the mass media. In Reiner, R., Maquire, M., and Morgan, R. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 302–340). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/10514 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS23

Reiner, R., Livingstone, S., & Allen, J. (2000). No more happy endings? The media and popular concern about crime since the Second World War. In Tim Hope & R. Sparks (Eds.), Crime, risk, and insecurity (pp. 107–126). London, UK: Routledge.Rhineberger-Dunn, G., Rader, N., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Constructing juvenile delinquency through crime drama: An analysis of law & order. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 15(1), 94–116.Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indermaur, D., & Hough, M. (2002). Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from five countries. Oxford University Press.Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., & Aday, S. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Communication, 53(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb03007.x Sacco, V. F. (1995). Media constructions of crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716295539001011 Sarapin, S. H., & Sparks, G. G. (2009). Eyewitnesses to TV versions of reality: The relationship between exposure to TV crime dramas and perceptions of the criminal justice system. How Television Shapes Our Worldview: Media Representations of Social Trends and Change, 145–170.Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with crime: Individual and neighborhood reactions (Vol. 124). Sage Publications.Soulliere, D. M. (2003). Prime-time murder: Presentations of murder on popular television justice programs. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10(1), 12–38.Sparks, G. G., & Ogles, R. M. (1990). The difference between fear of victimization and the probability of being victimized: Implications for cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34(3), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159009386747 Surette, R. (2015a). Media, crime, and criminal justice (5th ed.). Cengage.Surette, R. (2015b). Performance crime and justice. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 27(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2015.12036041 Tan, A. S. (1986). Social learning of aggression from television. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 41–56). Lawrence Erlbaum.Truman, J. L., & Langton, L. (2014). Criminal victimization, 2013 (NCJ 247648). Bureau of Justice Statistics.Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality.U.S. Department of Justice–Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Crime in the United States, 2013 [Uniform Crime Report]. Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/ 2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense/expandedof fensemain_final Warr, M. (1994). Public perceptions and reactions to violent offending and victimization. In A. J. ReisssJr. & J. A. Roth; National Research Council (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence, Vol. 4. Consequences and control (pp. 1–66). National Academy Press.Warr, M. (2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. Criminal Justice, 4(4), 451–489.Weitzer, R., & Kubrin, C. E. (2004). Breaking news: How local TV news and real-world conditions affect fear of crime. Justice Quarterly, 21(3), 497–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/0741882040009588124S. G. WHITEFORD

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.